The Obama Administration’s budget request for Radio and TV Marti cuts the stations’ combined budget by seven percent and announces that Radio Marti will “conver to an all-news format.” (See the budget request beginning at page 37 of this pdf document.)
This significant change in format was stated without explanation at the end of a long narrative about the past year’s accomplishments.
Does it mean that Radio Marti becomes a pure 24-hour newscast? Or will the programs that offer analysis and comment on the news be preserved? And does the move mean that audience research is saying that only the news programs are of value to listeners in
Here’s Radio Marti’s current program schedule and the Herald’s coverage.
Anyone have an indication of how "straight" the news presented on Radio Marti is currently? And when I ask this, it is important to say that even most "straight" newscasters in the US have a heavy capitalist/pro-US bias. But are we talking something closer to BBC/NPR, CNN or Fox?
ReplyDeletePhil, any thoughts on the new Asst Sec'y of State for Western Hemishpere, Arturo Valenzuela?
ReplyDeletegreat blog, see you at next Dialogue event.
luckily, Valenzuela is an adult who is unlikely to indulge the antics of Chavez or Morales, and will likely move on Cuba very carefully. No one wants to go down in history as the AS who got his lunch eaten by the Castro brothers...
ReplyDeleteValenzuela does seem to be a smart high-level thinker, if also a tad haughty and arrogant. He knows the region and its history, and understands that the Bush attitude and experience were unmitigated disasters for America and the region. He deserves credit for forcefully arguing against Bush's (at least tacit) support of the 2002 Venezuelan coup and the embargo. But I see nothing to see that he fundamentally disagrees with the US knows best Imperialist outlook that infects all US Administrations, nor that he has any particularly fresh ideas about alleviating the causes of suffering and protest in the region. He mainly seems to think that the US has only made tactical mistakes in its natural role as hegemon. That said, I think Latin Americans will find him pragmatic and less ideological than they are used to seeing.
ReplyDeleteI'm still looking for his thinking on Cuba. He is said to favor lifting the embargo, but I would be interested in how he couches such language.
Leftside said: "Valenzuela does seem to be... a tad haughty and arrogant..."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Leftside. All this dreary talk by Valenzuela about tired notions of "human rights" and mere bourgeois "freedom." How haughty and arrogant can you get? Hey, let's get real!
Can't this Valenzuela guy hear the joyous tramp of the Revolutionary Masses as they march (yes, march!) toward their glorious proletarian destiny?
In regards to freedom and human rights, all the region wants is for a more inclusive definition to be used by Washington. Human rights are more than civil and political rights. NO COUNTRY in the hemisphere achieves the full spectrum of economic, social and cultural rights laid out in international documents. Cuba achieves many rights and freedoms that the US does not. In Venezuela poverty and unemployment have been halved. Rights to free health care and much improved access to education have been established. The region would like just one acknowledgement that human rights exist beyond empowering a few people to take money from abroad.
ReplyDelete"In Venezuela poverty and unemployment have been halved. Rights to free health care and much improved access to education have been established."
ReplyDeleteGo, Lefty! Soon, very soon, Venezuelans will be swimming in the same "sea of happiness" as the Cubans. Ah, paradise at last! I think those yanquis, along with their CIA-funded tools such as Amnesty International, with all their nattering complaints about "human rights" violations in Cuba, are just jealous!
I think those yanquis, along with their CIA-funded tools such as Amnesty International, with all their nattering complaints about "human rights" violations in Cuba, are just jealous!No, they just were raised with an ingrained neo-liberal belief that the State has no positive role in ensuring human rights. That the State can only take away rights. Positive rights to food, housing, health care, education - these are all not important to Amnesty or Human Rights Watch (they admit this quite openly). They are only concerned with the State negating certain rights, such as being able to take money in the service of a foreign enemy power (that argument is going in in Venezuela right now. NGOs want to be able to take money from whereever and not have to account for it.)
ReplyDeleteI know you and Amnesty do not care about unemployment in Venezuela, or the right to health care. But let me tell you that this is vastly more important than the right of a group like Sumate to be able to shield their finances from review.
"Positive rights to food, housing, health care, education - these are all not important to Amnesty or Human Rights Watch"
ReplyDeleteLeftside, you are my hero! Can you BELIEVE some of those tiresome critics who fail see the Maximum Leader's pampering of the grateful Cuban masses with his generous food supplies (10 days worth of rice and a sprinkling of beans per month per person) and lavish medical system (which, of course, cannot providesupply luxuries, such as aspirin, antibiotics and x-ray film).
This must be why the Revolutionary Authorites have to resluctantly devote so many resources to immigration control, to keep out the hoards of Latin Americans who want to immigrate to the First Free Territory of the Americas and share the lavish lifestyle of the grateful Cuban masses!
Ah, Lefty,if only those biased "human rights" groups and busybody foreign "reporters" shared your magisterial command of logic, compassion and, above all, the facts! But will they listen? NO!
If only I had your sarcastic wit, anonymous. The way you totally avoid the point, and yet still starkly reveal your ignorance is indeed hilarious. Your talking points (asprin, skimpy rations, rafters) need some update though. We are in 2008, not 1994.
ReplyDelete"We are in 2008, not 1994."
ReplyDeleteYou mean, in contrast to 1994, that envious Latin American immigrants are flooding into Cuba so they can enjoy "the good life?" And Cubans, in contrast to 1994, are no longer desperate to escape from the First Free Territory of the Americas?
Lefty, if Cuba ever allows it people to freely leave the country, you better not be standing in the doorway at the Jose Marti airport.
Lefty, if Cuba ever allows it people to freely leave the country, you better not be standing in the doorway at the Jose Marti airport.Cuba does let its people leave the country, within the lawful procedures (that ought to be relaxed). The US refuses more visas than Cuba does exit permits. If the US were to drop its visa requirements and accept people from ANY country as Residents, the flood from the south would be visible from outer space. As it is, only Cubans are able to begin the process of becoming US Residents upon touching US soil. That explains the migration rate. But even with all the advantages, fewer Cubans are being caught at sea by the US Coast guard in 2009 than both Hatians and Domnincans.
ReplyDeleteLeftside,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any statistics about how many Cubans apply for the Tarjeta Blanca (permission to exit Cuba), and how many are given the permit? Please post the source!
Thanks!
Vecino de NF
"Cuba does let its people leave the country, within the lawful procedures..."
ReplyDeleteUh huh, just like Rumsfeld "did not torture" anyone "within the lawful procedures." Lawyers will say anything you tell them to.
Do you have any statistics about how many Cubans apply for the Tarjeta Blanca (permission to exit Cuba), and how many are given the permit? Please post the source!How about a 1993 US State Department Human Rights Report. that says:
ReplyDelete"The vast majority of persons who qualify for
immigrant visas or refugee status are allowed to leave;"
Vast majority. Given the source, I would say that is 90% plus, if not 99%. It does go on to say:
However, the Government continues to delay or deny exit permits in certain cases, often without explanation. These often include professionals who have tried to leave and who have since been banned from working in their occupational field. Others are refused permission because the Government considers their cases sensitive. Dissident scientist Rolando Roque Malherbe, for example, had been refused an exit visa since 1990 and had been unable to attend conferences abroad. The
Government finally permitted Roque to leave in December for a teaching position in Spain. President Castro's daughter, Alina Fernandez, slipped out of the country in disguise, after being
refused an exit visa for years. The Government also has coerced some people, mostly activists, into leaving the country...So yes, Cuba has used visas as a weapon - against a tiny minority. The question is whether it is an offensive or defensive weapon. I did say the rules ought to be relaxed - but exit visas as a concept like will likely remain as long as Cuba feels it is under attack and needs to. Again, the US ought to start the process of policy rectification because there's no question who started this game, and who remains the aggressor and worse offender. I have little doubt that the US denies more visas than Cuba does. Can you find those numbers? Good luck, because the US hides them.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteI take your answer as a no: You do not have any statistics on how many Cubans apply for the exit permit, and how many have their petitions denied.
I do not have any statistics on visa denials by the USA. If I find any statistics on this, I will post.
As far as anecdotal evidence, we got Cuba denying Yoani Sánchez an exit permit, and we have the USA denying Silvio Rodriguez a visa. Of course, both are anecdotes from the individuals in question.
Vecino de NF
vecino
ReplyDeleteyour consistency against the Cuban government is impressive if not a little behind the times. so what are you doing to change things other than shouting through this blog?
after 50 years it is so tiresome. what, you lose a sugar mill or something down there? because don't give us the 'freedom and democracy dance' -- the US supports far, far worse regimes and does nothing or cares nothing about civil rights.
why do you support the hostility of the world's most powerful nation against such a small, insignificant little island.
Anonymous 11:46AM,
ReplyDelete"so what are you doing to change things other than shouting through this blog?"
I do not think that I shout through this blog. I have tried to keep a civil tone in the face of many provocations, and insults but I never have agreed with a point of view out of harassment. In answering your question, I would simply say that I am not trying to change anything but the tone of the discussions re/Cuba-US and Cuban government advocates/Cuban government opponents.
"what, you lose a sugar mill or something down there?"
I would answer your question with another question: What makes you think that I lost anything down there (I assume you mean Cuba, not some other antipodal point). If you mean Cuba, I have nothing to gain from a change in the US-Cuba relation, or in the governance of Cuba nor did I lose anything "down there". My only interest on this topic is to advocate clear and honest discussion.
Lastly, I would pose a question to you. What is wrong with no agreeing with the Cuban government or its apologists?
Vecino de NF
PS Are you anonimo? I think he got tired of this blog.
i've read most of your blogs vecino, maybe you could point out an example of clear and honest discussion, from MPOV it's is always consistently one sided. maybe i'm wrong, is there anything you agree with that the cuban govt has done? to be clear and honest one should acknowledge the good along with condemning the bad. just MHO
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:17PM,
ReplyDeleteIt is for you to determine if there are any examples of clear and honest discussion in my posts. If I have not been clear, I apologize for my lack of communication skills. But I assure you that I have been honest in its sincere connotation. I looked up honesty on Merrian-Webster and the more relevant definition (the first is obsolete and the third refers to a plant) is "2 a: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct b: adherence to the facts :". I tried to be fair and straightforward to all, and many a times I stated clearly that I do not know certain facts and asked questions like a few that were left outstanding by "anonimo". As far as adherence to the facts I tried to adhere to the facts as I see and understand them.
I would answer your more relevant question of "is there anything you agree with that the cuban govt has done?" as follows: I have no way to determine if the Cuban government has done anything good because it has chosen to politicize everything and everyone. By politicize I mean that every action, statement, communication, etc. has to agree and has to advance the Cuban government's hold on power. Let me give you two examples: 1) the 1961 literacy campaign is supposed to be one of the greatest accoplishments of the Cuban Revolution yet anyone who dares to question its results is considered a traitor, and 2) the universal health care system is supposed to be another of the greatest accomplishments, yet any independent critical assesment of health statistics is considered a counter-revolutionary activity. In my reading of Cuban statistics I found direct plagiarism of international sources, and copying of statistics from one year to the next claiming that they are up to date. It is hard to find an official statement that focuses on the facts without reference to ideology or politics.
Now having said all that, I recognize that during the last 50 years there has been great accomplishments by individuals and groups that have shown loyalty to the Cuban Government. Alicia Alonso and the Cuban National Ballet, and Cuban athletes like Sotomayor, Juantorena, and Stevenson come to mind. But I feel toward these accomplishments the same way I feel when I enjoy the Sixtine Chapel's frescoes, or the labor that went into building the Egyptian pyramids: admiration for the creator and the creations, but revulsion for the system that brought them into being.
Is that clear and honest enough for you? In the meantime I will continue to post my comments even if I am ignored.
Vecino de NF