This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
Miami Herald, "Fidel Castro is dead"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/arti...
NYT, "Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html
Independent, "Jeremy Corbyn hails Fidel Castro as a 'champion of social justice'"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-corbyn-hails-fidel-castro-as-a-c...
BBC, "Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader of revolution, dies at 90"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38114953
CNN, "Fidel Castro, Cuba's longtime revolutionary leader, dies at 90"
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/26/americas/fidel-castro-obit/index.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/arti...
NYT, "Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html
Independent, "Jeremy Corbyn hails Fidel Castro as a 'champion of social justice'"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-corbyn-hails-fidel-castro-as-a-c...
BBC, "Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader of revolution, dies at 90"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38114953
CNN, "Fidel Castro, Cuba's longtime revolutionary leader, dies at 90"
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/26/americas/fidel-castro-obit/index.html
2Limelite
Now QEII is the last remaining, still living, longest sitting ruler, outlasting the Emperor of Japan, no?
Dancing in the streets in Miami. Lots of horn tooting. Many a pig will turn on a spit tonight, many a Cuba Libre will go down. Party time!
Dancing in the streets in Miami. Lots of horn tooting. Many a pig will turn on a spit tonight, many a Cuba Libre will go down. Party time!
3LolaWalser
Best to leave that party to the pigs.
4lriley
I'm not going to say Castro was a good guy but he wasn't the demon that American politicians and a large % of the population believe. We've had worst leaders than him.
5timspalding
We've had worst leaders than him.
If so, we removed them by elections or term limits.
Castro held power for 49 years, from 1959 until 2008. After that, sick as hell, he half handed power over to another member of his family.
He makes Mugabe, a mere 36-year dictator, look like a democrat.
If so, we removed them by elections or term limits.
Castro held power for 49 years, from 1959 until 2008. After that, sick as hell, he half handed power over to another member of his family.
He makes Mugabe, a mere 36-year dictator, look like a democrat.
6timspalding
Best to leave that party to the pigs.
i.e., people who fled Cuba
Nice.
i.e., people who fled Cuba
Nice.
7RickHarsch
>4 lriley: >5 timspalding:
Castro was worse than any US leader since his revolution when it comes to persecution of homosexuals.
Castro was far, far better than any US leader since his revolution when it comes to international violations of Geneva Conventions.
Castro was far better in regard to health care.
The list could go on, but Castro was not guilty of international crimes as every president since and including Eisenhower was.
Does he make Mugabe look like a democrat? No, that's a stupid attempt to be cute. He makes Mugabe look like a dictator who has ruled fewer years.
Castro was worse than any US leader since his revolution when it comes to persecution of homosexuals.
Castro was far, far better than any US leader since his revolution when it comes to international violations of Geneva Conventions.
Castro was far better in regard to health care.
The list could go on, but Castro was not guilty of international crimes as every president since and including Eisenhower was.
Does he make Mugabe look like a democrat? No, that's a stupid attempt to be cute. He makes Mugabe look like a dictator who has ruled fewer years.
8timspalding
>7 RickHarsch:
I love how Castro's persecution of homosexuals has this special place in leftist discussion of the man. The meme goes he was great in a lot of ways, but he persecuted homosexuals. Some leftists put the stress on the former--a black spot on a bright record. Some put the stress on the later--a black spot nothing could excuse.
It's almost as if the imagine putting gays in camps was some special exception to his rule, not absolutely apiece with the rest of his tyranny.
Castro put a lot of people in jails and camps. Crawl through the yearly Amnesty International updates some time. He was a dictator and tyrant—he put anyone in jail who opposed his personal tyranny, and advocated for elections, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. Persecution of homosexuals was not a on-off aberration. It only seems that way to people who don't care about other freedoms, when their sort of guy is doing them.
It makes you wonder: all this recent talk about Trump being a dictator in waiting, ready to quash basic American freedoms. I agree with it. But it certainly rings hollow when leftists can't bring themselves to condemn a 49-year dictator with a horrible human-rights record.
I love how Castro's persecution of homosexuals has this special place in leftist discussion of the man. The meme goes he was great in a lot of ways, but he persecuted homosexuals. Some leftists put the stress on the former--a black spot on a bright record. Some put the stress on the later--a black spot nothing could excuse.
It's almost as if the imagine putting gays in camps was some special exception to his rule, not absolutely apiece with the rest of his tyranny.
Castro put a lot of people in jails and camps. Crawl through the yearly Amnesty International updates some time. He was a dictator and tyrant—he put anyone in jail who opposed his personal tyranny, and advocated for elections, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. Persecution of homosexuals was not a on-off aberration. It only seems that way to people who don't care about other freedoms, when their sort of guy is doing them.
It makes you wonder: all this recent talk about Trump being a dictator in waiting, ready to quash basic American freedoms. I agree with it. But it certainly rings hollow when leftists can't bring themselves to condemn a 49-year dictator with a horrible human-rights record.
9theoria
>7 RickHarsch: Perhaps in his more reflective moments, Mr Castro would have admitted that Cuba made a mistake by throwing in its lot with the CCCP, only a few years after it had brutally crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. It meant Cuba merely traded in one form of dictatorship (the dictatorship of US capital and Latin American authoritarianism) for another (the dictatorship of the Soviet political catechism). If only Cuba had remained truly independent … alas a history of the post Batista era in Cuban history could be entitled “Errors Were Made.”
Then, after the Wende, Mr Castro made anti-Americanism the sole raison d’être for continuing his family dictatorship.
On the other hand, Mr Castro updated the image of the revolutionary: the beard, the cigars, and tea with Sartre and de Beauvoir.
It will be interesting to see how the scarface generation in Miami celebrates his passing.
Then, after the Wende, Mr Castro made anti-Americanism the sole raison d’être for continuing his family dictatorship.
On the other hand, Mr Castro updated the image of the revolutionary: the beard, the cigars, and tea with Sartre and de Beauvoir.
It will be interesting to see how the scarface generation in Miami celebrates his passing.
10BruceCoulson
It's still the end of an era...the longest running ruler who openly defied the United States for 5 decades and survived. (Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein should have been so lucky...)
It will be interesting to see what happens next, given America's interest in acquiring Cuba since the Adams Administration.
But the Cuban refugees who think this is going to lead to them getting their property and status back in the 'Old Country' are in for a rude awakening.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, given America's interest in acquiring Cuba since the Adams Administration.
But the Cuban refugees who think this is going to lead to them getting their property and status back in the 'Old Country' are in for a rude awakening.
11RickHarsch
>8 timspalding: Supporters of US imperial tyranny will go to any lengths to avoid discussing it. I mention persecution of homosexuals as a clear example that Castro was not a great figure of the left. Obviously there are other examples. But compared to the neighbor he offended by taking back the sugar, which went on to do its best to destroy him--literally, as is well-known--and his country, just one of many the US has destroyed, compared to the US his rule was benign. You are blinded by your stale worldview to the point you can't even read.
>9 theoria: Castro had little choice, as I see it. From his point of view the most powerful nation in the world was out to destroy him. What would things have been like if the US merely accepted his revolution? I suppose Cuba would have prospered and the great question is whether Castro would have been more like Tito or, well, Batista. Or Ortega...
>9 theoria: Castro had little choice, as I see it. From his point of view the most powerful nation in the world was out to destroy him. What would things have been like if the US merely accepted his revolution? I suppose Cuba would have prospered and the great question is whether Castro would have been more like Tito or, well, Batista. Or Ortega...
12timspalding
Supporters of US imperial tyranny will go to any lengths to avoid discussing it.
I find that an odd statement. I find the topic as commonly discussed on the right as on the left largely, I think, because it both hits Castro, for tyranny, and his leftist defenders, for hypocrisy.
I mention persecution of homosexuals as a clear example that Castro was not a great figure of the left.
He was, of the left of a different era. The Soviet Union and the rest jailed homosexuals too.
You are blinded by your stale worldview to the point you can't even read.
I believe in democracy and basic human rights. I don't see that in your posts.
I find that an odd statement. I find the topic as commonly discussed on the right as on the left largely, I think, because it both hits Castro, for tyranny, and his leftist defenders, for hypocrisy.
I mention persecution of homosexuals as a clear example that Castro was not a great figure of the left.
He was, of the left of a different era. The Soviet Union and the rest jailed homosexuals too.
You are blinded by your stale worldview to the point you can't even read.
I believe in democracy and basic human rights. I don't see that in your posts.
13RickHarsch
> 'I believe in democracy and basic human rights. You don't.'
That's grotesque and probably 'flaggable'.
"I find that an odd statement. I find the topic as commonly discussed on the right as on the left largely, I think, because it both hits Castro, for tyranny, and his leftist defenders, for hypocrisy."
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Castro is hardly guilty of US imperial tyranny. His defenders on the left generally defend him as someone attacked by the US; that does not make 'us' Castroites. Strange that in this discussion none of your attacks on Castro are defended by your dreaded left, but all of the very clearly demonstrable arguments against your empire, such as the many attempts on Castro's life go unremarked upon. Are you capable of empathetic mind exercises? Could you imagine a nation attempting repeatedly to assassinate you leader?
'He was, of the left of a different era. The Soviet Union and the rest jailed homosexuals too.' As with Stalin, it was easy to side with Castro but for different reasons. In the case of Stalin, the left knew a great deal more about the hypocrisies and horrors of their own countries than they did about Stalin's. It took a long time for some on the left to learn about and then face up to what Stalin was. But of course a great many knew early on and remained on the left. Victor Serge was a great example.
In Castro's case, he was clearly a victim of US neo-colonialism: just a few years after Arbenz, the US sought to thwart yet another attempt by a country to retain its own products for its own people. Had I been of age in 1959 I would have fervently supported Castro, and I have no idea when or if I would have abandoned that position given the unique evil of his enemy.
'I believe in democracy and basic human rights. You don't.' I think you probably believe in democracy and basic human rights, but have an enormous blind spot when it comes to non-US Americans...to put it one way. The written record here suggests that you have issues with your ego--when you are demonstrably wrong you tend not to be gracious and acknowledge it, for one example--and that prevents you from deeply considering ideas that you are immediately uncomfortable with. This in turn leads to a diminished capacity for empathy. In this case it has led you to fail to comprehend a nuanced view of Fidel Castro. It's like when this subject comes up you don your Castro glasses, which have a giant fly covering each lens, and you have looked through these for years, and learned a great deal about what in fact is a creature that has nothing to do with what you think you are discussing, but you know it so well, so deeply, you cannot discuss what really is before you. What are those giant, hairy legs up to?
That's grotesque and probably 'flaggable'.
"I find that an odd statement. I find the topic as commonly discussed on the right as on the left largely, I think, because it both hits Castro, for tyranny, and his leftist defenders, for hypocrisy."
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Castro is hardly guilty of US imperial tyranny. His defenders on the left generally defend him as someone attacked by the US; that does not make 'us' Castroites. Strange that in this discussion none of your attacks on Castro are defended by your dreaded left, but all of the very clearly demonstrable arguments against your empire, such as the many attempts on Castro's life go unremarked upon. Are you capable of empathetic mind exercises? Could you imagine a nation attempting repeatedly to assassinate you leader?
'He was, of the left of a different era. The Soviet Union and the rest jailed homosexuals too.' As with Stalin, it was easy to side with Castro but for different reasons. In the case of Stalin, the left knew a great deal more about the hypocrisies and horrors of their own countries than they did about Stalin's. It took a long time for some on the left to learn about and then face up to what Stalin was. But of course a great many knew early on and remained on the left. Victor Serge was a great example.
In Castro's case, he was clearly a victim of US neo-colonialism: just a few years after Arbenz, the US sought to thwart yet another attempt by a country to retain its own products for its own people. Had I been of age in 1959 I would have fervently supported Castro, and I have no idea when or if I would have abandoned that position given the unique evil of his enemy.
'I believe in democracy and basic human rights. You don't.' I think you probably believe in democracy and basic human rights, but have an enormous blind spot when it comes to non-US Americans...to put it one way. The written record here suggests that you have issues with your ego--when you are demonstrably wrong you tend not to be gracious and acknowledge it, for one example--and that prevents you from deeply considering ideas that you are immediately uncomfortable with. This in turn leads to a diminished capacity for empathy. In this case it has led you to fail to comprehend a nuanced view of Fidel Castro. It's like when this subject comes up you don your Castro glasses, which have a giant fly covering each lens, and you have looked through these for years, and learned a great deal about what in fact is a creature that has nothing to do with what you think you are discussing, but you know it so well, so deeply, you cannot discuss what really is before you. What are those giant, hairy legs up to?
14timspalding
That's grotesque and probably 'flaggable'.
I have changed it to "I don't see that in your posts." "You don't" is a far cry from the sorts of insults that are generally flagged, but I take your point.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Castro is hardly guilty
No, I mean the point about hitting at Castro for LGBT issues. It's an attractive meme to both left and right.
none of your attacks on Castro are defended by your dreaded left
They are by omission. I wasn't even able to joke I liked one Trump policy—deep space exploration. But one can heap praise on Castro, and only mention his human rights record as it pertains to LGBT Cubans.
I think you probably believe in democracy and basic human rights, but have an enormous blind spot when it comes to non-US Americans
If me saying you don't believe in human rights is flaggable, then your assertion I have a blind-spot is flaggable. Both are assertions the other denies.
Neither, however, are really attacks.
The written record here suggests that you have issues with your ego
::strokes beard::
a nuanced view of Fidel Castro
I shall bring this up every time you discuss Trump in the future. If we can forget dictatorships and gulags in favor of a nuanced view, we can forget a lot.
As for a "nuanced view," one may perhaps identify good things about Castro's rule. But much the same could be said for other dictators--Hitler oversaw a remarkable economic resurgence, Stalin industrialized Russia and won the War, Assad has a fashionable wife, etc. But you won't find me defending any of them.
Neither do I demonize him. Castro was no Hitler, but a more ordinary tyrant who brutalized people and ultimately hurt and held back his country. We used to have a lot of them in the Americas; now we have far fewer. With any luck, Cuba won't have one forever either.
I have changed it to "I don't see that in your posts." "You don't" is a far cry from the sorts of insults that are generally flagged, but I take your point.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Castro is hardly guilty
No, I mean the point about hitting at Castro for LGBT issues. It's an attractive meme to both left and right.
none of your attacks on Castro are defended by your dreaded left
They are by omission. I wasn't even able to joke I liked one Trump policy—deep space exploration. But one can heap praise on Castro, and only mention his human rights record as it pertains to LGBT Cubans.
I think you probably believe in democracy and basic human rights, but have an enormous blind spot when it comes to non-US Americans
If me saying you don't believe in human rights is flaggable, then your assertion I have a blind-spot is flaggable. Both are assertions the other denies.
Neither, however, are really attacks.
The written record here suggests that you have issues with your ego
::strokes beard::
a nuanced view of Fidel Castro
I shall bring this up every time you discuss Trump in the future. If we can forget dictatorships and gulags in favor of a nuanced view, we can forget a lot.
As for a "nuanced view," one may perhaps identify good things about Castro's rule. But much the same could be said for other dictators--Hitler oversaw a remarkable economic resurgence, Stalin industrialized Russia and won the War, Assad has a fashionable wife, etc. But you won't find me defending any of them.
Neither do I demonize him. Castro was no Hitler, but a more ordinary tyrant who brutalized people and ultimately hurt and held back his country. We used to have a lot of them in the Americas; now we have far fewer. With any luck, Cuba won't have one forever either.
15prosfilaes
>2 Limelite: Now QEII is the last remaining, still living, longest sitting ruler, outlasting the Emperor of Japan, no?
No. QEII came into power 6 February 1952, at which time Castro was trying to play at being a democrat.
>12 timspalding: I have a hard time judging Castro for not being enough of a democrat. When Cuba was a democracy, he tried to get elected. When Batista canceled the elections and seized power as part of a US-supported dictatorship, he tried to gain power and become a dictator. Castro hardly had an example of a stable democracy around him, and most of his neighbors went through waves of revolution. Had he set up his dream socialist democracy, the US surely would have attacked it and probably overthrown it.
Castro killed less than 100,000 people (9,240 documented deaths) in 50 years*; Batista before him managed 20,000 in seven years.** The difference being that Batista was our son-of-a-bitch. Honestly, I don't know that Castro could have done anything that reduced the death toll in those years; the Salvadoran Civil War killed more than him, Papa Doc and son hit about that in fewer years. Maybe Cuba would have been a Caribbean Costa Rico, but it seems more likely to have had a series of revolutions, possibly with hundreds of thousands killed. Castro gave his people stability, and while it's easy to judge him, perhaps this was the best of all possible worlds for the Cubans.
* http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113590852154334404 says that 9,240 victims have been documented; the president of that documentation project puts the number of people Castro killed at up to ten times that. The vice president tosses numbers out of 78,000 who died trying to leave Cuba, 5,000 who died attacking Cuba and 14,000 who died in overseas military excursions, which seems a little sketchy to lump together; by that measure, Truman's death toll, between the Japanese who died in Truman's part of WWII and the Americans who died in WWII and Korea, dwarfs that of Castro's.
** Wikipedia cites Conflict, Order, and Peace in the Americas, by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 1978, p. 121.
No. QEII came into power 6 February 1952, at which time Castro was trying to play at being a democrat.
>12 timspalding: I have a hard time judging Castro for not being enough of a democrat. When Cuba was a democracy, he tried to get elected. When Batista canceled the elections and seized power as part of a US-supported dictatorship, he tried to gain power and become a dictator. Castro hardly had an example of a stable democracy around him, and most of his neighbors went through waves of revolution. Had he set up his dream socialist democracy, the US surely would have attacked it and probably overthrown it.
Castro killed less than 100,000 people (9,240 documented deaths) in 50 years*; Batista before him managed 20,000 in seven years.** The difference being that Batista was our son-of-a-bitch. Honestly, I don't know that Castro could have done anything that reduced the death toll in those years; the Salvadoran Civil War killed more than him, Papa Doc and son hit about that in fewer years. Maybe Cuba would have been a Caribbean Costa Rico, but it seems more likely to have had a series of revolutions, possibly with hundreds of thousands killed. Castro gave his people stability, and while it's easy to judge him, perhaps this was the best of all possible worlds for the Cubans.
* http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113590852154334404 says that 9,240 victims have been documented; the president of that documentation project puts the number of people Castro killed at up to ten times that. The vice president tosses numbers out of 78,000 who died trying to leave Cuba, 5,000 who died attacking Cuba and 14,000 who died in overseas military excursions, which seems a little sketchy to lump together; by that measure, Truman's death toll, between the Japanese who died in Truman's part of WWII and the Americans who died in WWII and Korea, dwarfs that of Castro's.
** Wikipedia cites Conflict, Order, and Peace in the Americas, by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 1978, p. 121.
16RickHarsch
>14 timspalding:
'If me saying you don't believe in human rights is flaggable, then your assertion I have a blind-spot is flaggable. Both are assertions the other denies.'
I don't see it that way--I assume the more generous conclusion.
LGBT issues: I suppose I fall victim to that as 'meme', because I bring it up because it is always brought up.
Nuance: Context. Close neighbor to an insuperable enemy.
'If me saying you don't believe in human rights is flaggable, then your assertion I have a blind-spot is flaggable. Both are assertions the other denies.'
I don't see it that way--I assume the more generous conclusion.
LGBT issues: I suppose I fall victim to that as 'meme', because I bring it up because it is always brought up.
Nuance: Context. Close neighbor to an insuperable enemy.
17timspalding
Castro hardly had an example of a stable democracy around him
Lots of leaders came to power through violence, and then yielded to a democratic transition. Castro is the only thoroughgoing dictator left in the Americas. He witnessed that transition all around him, and didn't join it.
Lots of leaders came to power through violence, and then yielded to a democratic transition. Castro is the only thoroughgoing dictator left in the Americas. He witnessed that transition all around him, and didn't join it.
18RickHarsch
Join the crowd, Fidel. Torrijos assassinated, Aguilera assissinated, Trujillo assassinated, Allende assassinated; Arbenz, Dejoie, Velasco, Arosemana, Goulart, Bosch, Torres, Aristide, Cedras all are replaced by the US. These assassinations, assaults, manipulations, invasions all led to periods of stability, generally assured by militaries. And this list leaves out what the US did in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras from the Reagan period on, which alone was deeply shameful, undemocratic, against any sane definition of human rights.
20RickHarsch
An article about the assassination attempts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasinatio...
I guess the leading example of democracy in the Americas was not enough of a moral inspiration for decadent Fidel, so he did not 'yield to the democratic transition.' In many countries, yielding to the 'democratic transition', meant dictator out/dictator in. I think it's more accurate to refer to Castro as a thoroughbred dictator than a 'thoroughgoing' dictator.
Anyway, I find it both hilarious and astonishing that a citizen of a country in which its powerful sat around trying to determine what color of mussel would most likely attract an underwater Fidel would focus on criticizing him when the balance of the story is elsewhere.
I guess the leading example of democracy in the Americas was not enough of a moral inspiration for decadent Fidel, so he did not 'yield to the democratic transition.' In many countries, yielding to the 'democratic transition', meant dictator out/dictator in. I think it's more accurate to refer to Castro as a thoroughbred dictator than a 'thoroughgoing' dictator.
Anyway, I find it both hilarious and astonishing that a citizen of a country in which its powerful sat around trying to determine what color of mussel would most likely attract an underwater Fidel would focus on criticizing him when the balance of the story is elsewhere.
21Kuiperdolin
Burn in Hell.
2016 has been a good year.
2016 has been a good year.
22RickHarsch
>21 Kuiperdolin: A great soul hath spoken.
23lriley
#21--That's kind of how I felt in 2004 when Reagan croaked and 2013 when Thatcher went away for good.
24prosfilaes
>17 timspalding: A senior citizen didn't immediately run out to let the US tear down everything he built. Surprise. Yes, Castro was too inflexible to change with the times; as a young man, he was taught that democracy would be dismantled in a heartbeat, and the US would support the new dictator. You don't easily forget what you learned when you were young.
Castro is the only thoroughgoing dictator left in the Americas.
Fidel Castro has been out of power for a decade.
Castro is the only thoroughgoing dictator left in the Americas.
Fidel Castro has been out of power for a decade.
26rastaphrog
While a large number of people are saying we shouldn't send anyone to the funeral, one Fox pundit is saying we should send the Surgeon General to "verify" he's dead. Considering that if I heard right he's already been cremated, you have to wonder how she expects the SG to be able to do that.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/fox-pundit-obama-must-send-surgeon-general-to-cu...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/fox-pundit-obama-must-send-surgeon-general-to-cu...
27timspalding
Considering that if I heard right he's already been cremated, you have to wonder how she expects the SG to be able to do that.
Well, he could check for a pulse?
Well, he could check for a pulse?
28reading_fox
>12 timspalding:, >25 St._Troy: "I believe in democracy and basic human rights."
Which is an interesting juxtaposition. Democracy is notoriously poor at supporting human rights for anybody but the mob (majority). A benevolent and wise dictactorship could be much better, possibly able to see beyond the howls of outrage that one of 'them' has done something, and only take actions that benefit the greatest good/everyone. Obviously Castro wasn't that perfect either, but just being a dictator shouldn't automatically condemn his government.
Which is an interesting juxtaposition. Democracy is notoriously poor at supporting human rights for anybody but the mob (majority). A benevolent and wise dictactorship could be much better, possibly able to see beyond the howls of outrage that one of 'them' has done something, and only take actions that benefit the greatest good/everyone. Obviously Castro wasn't that perfect either, but just being a dictator shouldn't automatically condemn his government.
29timspalding
I believe in democracy and basic human rights
Democracy is notoriously poor at supporting human rights for anybody but the mob
Right. I like Constitutions, separation of powers, etc. Democracy is a great system, and is essential in starting a Constitution. But you need to put certain things out of the range of short-term democratic feeling.
Democracy is notoriously poor at supporting human rights for anybody but the mob
Right. I like Constitutions, separation of powers, etc. Democracy is a great system, and is essential in starting a Constitution. But you need to put certain things out of the range of short-term democratic feeling.
30Limelite
>26 rastaphrog: Now that's journalism. I can see how she got to be a Fox. . .ummm. . .pundit.
Anyway, I'm sure the current Surgeon General, if he did as she suggested, wouldn't satisfy her. She'd accuse him of lying. I believe she meant to say the next (proposed) Sec'y of Health and Human Services, Ben "Sleepy Head" Carson. He seems eminently qualified to determine whether Castro is quick or dead. No?
Anyway, I'm sure the current Surgeon General, if he did as she suggested, wouldn't satisfy her. She'd accuse him of lying. I believe she meant to say the next (proposed) Sec'y of Health and Human Services, Ben "Sleepy Head" Carson. He seems eminently qualified to determine whether Castro is quick or dead. No?
31StormRaven
I believe she meant to say the next (proposed) Sec'y of Health and Human Services, Ben "Sleepy Head" Carson. He seems eminently qualified to determine whether Castro is quick or dead. No?
Castro is actually being used to store grain.
Castro is actually being used to store grain.
32alco261
>20 RickHarsch: 634 assassination attempts? He was dictator from 1959 to 2008 - 49 years - that's 588 months. If we tack on the additional 8 years from 2008 to 2016 that gets us up to 684 months. In other words, almost one attempt per month. Somehow, I don't think so.
34RickHarsch
>32 alco261: Check the records, see what is counted as an attempt. Maybe if the tally counted what you would define as an attempt the number would be lower. I don't see what difference it makes--enough attempts were made, and enough truly absurd ideas were put forth in all seriousness that the US lost credibility in the minds of sane people.
35timspalding
I don't see what difference it makes
It's very likely that one vote for Clinton this year was illegal. So, let's go with Trump's claim of two million. Because, whatever!
It's very likely that one vote for Clinton this year was illegal. So, let's go with Trump's claim of two million. Because, whatever!
36alco261
>33 southernbooklady: , >34 RickHarsch: , Ok, if we cast a broad net to define assassination attempt then I can see how we get to that figure. As for making a difference - it doesn't. I wasn't defending any position I was just looking at the number and thinking in terms of things like trained snipers, car bombs, etc. and trying to imagine what Havana would have looked like and what the odds of survival would have been had all the attempts been of that caliber.
37Limelite
>31 StormRaven:
LoL! Pharaoh Castro has a nice ring to it.
and >36 alco261:
About those assassination attempts. . .forget snipers and car bombs. Think poisoned cigars. The guy practically chain smoked them. Much easier to get a high attempt count by that method. Frankly, I'm surprised it never worked. I guess he had tester/sniffer dogs, or else assassins lost their enthusiasm for the kill.
LoL! Pharaoh Castro has a nice ring to it.
and >36 alco261:
About those assassination attempts. . .forget snipers and car bombs. Think poisoned cigars. The guy practically chain smoked them. Much easier to get a high attempt count by that method. Frankly, I'm surprised it never worked. I guess he had tester/sniffer dogs, or else assassins lost their enthusiasm for the kill.
38RickHarsch
>35 timspalding: That's a bizarre post, the kind that, when made consistently, people tend to look forward to--like: what's the cranky lunatic going to type next.
39RickHarsch
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-castro-survived-638-assassinatio...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/26/assassins-repeatedly-tried-...
This one is hilarious, The CIA trying to put the lunacy into perspective:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publication...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/26/assassins-repeatedly-tried-...
This one is hilarious, The CIA trying to put the lunacy into perspective:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publication...
40BruceCoulson
A somewhat different take on Castro's place in history...
https://popehat.com/2016/11/26/randazza-fidel-castro-dead/
https://popehat.com/2016/11/26/randazza-fidel-castro-dead/
41timspalding
>38 RickHarsch:
I submit that those who think there have been "634 assassination attempts" against Castro are the lunatics. God, I love the precision of that number. It's too bad it's not 634.32.
I submit that those who think there have been "634 assassination attempts" against Castro are the lunatics. God, I love the precision of that number. It's too bad it's not 634.32.
42RickHarsch
>41 timspalding: I agree that it's funny, but I have a very dark sense of humor. You, on the other hand, have nothing to say about US government criminality and tend towards a Reaganesque City on a Hill view of your country, and so it's odd that you enjoy your country's assassination attempts so much--especially when most corpses would have run out of breath like a Castro stand in in a wet suit.
Here part of a post for you to re-read, #18:
Torrijos assassinated, Aguilera assissinated, Trujillo assassinated, Allende assassinated; Arbenz, Dejoie, Velasco, Arosemana, Goulart, Bosch, Torres, Aristide, Cedras all are replaced by the US. That is your country.
Here part of a post for you to re-read, #18:
Torrijos assassinated, Aguilera assissinated, Trujillo assassinated, Allende assassinated; Arbenz, Dejoie, Velasco, Arosemana, Goulart, Bosch, Torres, Aristide, Cedras all are replaced by the US. That is your country.
43prosfilaes
>41 timspalding: Says a man who runs a website that says it has 2,115,955 members. Too bad it's not 2,115,955.32.
Yeah, 634 assassination "attempts" is probably going to be using a broader definition of attempt than most people would. But I have no problem believing that 634 times, someone engaged in some material action towards bringing about the death of Castro, even if that attempt was stopped long before it became an actual threat to Castro.
Yeah, 634 assassination "attempts" is probably going to be using a broader definition of attempt than most people would. But I have no problem believing that 634 times, someone engaged in some material action towards bringing about the death of Castro, even if that attempt was stopped long before it became an actual threat to Castro.
44prosfilaes
>40 BruceCoulson: Yeah. I'm a little skeptical of some of his sources though; he points to a National Review article which says "When Castro seized power, almost 50 years ago, Cuba was one of the most advanced countries in Latin America. Its infant-mortality rate was the 13th-lowest in all the world, ahead of even France, Belgium, and West Germany. Statistics in Castro’s Cuba are hard to come by, because honest statistics in any totalitarian society are hard to come by. Some kind of accounting is possible, however: Cuba has slipped in infant mortality, as it has in every other area (except repression)." The unquestioned trust of numbers from Batista's totalitarian society is ironic, and as I pointed out above in >15 prosfilaes:, Batista was killing people way quicker than Castro was.
Or: "And yet Cuba has no problem taking care of people in other countries, for show and profit." OMG, health care as a profit making service. The National Review, of all sources, has no right to get outraged about that, or more generally the fact that any country would produce a product its people can't afford and sell it to other countries for profit.
Or "it’s all the fault of the American “embargo.”" Does the author not believe that the US had an embargo on Cuba at the time the article was published (2007)? Because I'm pretty sure that's the way the US described its position to Cuba, and still does.
I find the final turn towards "truthiness" to be a little disturbing as well. It never inspires my trust in an article when it ends in "everything I've been arguing may be wrong, but the people who disagree with me are definitely more wrong." At least make it look like that you care about the truth of what you're writing.
Yeah, Castro was a son-of-a-bitch. He seems to have been less of a son-of-a-bitch than Batista, and the US seems to have exacerbated things by taking a hard-line against Cuba instead treating him like all the other dictators we played ball with. As with any human death, I think it's worth a moment of silence for the frailty of humans and for what might have been.
Or: "And yet Cuba has no problem taking care of people in other countries, for show and profit." OMG, health care as a profit making service. The National Review, of all sources, has no right to get outraged about that, or more generally the fact that any country would produce a product its people can't afford and sell it to other countries for profit.
Or "it’s all the fault of the American “embargo.”" Does the author not believe that the US had an embargo on Cuba at the time the article was published (2007)? Because I'm pretty sure that's the way the US described its position to Cuba, and still does.
I find the final turn towards "truthiness" to be a little disturbing as well. It never inspires my trust in an article when it ends in "everything I've been arguing may be wrong, but the people who disagree with me are definitely more wrong." At least make it look like that you care about the truth of what you're writing.
Yeah, Castro was a son-of-a-bitch. He seems to have been less of a son-of-a-bitch than Batista, and the US seems to have exacerbated things by taking a hard-line against Cuba instead treating him like all the other dictators we played ball with. As with any human death, I think it's worth a moment of silence for the frailty of humans and for what might have been.
45AsYouKnow_Bob
I'm waiting for the CIA to claim that their numerous attempts to kill Castro finally succeeded.
46RickHarsch
I wanted to say that.
47davidgn
Not to be missed:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/04/the-remarkable-story-of-fidel-castro/
My position used to be closer to Tim's. It took some time for me to absorb the broader picture. I've learned a hell of a lot over the last decade or so, and it's not been a pleasant experience.
Fidel was the crustiest of the crusty old bastards, and he did the impossible. My hat is off.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/04/the-remarkable-story-of-fidel-castro/
Meanwhile, the U.S. government has committed serious human rights violations on Cuban soil, including torture, cruel treatment and arbitrary detention at Guantanamo. And since 1960, the United States has expressly interfered with Cuba’s economic rights and its right to self-determination through the economic embargo.
Cuba is criticized for its restrictions on freedom of expression. Castro learned from the Guatemalan experience what would happen if he did not keep a tight rein on his revolutionary government. Jacobo Arbenz, a democratically elected president of Guatemala, carried out agrarian land reform, which expropriated uncultivated lands, compensated the owners and redistributed them to the peasantry. This program raised the hackles of the United Fruit Company, which enlisted the U.S. government to overthrow Arbenz. The CIA and the State Department obliged.
Stephen Kinzer wrote in his biography of the Dulles brothers that Guevara “told Castro why (the CIA coup in Guatemala) succeeded. He said Arbenz had foolishly tolerated an open society, which the CIA penetrated and subverted, and also preserved the existing army, which the CIA turned into its instrument. Castro agreed that a revolutionary regime in Cuba must avoid those mistakes. Upon taking power, he cracked down on dissent and purged the army.”
My position used to be closer to Tim's. It took some time for me to absorb the broader picture. I've learned a hell of a lot over the last decade or so, and it's not been a pleasant experience.
Fidel was the crustiest of the crusty old bastards, and he did the impossible. My hat is off.
48prosfilaes
>47 davidgn: That's not a proper quote of the text; one should always indicate omitted text.
And since 1960, the United States has expressly interfered with Cuba’s economic rights and its right to self-determination through the economic embargo.
How Orwellian. The right to self-determination does not apparently include the right to determine what business can be done between your nation and another. They quote "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"; I fail to see anything that's clearly on point, though many lines that Cuba is violating. Of course Cuba hasn't bothered ratifying it; that might require allowing elections and people to freely leave the country.
I'm not a fan of the Cuban embargo; it's been unproductive and needlessly hostile. I don't even know how well embargoes work in practice, ever.
But I am, in ways, a fan of embargoes. They're a way to declare absolute enmity with a nation without war. You make that option unacceptable, well, a country may as well invade, damned for a penny, damned for a pound, as the saying goes.
He said Arbenz had foolishly tolerated an open society, which the CIA penetrated and subverted
What do you mean by this? The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was there in part out of fear of an open society that Islamic terrorists can penetrate and subvert, and yet you started the quote with a complaint about that. Dennis v. United States is a case that most liberals would complain deeply about, that ruled that the US didn't have to create an open society that had a Communist Party, because that would let the Commies could penetrate the US and subvert it. Fidel Castro even complained about Henry Winston and others convicted in Dennis v. United States being political prisoners.
I feel like I'm contradicting what I said earlier in the thread, and unfortunately I am to a some extent. But I think we can look at the issues around what Castro did and why he did it, without justifying dictatorship. The reasons he cracked down on dissent are the exact same reasons that cracking down on dissent is always done.
Edit: “Fidel Castro was an authoritarian. He ruled with an iron fist. There was repression and is repression in Cuba. In Fidel’s kind of argument, he did it in the name of a different kind of democracy, a different kind of freedom — the freedom from illness, the freedom from racism, the freedom from social inequality,” Peter Kornbluh, director of the Cuba Documentation Project, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “And Cuba has a lot of very positives that all the other countries that we don’t talk about don’t have. There isn’t gang violence in Cuba. People aren’t being slaughtered around the streets by guns every day. They defeated the Zika virus right away. There is universal health care and universal education.”
...
History has absolved, and promises to continue to absolve, “El Comandante” Fidel Castro.
I question many of the positives, but more important, a value you'll discard cheaply is hardly a real value. Pounding on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when the US does something and shrugging that Castro grossly violated it--"in the name of a different kind of democracy, a different kind of freedom"--is hypocritical and unconvincing.
And since 1960, the United States has expressly interfered with Cuba’s economic rights and its right to self-determination through the economic embargo.
How Orwellian. The right to self-determination does not apparently include the right to determine what business can be done between your nation and another. They quote "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"; I fail to see anything that's clearly on point, though many lines that Cuba is violating. Of course Cuba hasn't bothered ratifying it; that might require allowing elections and people to freely leave the country.
I'm not a fan of the Cuban embargo; it's been unproductive and needlessly hostile. I don't even know how well embargoes work in practice, ever.
But I am, in ways, a fan of embargoes. They're a way to declare absolute enmity with a nation without war. You make that option unacceptable, well, a country may as well invade, damned for a penny, damned for a pound, as the saying goes.
He said Arbenz had foolishly tolerated an open society, which the CIA penetrated and subverted
What do you mean by this? The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was there in part out of fear of an open society that Islamic terrorists can penetrate and subvert, and yet you started the quote with a complaint about that. Dennis v. United States is a case that most liberals would complain deeply about, that ruled that the US didn't have to create an open society that had a Communist Party, because that would let the Commies could penetrate the US and subvert it. Fidel Castro even complained about Henry Winston and others convicted in Dennis v. United States being political prisoners.
I feel like I'm contradicting what I said earlier in the thread, and unfortunately I am to a some extent. But I think we can look at the issues around what Castro did and why he did it, without justifying dictatorship. The reasons he cracked down on dissent are the exact same reasons that cracking down on dissent is always done.
Edit: “Fidel Castro was an authoritarian. He ruled with an iron fist. There was repression and is repression in Cuba. In Fidel’s kind of argument, he did it in the name of a different kind of democracy, a different kind of freedom — the freedom from illness, the freedom from racism, the freedom from social inequality,” Peter Kornbluh, director of the Cuba Documentation Project, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “And Cuba has a lot of very positives that all the other countries that we don’t talk about don’t have. There isn’t gang violence in Cuba. People aren’t being slaughtered around the streets by guns every day. They defeated the Zika virus right away. There is universal health care and universal education.”
...
History has absolved, and promises to continue to absolve, “El Comandante” Fidel Castro.
I question many of the positives, but more important, a value you'll discard cheaply is hardly a real value. Pounding on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when the US does something and shrugging that Castro grossly violated it--"in the name of a different kind of democracy, a different kind of freedom"--is hypocritical and unconvincing.
49RickHarsch
>48 prosfilaes: I can't make sense of this post. First, I don't understand what is Orwellian.
Several uncertainties later I am baffled by "The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was there in part out of fear of an open society that Islamic terrorists can penetrate and subvert, and yet you started the quote with a complaint about that." Is that the raison d'etre of Guantanamo? Seems anachronistic.
Anyway, what I find obscene about the predominant US view of Castro is that those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder. There's no way around it. If you accept US behavior towards Castro you support murder, whether it failed or not.
Several uncertainties later I am baffled by "The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was there in part out of fear of an open society that Islamic terrorists can penetrate and subvert, and yet you started the quote with a complaint about that." Is that the raison d'etre of Guantanamo? Seems anachronistic.
Anyway, what I find obscene about the predominant US view of Castro is that those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder. There's no way around it. If you accept US behavior towards Castro you support murder, whether it failed or not.
50prosfilaes
>49 RickHarsch: That the right of national self-determination is violated by a nation self-determining that it will not do business with another nation is an Orwellian notion.
Anyway, what I find obscene about the predominant US view of Castro is that those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder. There's no way around it. If you accept US behavior towards Castro you support murder, whether it failed or not.
If you believe that only those without sin should throw stones, I suggest you stop hurling. http://cubaarchive.org/wordpress/cuba-archive-truth-and-memory-project/ has documented 10,000 deaths at the hands of Castro's regime. There's no way around it by your logic; if you support Castro, you support murder.
Actually, there is a way around it; you can condemn Castro's actions without supporting the actions of the US taken against him. In pretty much any real world case, you're going to have weave these lines, and deal with the fact that there's assholes on both sides.
Anyway, what I find obscene about the predominant US view of Castro is that those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder. There's no way around it. If you accept US behavior towards Castro you support murder, whether it failed or not.
If you believe that only those without sin should throw stones, I suggest you stop hurling. http://cubaarchive.org/wordpress/cuba-archive-truth-and-memory-project/ has documented 10,000 deaths at the hands of Castro's regime. There's no way around it by your logic; if you support Castro, you support murder.
Actually, there is a way around it; you can condemn Castro's actions without supporting the actions of the US taken against him. In pretty much any real world case, you're going to have weave these lines, and deal with the fact that there's assholes on both sides.
51RickHarsch
>49 RickHarsch: It is an Orwellian notion if presented without context. In context, you have a country that exploited Cuba economically and quite thoroughly (by Castro's advent the US was taking 80% of the island's sugar profit off the island). I have always wondered what would have happened if the US would have said to Castro, fine, keep your sugar, but allow us to be your main partners, etc...
By my logic I do not support murder. I support Castro's attempts to fend off the US and believe his regime is impossible to critique with any 'moral accuracy' given the circumstance of being an impoverished island under one kind of assault or another by the most powerful country in the world.
Anyway, your last paragraph begins to get at what I would expect sane, non-murderous people to do: to refuse to argue for Castro as a ruler but to emphasize who did what to who. This 'assholes on both sides' bullshit is like coming across a fight in which a boxer is pummeling an infant and pointing out that the bastard kid was punching back it looked like.
By my logic I do not support murder. I support Castro's attempts to fend off the US and believe his regime is impossible to critique with any 'moral accuracy' given the circumstance of being an impoverished island under one kind of assault or another by the most powerful country in the world.
Anyway, your last paragraph begins to get at what I would expect sane, non-murderous people to do: to refuse to argue for Castro as a ruler but to emphasize who did what to who. This 'assholes on both sides' bullshit is like coming across a fight in which a boxer is pummeling an infant and pointing out that the bastard kid was punching back it looked like.
52prosfilaes
>51 RickHarsch: It is an Orwellian notion if presented without context.
Context always seems to be part of refugee in audacity.
By my logic I do not support murder.
You said "those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder." Explain the intermediate steps then, because there doesn't seem to be any logical step that would support "those who criticize Castro are complicit in murder" (supposedly because Castro's opposition tried to kill him) and not support "those who support Castro are complicit in murder" (because Castro and those who supported him murdered people). Break down the logic there; go all Aristotelean on me.
a fight in which a boxer is pummeling an infant and pointing out that the bastard kid was punching back it looked like.
In the fight between Castro and the average Cuban, the average Cuban plays the role of the infant.
Context always seems to be part of refugee in audacity.
By my logic I do not support murder.
You said "those who criticize Castro are, in thought at least, complicit in murder." Explain the intermediate steps then, because there doesn't seem to be any logical step that would support "those who criticize Castro are complicit in murder" (supposedly because Castro's opposition tried to kill him) and not support "those who support Castro are complicit in murder" (because Castro and those who supported him murdered people). Break down the logic there; go all Aristotelean on me.
a fight in which a boxer is pummeling an infant and pointing out that the bastard kid was punching back it looked like.
In the fight between Castro and the average Cuban, the average Cuban plays the role of the infant.
53RickHarsch 
> 52 The drive toward, the lust for, obtusity is baffling until one grasps the nature of the ego of the other.
1. 'Context always seems to be part of refugee in audacity.' If you want to say smart things the grammar has to improve.
2. Your longest paragraph, the mind becomes a North American marsupial--and if you have ever seen them do that, it IS cute. You took my quote out of context, though, which is not, and you did so in a way that you know was wrong, which makes you a real asshole. And that should not be flaggable. Because taking quotes out of context is at times more damaging than calling someone an asshole. The obvious answer, you fucking child, is that one preceded the other. Castro acted in self defense. The rest of the answer, you despicable swine, is that as I made clear, a beginning of reconciling the historical view is 'to refuse to argue for Castro as a ruler.'
Readers, please read before flagging. Taking quotes out of context is really ugly.
ETA actually ETSubtract one superfluous 'tinyword'
1. 'Context always seems to be part of refugee in audacity.' If you want to say smart things the grammar has to improve.
2. Your longest paragraph, the mind becomes a North American marsupial--and if you have ever seen them do that, it IS cute. You took my quote out of context, though, which is not, and you did so in a way that you know was wrong, which makes you a real asshole. And that should not be flaggable. Because taking quotes out of context is at times more damaging than calling someone an asshole. The obvious answer, you fucking child, is that one preceded the other. Castro acted in self defense. The rest of the answer, you despicable swine, is that as I made clear, a beginning of reconciling the historical view is 'to refuse to argue for Castro as a ruler.'
Readers, please read before flagging. Taking quotes out of context is really ugly.
ETA actually ETSubtract one superfluous 'tinyword'
