Friday, August 8, 2008

Odds and ends

  • A week after announcing a trip to Cuba where he sought a meeting with Raul Castro, Senator Specter announces that it won’t happen; he’s told that there was not sufficient time to arrange his visit.

  • The Herald reports today on Lt. Col. Simmons’ allegations, with a sidebar on Simmons and the other players in the story.

  • Dayron Robles, a 110-meter hurdler on the Cuban Olympic team, joins other athletes signing a letter to Chinese President Hu calling on China to respect human rights and “to ensure that human rights defenders are no longer intimidated or imprisoned.” (H/t Penultimos Dias)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

On the Robles story, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Come to think of it, same for the Specter story.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why there is no mention on the Cuban Triangle about the Cuban sports athlete Taymaris Ag├╝ero who was not allowed to visit her mother in Cuba when she was sick and was only granted permission too late when her mother had passed away and it did not matter anyway. And the fact that the same thing had happened before when her father was ill and she was not granted permission either to visit her father.
Why do I not see any complains and heart felt cries like we normal see from Left side and the usual commenters here about this issue. Oh, but wait I forgot, this lady is not revolutionary enough to merit anyone of the Triangle's commenters to care about that particular issue.
You see, if this one of the wives of the 5 convicted spies sentenced for spying here in the US, we would have already heard from all of the above mentioned commenters about how unfair the US Govt. is for not allowing them to visit their husbands, bla,blah,blah. The hypocrisy here knows no boundaries and no limits.

leftside said...

Aguero was a high-profile defector. More than that she claimed political persecution in Cuba. Everyone is always told athletic defectors are not permitted to return to Cuba for any reason. She certainly knew this when she deserted and left her parents. Still, her visa was approved. From a strictly policy perspective, this is the most significant part of the story. Can anyone think of any other athletic defectors that have been able to return?

We do not know why she initially thought her visa had been denied, but she was mistaken. It was likely a matter of timing. Getting a visa anywhere in a few hours is not easy. Of course it is sad that she did not make it back in time. But she made the decision to leave her family, knowing the risks.

Anonymous said...

there you go folks, perfectly rational explanation from planet leftside....

Anonymous said...

Sure Leftside, we knew you could explain it rationally enough for us to understand it. She is a defector and therefore she should be sentenced to political ostracism. Is perfectly understandable that the government of Cuba should not allow her to visit her parents after all like Castro I has said all sports defectors should be considered traitors. As if an athlete is also in the military.
But you will always find a way to justify the unjustifiable so long as it fit the revolutionary version of any event. Is called ideological blinders and you are true to form. Apologists for tyrants and totalitarians always will find a way to put a spin to suit their ideology.
Walter Duranty from the New York Times would be very proud of you. He never saw anything wrong with Stalin's methods and crimes. And you never find anything wrong with Castro's either. You are both birds of the same feathers, therefore you flock together.

leftside said...

I did not justify anything. I happen to think Cuba should allow easier travel back and forth. But she knew the risks of leaving and there is real issue of whether it is appropriate for those who claim "political asylym" to travel back and forth. The US "dry foot" policy should probably change first as well to prevent deaths. Of course, the US allows only one visit to the island every 3 years. We have no idea how many death bed family reunions and funerals have been prevented because of this idiotic and mean spirited US policy. I am sure you agree with that, right anon?

Anonymous said...

Sure Leftside. I was sure you could clarify that one for us. The Us policy is mean spirited and the Cuban policy of not allowing travel and preventing family members from reuniting sometimes for periods of over 10 years (Paquito D'rivera's family, remember that one?) is wonderful and correct. We could not expect anything different from you.

theCardinal said...

Leftside - that was pretty pathetic. Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights "guarantees" the right of return for anyone that leaves their homeland. Then again they have a pretty shoddy record on Articles 1-12 also. I suppose you have a reasonable excuse for Cuba ignoring the Declaration of Human Rights

leftside said...

I guess I have to repeat myself again. Cuba should certainly do more on the issue. I sense a change afoot... But anti-family US policies (which also violate Article 13) need to be condemned in the same breath, as does the murderous magnet called "wet foot, dry foot." Or do you all think the US Government should be able to limit the ability of Cubans to visit their family once every 3 years?

Anonymous said...

c'mon leftside that's what the flunkies do in Havana, turn every criticism into an imagined indictment of the US. please have more respect for the readers of this site

theCardinal said...

I agree with the sentiment of anon but I will answer anyway. First of all I think the Cuban Adjustment Act is a Cold War relic that should be ditched along with the "wet foot/dry foot." Nor do I care for limiting visits. That being said what Cuba does is a whole lot worse. There are families with US visas who are not allowed to leave Cuba just because the government does not want them to. I know of one man who has been trying to get his wife and daughter out for 13 years - that's how long ago they were given a visa. He could have visited his family at least four times in that time span but of course he would have been arrested on sight. It's absurd to make the comparison you made. Oh and I'm pretty sure we comply with Articles 1 - 12.

leftside said...

Why is this person not able to get an exit visa Cardinal??