Cuban official defends internet controls

[Bacchus39]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_internet

HAVANA - A senior Cuban official has defended the country's Internet restrictions as a response to U.S. aggression and called for controlling "the wild colt of new technologies."

Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes opened an international conference on communication technologies Monday by complaining that Washington is choking Cuba's access to the Internet even as U.S. military and intelligence services use it to undermine the communist government.

Internet technologies "constitute one of the tools for global extermination," he said, referring to U.S. policies, but they "are also necessary to continue to advance down the path of development."

He defended Cuba's "rational and efficient" use of the Internet, which puts computers in schools and government computer clubs while prohibiting home connections for most citizens and blocking many sites with anti-government material.

"The wild colt of new technologies can and must be controlled," he said.

[LiberalVoice]

1. "The wild colt of 'information' must be controlled" nt

[manic expression]

2. This is very reasonable

Put computers in schools first, then work on personal use.

[Bacchus39]

3. we certainly wouldn't want people using the internet to criticize the government

now would we?

[manic expression]

5. Different scenario

Cuba has limited resources that can be put toward internet use. They have put it toward schools instead of people's houses, which is the right choice.

The question of censorship is different. One must take into account the fact that the US is doing everything it can to bring down the Cuban system, which would suggest that such actions are not inappropriate.

[hack89]

7. How could the internet be a threat to Cuba? nt

[manic expression]

8. Would you agree that misinformation is a bad thing?

They're trying to balance access (in schools no less, which is laudable) with the fact that the US government is doing everything it can to bring down the Cuban system, which includes working through misinformation.

[hack89]

15. Would you agree that having the government

being the only one to determine what is and is not misinformation is a bad thing? Are the Cuban people so unlike us here at DU that they are incapable of thinking for themselves? What would your reaction be if Congress mandated "balanced access" to protect the American people?

[Mika]

18. Cubans have access to the internet IF they can afford it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/tech/main592416.shtml

E-net is the largest of a handful of Internet providers in Cuba

-

E-net customers who do not have the dollar phone service can keep accessing the Internet with the ordinary phone service with special cards sold at Etecsa offices, the letter says.

Plus, there is free internet access at most all Cuban libraries.

[slackmaster]

26. Ruh-roh, E-Net's site is running on .Net Framework

One might think that Cubans would be inclined to use open source software rather than Microsoft, but here's what I got trying to get to their Servicios page just now (http://www.enet.cu/sitio/servicios_enet.aspx):

Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

Stack Trace:



enet.WebControlRight.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) in c:\inetpub\wwwroot\enet\webcontrols\WebControlRight.ascx.cs:32
System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +99
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +47
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +131
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +131
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1061




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.42; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.210

This is painful because one of my too-frequent tasks at work is debugging ASP.NET apps.

[Bacchus39]

25. very well said

n/t

[manic expression]

33. The government is extremely responsive to the people

You can bet that if the majority of the population didn't want this, it would end.

The fact that there is some censorship is due to the fact that the Cuban people have thought for themselves, instead of listening to Uncle Sam and hack89.

[hack89]

36. What have I said that is so threatening to the Cuban regime ..

except that the Cuban people deserve the same freedoms that I do?

[manic expression]

38. Cubans are not concerned about hack89

please be sure of that. Cubans are concerned about US misinformation that threatens their sovereignty.

And please define "freedom", for it seems as though you mean freedom from self-determination.

[Mika]

71. You deserve the same rights as the Cuban people.

The right to housing.
The right to universal health care for you and all of your family.
The right to universal education for you and your children.

Cubans have those rights enshrined in their constitution, and the Cuban people, together with their government, have made them possible and a reality by hard work and representative government.

[hack89]

74. So why can't they have the right to a

new leader every four or eight years? Multiple political parties? Unlimited overseas travel? Internet in their homes?

[ohio2007]

108. Speaking of housing, you'd think Ernest Hemingway's house, declared as a nat'l treasure

by the Cuban govt. wouldn't have required funding from overseas to repair its dilapidated state but it did.Fund raising that defied the embargo bc the Cuban govt. wouldn't do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea
I don't think the schoolchildren will be taught that part of their recent history.
Truly, if they understood how to subvert capitalism, they would have conquered us all when Fidel was a tool of the Kremlin.
The clock is ticking til the sanction walls come down.

[Bacchus39]

42. so Cuba needs censorship?

as it is best for them. better to receive all info from the Cuban government who will protect them from misinformation.

by the way, what misinformation would Cubans be exposed to if they had unrestricted access to the net?? wouldn't they have a choice as where to browse and look for information?

[manic expression]

46. Cuba wants to block American misinformation

and it is best for them.

Blocking US misinformation is what they are doing. They would rather not deal with it, so they're blocking it. It's the choice that they've made, and there is nothing wrong with it.

[slackmaster]

59. When someone has the job of deciding what is information and what is misinformation

That person's opinion becomes the sole determiner of truth. The people no longer have the option of hearing alternative opinions and deciding for themselves what is right based on a full range of information.

That is censorship.

[manic expression]

62. As I've said

the Cuban government is very responsive to the Cuban people. The people are determining what they want and don't want.

That is people making decisions for themselves.

[slackmaster]

63. I wouldn't want "the people" deciding ANYTHING for me

I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself.

[manic expression]

64. You can not want it all you want

but the people get to determine the direction of their community.

[slackmaster]

67. If a few individuals decide what most of the people get to read, hear, and see

Then their determination is based on incomplete information. Their direction isn't completely based on free will.

I would have a big problem with that.

[manic expression]

70. It's not the few

it's the many who decide if they want to tolerate blatant propaganda or not.

[Bacchus39]

77. Cubans tolerate blatant propoganda from their government

Fidel in their face all the time.

one seeks information on the internet to fit one's choosing. where does the US propoganda come in?? and what harm would it be for Cubans to be better informed?

[manic expression]

100. Support that statement

with evidence. Until then, you have no argument.

[Bacchus39]

142. State run media and programming are more than evidence

enough. Not to mention the Cuban education. (indoctrination)

Censorship of critical views of the government and "counter revolutionary" information whether it be TV, internet, books, and worst of all, speech ensures that their is no counterpoint to Cuba's propaganda.

look at any billboard in Cuba with El Commandante and tell me that isn't propaganda.

at least in a society that tolerates the exchange of diverse ideas, a simple thing actually, people are free to not only choose their positions but advocate them. It actually takes effort to block information (censorship) rather than allow it to pass freely.

[manic expression]

148. And what of CNN radio?

oh, I forgot, that doesn't fit into your view of the world, so you just ignore it.

[Bacchus39]

172. its not from Cuba now is it??

certainly not

[manic expression]

178. People in Cuba can listen to it easily

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore this fact.

[slackmaster]

97. The whole body of the people does not vote on every book, news article, URL, etc.

For obvious practical and logistical reasons, the day-to-day decisions about what information gets through and what gets censored must fall into the hands of a few people who do that for a living. Otherwise "the many" would all get to review every item that becomes available, and the censorship program would fail.

Here's the piece most people fail to understand: What is and what is not "blatant propaganda" is largely subjective, and to quote a lesson my stepfather was taught by a senior officer when he was working as a Radioman for the US Navy aboard a ship in the Western Pacific during World War II, just because a piece of information arrives in the form of propaganda does not necessarily mean it isn't true.

Speaking of propaganda, please keep up your amusing tap dance trying to explain how filtering of information by a select group of people is in a society's best interests.

BTW - If we really wanted to destroy the Cuban socialist revolution, the smart thing to do would be to end the embargo immediately and start treating Cuba like a good neighbor and trading partner. Without the USA to blame for all its problems, Cuban society as we know it would collapse within a few years.

[Mika]

98. I agree with part of your latter statement. End the embargo.

If the sanctions on companies that do business with Cuba were ended and Cuba had open access to the Caribbean trunk of the internet then more Cubans would have access to it. As it is now, it is the US that limits Cubans access to the internet (via the spectrum of impacts the the sanctions create) more so than any other reason.

Interestingly, almost everything that the US gov and the Miami based exile organizations do empowers the Cuban government (by populist consent) by solidifying the base - the vast majority of Cubans who support their socialist system of government and feel that US imperialist interests intend to and do undermine their system.

Retaining some pseudo rationale of 'Castros = bogeymen' is necessary to keep the gravy train of US government anti Castro funding rolling in Miami and Washington for "think tanks", "Cuba transition" study groups and government offices, Radio & TV Marti and the private entities they employ, etc etc etc.

No Castro = no lucrative anti Castro industry.

[ohio2007]

107. Before that will happen, "you know who" has to assume room temp

before that act of congress is passed.
In the meantime, Cubans will cling to the expensive black market system that operates behind the govt controlled market.

[sufrommich]

113. How do "the many"

decide such things?Vote? I bet not.It's no doubt a collection of arrogant ideologues whose own deluded egos have convinced them that they,and they alone,know"what's best" for "the people".You seem to spend most of your time here defending taking away basic personal rights for the "good" of the majority.What flavor of Democrat are you?

[manic expression]

116. Through many mediums

the most important, in my mind, being the Cuban system of politics, in which candidates are nominated by the people in public meetings.

I'm someone who respects a people's ability to direct their society and community the way they wish, NOT the way Uncle Sam would prefer.

And lastly, what "rights" are you talking about? Please give a basis for "rights" outside of society's definition.

edited spelling error

[sufrommich]

121. All definitions are social definitions.

What else would they be?
They decide these oppressive controls at public meetings?!!I'm sure your typical politically powerless Cuban would feel perfectly comfortable speaking out publicly against the powerful elites.Not.
By the way,we have laws restricting "the peoples" ability to direct their society and community.A very long time ago ,some very smart men thought that stunk too much of mob rule.And they were right.
People with your mindset are frightening.I imagine you would make a fine neighborhood revolutionary committee member,quickly making examples of those who are too free thinking for the likes of "the people".

[manic expression]

122. Not necessarily

Something can be defined through society WHILE being based in reality. Class is something that is tangible, it actually exists. "Rights", on the other hand, have absolutely no basis outside of what a society defines it as.

Another thing is that the whole point of "rights" is that they are supposed to be natural. If they aren't natural, then they aren't really "rights", they're just things that society agrees upon.

They decide upon representatives in these public meetings. These representatives do not use expensive campaigns, they use the people they are representing. And really, "oppressive controls"? More like telling Uncle Sam to stuff his lies where they came from, which is perfectly reasonable.

Wait, so you don't think people should have control over their communities? Are you serious? "Mob rule" is a term used by kings, Tories and elitists, not by people who want true democracy. Those "very smart men" thought that people were stupid and that the rich whites should control society. Others, including myself, think that the people (not the bourgeoisie) should control what belongs to them.

I forgot, equity, equality, community control and other things are "frightening" to people like yourself.

[sufrommich]

124. Oh please.

What great damage is done to "Uncle Sam" by not allowing Cubans to freely surf any site on the internet.The Cuban government is controlling the information that it's people are allowed to have for reasons that have nothing to do with us.It's a dictatorship.You contort your brain into whatever shape you need to to justify it,but it is what it is.
What happens to the "bourgeoisie" type thinkers in your little utopia?I'll bet it's not pretty.

[manic expression]

126. No damage

is being done to Cuba, that much is clear, and that much is good.

It isn't a dictatorship, and anyone who knows the first thing about the Cuban system of government can tell you that.

Well, the bourgeoisie is suppressed in socialism (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), but they will be given more than enough chances to become part of society. They can leave if they wish, but they cannot take any significant wealth with them.

[slackmaster]

129. What "significant wealth" would that be?

In a country where basic commodities like fuels and staple foods are rationed.

[manic expression]

131. Anything more than personal possessions

things of sentimental value, clothes and other such things are OK.

There would be a set amount, so people couldn't bring a royal baggage train of clothes to the US, for example. Basically, they would be able to survive on it for a reasonable amount of time.

This is semantic, by the way.

[Big Pappa]

83. Would you

feel the same if George wanted to block what he feels is mis info? I guess there is nothing the Cuban government could do to its people that you would not defend as appropriate.

[manic expression]

104. As I've said before

the US government is a government of the bourgeoisie, which means their interests are solely in protecting the rich. The Cuban government is a government of and for the people.

Secondly, the US government does censor a lot of stuff and shuts down inappropriate websites, but I guess when WE do it, it's OK with the self-appointed DU purveyors of justice and freedom. :eyes:

[Big Pappa]

180. No

its wrong if the US does it or the Cubans.

[smitty]

146. So everything that the Cuban government blocks is American

misinformation and not, perhaps, contrary opinions, open discussion or alternative views?

[Judi Lynn]

152. They get radio and tv stations from Miami, from the other islands,

from all over Latin America.

Americans, since they are barred from travel to Cuba, at least the stupid ones, don't grasp that Cubans are in constant contact with THE REST OF THE WORLD, and are very well informed.

A DU poster who has been to Cuba multiple times has stated that she was surprised to learn, speaking with a woman on an early visit that the woman knew the name of a Miami Herald opinion writer, the poster being from Miami herself.

One of my Kansas Congresspeople has stated publicly that he discovered a cab driver he got a ride with was aware of what legislation on Cuba was pending in Congress at the very moment they were speaking.

Many more enlightening incidents are available to anyone who simply takes the time to start doing research, and looking for more information once he/she suspects maybe he doesn't know the whole story, AFTER ALL.

[smitty]

155. If Cubans are so well informed why does the government

think it necessary to restrict Internet access?

[Judi Lynn]

159. This is something you're going to have to apply yourself to studying.

Take time to read, yourself, to start researching, like other DU'ers. At some point, you're going to have to do a lot of the work yourself if you're going to have a clue about this subject.

People can't just tell you everything you need to know. They don't have the time to make up for years of ignorance. You've got to get involved personally.

[smitty]

165. Basically you have no answer to my question. I think the

ignorance is on your part, not mine.

[Mika]

167. The only "restrictions" are against pirate IPs supplied by the US interests section &..

.. illegal internet accounts created by other persons in Miami.

To use the internet in Cuba one must sign up with one of the registered (as in: legal) Cuba-based IPs using one's own ID. Of course, these accounts are expensive due to the limited bandwidth access that Cuba has to the internet (due to the US's extra territorial sanctions).

The restrictions referred to in the OP article are against pirate/illegal internet accounts. In Cuba the access and use of the phone system for internet connection requires an extra fee above and beyond what simple phone-only users pay for phone service.


The phraseology of the article in the OP is simply and purely anti Cuba BS.

Yes Cuba has to monitor some connections, because there is along history of real acts of terrorism committed against Cuba with aiding and abetting by certain US funded "dissident" groups within Cuba who use pirate/illegal/fraudulent internet accounts.

As the US government is stepping up actions to overthrow the Cuban system of government (as it is) using mercenary "dissidents", then Cuba steps up the restrictions on the pirate i-net accounts set up by the declared enemies of Cuba (the US and certain Miami based terra groups).

[Judi Lynn]

170. You're misreading the information already given you on this board

by someone who actually knows whereof he speaks. Here's that post, again:

Mika (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-14-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #155
167. The only "restrictions" are against pirate IPs supplied by the US interests section &..
Edited on Wed Feb-14-07 07:05 PM by Mika
.. illegal internet accounts created by other persons in Miami.

To use the internet in Cuba one must sign up with one of the registered (as in: legal) Cuba-based IPs using one's own ID. Of course, these accounts are expensive due to the limited bandwidth access that Cuba has to the internet (due to the US's extra territorial sanctions).

The restrictions referred to in the OP article are against pirate/illegal internet accounts. In Cuba the access and use of the phone system for internet connection requires an extra fee above and beyond what simple phone-only users pay for phone service.


The phraseology of the article in the OP is simply and purely anti Cuba BS.

Yes Cuba has to monitor some connections, because there is along history of real acts of terrorism committed against Cuba with aiding and abetting by certain US funded "dissident" groups within Cuba who use pirate/illegal/fraudulent internet accounts.

As the US government is stepping up actions to overthrow the Cuban system of government (as it is) using mercenary "dissidents", then Cuba steps up the restrictions on the pirate i-net accounts set up by the declared enemies of Cuba (the US and certain Miami based terra groups).
(snip/)

Take time to grapple with it.

[jhasp]

93. So is the US sending adware directly to the Cuban population?

Seriously, is the US government forcing pop-up ads and changing the start pages of all of the Cubans to force their "misinformation" campaign on them? If not, how is the US using a misinformation campaign over the internet to subvert the "democratically elected" Cuban government? By the way, what is content of this misinformation? Is it things like "In democratic countries, leaders are chosen from a group of candidates every few years", "A rice cooker is not much of a luxury", "new cars have been built since 1957"?

If you believe that the Cuban government is representative of the people, then why is Raul Castro the new de facto "elected" president without an election?

[Mika]

96. Your US propaganda based post is astounding.

Cuba is a democratic country.

http://www.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/democracy.htm

This system in Cuba is based upon universal adult suffrage for all those aged 16 and over. Nobody is excluded from voting, except convicted criminals or those who have left the country. Voter turnouts have usually been in the region of 95% of those eligible .

There are direct elections to municipal, provincial and national assemblies, the latter represent Cuba's parliament.

Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. No political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates.

---

Rice pressure cookers are used around the world as a method of conserving available energy, and the environment. The government provided each and every household in Cuba with a pressure cooker in order for the people to conserve both - if they chose to.

Got a problem with that?

---

You seriously can't believe that the only cars in Cuba are old US models.

---

In Cuba's parliamentary system, the Vice President (who must hold an elected seat in the Parliament) is next in line for the office.

[ohio2007]

110. I wonder if Cubans have "acces denied" trying to open your link

adults are allowed to for Fidel as presidente.

Will the tradition continue with Raul?
well, why not ask members on this board who are posting from Cuba to sound off

<crickets>

[killbotfactory]

168. Here's a new car in Cuba

:hi:

[Mika]

92. On that note.

Cuba computerising its health system
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/30531.html

Havana, Feb 14 (Prensa Latina) Cuba has undertaken computerising and creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images.
Cuba is the second country in the world with such a product, only preceded by France.

Cuba is preparing a Computerised Health Register, Hospital Management System, Primary Health Care, Academic Affairs, Medical Genetic Projects, Neurosciences, and Educational Software.

The aim is to maintain quality health service free for the Cuban people, increase exchange among experts and boost research-development projects.

This was revealed at a trade exhibition 'Informatica 2007' currently on in Havana.

Hmmm. Imagine that. A country that puts the infrastructure to work for the people's needs first before commerce.

[Psephos]

4. I, for one, welcome our Wild Colt of Information overlords

Because they know better than I do what information I should not have access to, of course.

[paulk]

10. it's not reasonable at all

we both know there is no intent to "work on personal use".

Any government that denies it's people free access to information is not worth defending.

[manic expression]

11. Neither of us know that

Cuba is putting what it can into schools, which should be applauded.

And guarding against US misinformation is not without justification, either. One should look at the whole picture.

[spoony]

13. It's amazing

the rationalising people can manage to justify putting hoods over people's heads.

Would you also agree that, in order to protect them, children should be locked in their rooms without media access?

[manic expression]

29. It's amazing that people want to criticize

a government for putting computers in schools.

And it's equally amazing that people ignore the circumstances facing a country.

[Bacchus39]

44. no-one is criticizing Cuba for installing computers in schools

talk about misdirection. Are you saying that Cubans are so impressionable that they require the government to shield them from information???

you stated that Cubans must prioritize their resources, and yet they are concentrating on monitoring what their citizens have access to on the net? Is this a wise use of limited resources?

[manic expression]

47. They're just ignoring it

Making sure people recognize what Cuba is actually doing is important, and it's something few else seem to be interested in.

It's not about being impressionable about information, it's about being unwilling to take Uncle Sam's oncoming flood of misinformation.

They are prioritizing their resources by putting internet in schools. Blocking propaganda doesn't take any significant additional resources.

[Bacchus39]

48. and searching witth Google will obviously lead to "misinformation"

undoubtedly?

are you on Fidel's payroll?

[manic expression]

50. Which country is trying to topple us

exactly?

Good thing other governments NEVER shut down or block websites because of unacceptable content. :eyes:

[Bacchus39]

52. alternate sources of information besides State run media

is one of the wonders of the internet. You can get much of what you want from the net. Its my choice, that is the key. However, why would Cubans be afraid of propaganda, they lived under it for over 50 years. Do you know what irony is??

[manic expression]

53. There is no lack of that in Cuba

you can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana. Do you know what ignorance is?

[Bacchus39]

55. can you watch it??

CNN, not ignorance. I am watching that right now.

there is nothing to fear from too much information unless you are the Cuban government who intentionally attempts to keep their people ignorant.

[manic expression]

60. American basic cable

isn't exactly Cuba's thing. Practically every Cuban with a radio has access to CNN, why are you ignoring that?

I could give you 20 different mediums of information, and you would still try to negate it.

CUBANS DON'T HAVE SMELL-O-VISION? Oh, the oppression! :eyes:

[ngant17]

81. American basic cable

I wouldn't want CNN if they gave it to me for free!

[paulk]

17. you can certainly make a pretty good guess

Cuba hasn't exactly been a hotbed of freedom the last 30 years.

Is it just US misinformation? The internet is a worldwide phenomenon.

And even if it is - shouldn't the citizens get to choose whether they want to access the "misinformation" or not? Would you trust our government with control over what you can access on the internet?

[manic expression]

34. Only if you know about Cuba's system

It is US misinformation, among other things. Are you trying to say that the US isn't trying to topple Cuba as much as possible? They even created a SPECIAL POST to destabilize Cuba.

What is freedom? Freedom for US subversives? Freedom FROM sovereignty? How, exactly, are you using "freedom"?

The Cuban people have decided what they want to access, that is why they are taking this route. I don't trust the US government because it is a bourgeois government. Cuba's government is a government of and for the people.

[ohio2007]

40. So, YOU deserve and have the right to full internet access but the Cubans

MUST not have the same freedoms you take for granted ?

..The Cuban people have decided what they want to access, that is why they are taking this route.

The "people" have decided they want the "government" to do their thinking ....
yeah
I call that censorship not freedom.

[manic expression]

41. I never talked about what I deserve

I do know that Cubans deserve to not be bombarded with US misinformation.

Since the government is very responsive to the people, the people are, in all likelihood, not opposed to these measures, if not in support of them. This does not mean the government is doing any thinking for anyone else.

First define "freedom", then you might have a starting point. And on edit, while you're at it, try to find a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition.

[ohio2007]

49. It's not just US "misinformation" that's being censored

I define freedom as access to any and all information.

In Cuba, all information is to be controlled by the government.
If the government can't trust their own people, then the people can't trust their own government.

Am I right?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2728391&mesg_id=2729403

[manic expression]

51. Freedom

for subversives? That is unacceptable and intolerable.

You did not give a foundation for that freedom outside of society (if you didn't see my edit, then that's my fault, but please address it).

In Cuba, the people determine the route of their society, and they have determined that they want none of Uncle Sam's lies.

I'm not sure how your link contributes to the discussion.

[hack89]

58. But what else do they want none of?

is everything on the internet a threat?

[manic expression]

61. Obviously not

since they're trying to get as much access to it in schools as possible.

And can you find a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition?

[hack89]

73. Are you willing to give up freedoms you presently enjoy ..

if "society" decides to redefine freedom? Freedom of speech? Association? Religion? Choice? I have a hard time thinking of any frivolous freedoms. One freedom I particularity enjoy is the freedom to educate myself in order to protect myself from those in power that would act to limit my freedoms. Knowledge is truly power - why do you think the Bush administration has classified more government information than any administration in history? Because just like the Cuban government, they fear the results of that knowledge in the hands of an informed public.

[manic expression]

76. Freedom

doesn't exist outside of what society defines it as. I've asked for a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition many times, and I've gotten nothing.

Anyway, I am willing to allow THE PEOPLE to determine the direction of their communities. That is real freedom, losing the chains of individual greed and self-serving ambitions and working for a better world.

Furthermore, "freedom" in America is only for those who can afford it. You think people who shake up the system have "freedom"? Of course not.

[AngryAmish]

94. The people decided what was right in the Jim Crow south

Colored drinking fountains, inability to get a meal in a restaurant, etc. The majority of the people liked it like that. They voted their government in and reelected them to enforce these very same policies.

So one can see when "the people" can be wrong. There are fundamental human rights. Freedom of the press is one of them. If some folks cannot contact all the news they want their freedom is abridged, even if "the people" (that means the majority) want it that way. Minorities have rights including political minorities.

[manic expression]

101. So AngryAmish

gets to decide what is good and what is bad? AngryAmish has the final say on justice itself? Are you even listening to yourself? Equating Jim Crow laws with a country's opposition to American lies? You are taking this crap to new heights.

There are fundamental human rights? Give a foundation for those rights OUTSIDE of society's definition. There is NO BASIS for "rights" (perhaps you could provide one).

[sufrommich]

114. "There is no basis for rights"

Jesus, you're scary.

[manic expression]

118. I've been waiting

for someone to give me a basis for rights, and no one has been able to. I suspect the reason no one can is because there isn't any.

Try thinking about these concepts instead of taking them as dogma.

[slackmaster]

127. What are you trying to do, start a philosophy debate here?

Obviously people have widely varying views on the "basis" for rights.

[manic expression]

130. If people are going to evoke

these "rights", they better have something concrete to base them on. The simple fact is that no one has such a basis.

I've asked various people, and I haven't gotten a single one of these "widely varying views on the 'basis' for rights". I suspect that is because no basis exists.

[slackmaster]

132. I'm confident you will have a snappy comeback no matter what anyone says

Let's try one: Natural rights.

The defense of life, and a predisposition to seek and to exercise personal liberty are natural traits of the human species.

Or another: God-given.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[manic expression]

134. I try to offer disagreement

Whether or not it is "snappy" is another discussion entirely.

First, you failed to define "personal liberty". Second, why are they "natural traits"? You must provide evidence for such an assertion. In fact, the earliest human societies had no such concepts, which would suggest that they are not natural.

Next, you're basing it on the existence of god? Even if we accept that there is divinity, what do you have to say that s/he gave us those specific "rights", or any at all? Furthermore, if you accept this as fact, then why have these ideas been very recent developments, with societies in the past looking at property and other institutions in TOTALLY different ways?

Doesn't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

[slackmaster]

136. You sound a lot like I did after taking a year of undergraduate philosophy classes

Thank you for proving my point.

For the record, I am a natural rights advocate and an agnostic. I base my assertion of natural rights on almost 50 years of observing the behavior of humans and other species, including myself. When someone tells me I can't do something, my immediate reactions are to wonder why, and to try to find a way around the restriction.

I find the idea of having someone filter out ideas, even if that person is chosen by a completely democratic process, completely repugnant.

People do incredibly stupid, insane things on consensus all the time.

[manic expression]

137. I've never taken a philosophy course

but thanks for your concern.

If you're going to say that I "proved your point", explain why. Claiming victory when you offer no resistance is quite pathetic.

Perhaps you could enlighten us, instead of citing 50 years of people watching as evidence of anything.

You try to get around restrictions? Good for you. That proves nothing. Stay on topic.

Filtering out blatant and hostile lies is what a society should do.

I found not a single shred of support for your claims in your post. Offer something tangible.

[slackmaster]

138. I told you my philosophy is based on my own personal observation and thought

If that doesn't fit your definition of support, I suppose there isn't any point in trying to continue the conversation.

You're the one arguing for censorship, on the Internet of all places. If you can't see the irony in that, nothing I could say can save you from your blind commitment to the Cuban revolution. Maybe you SHOULD take a philosophy course.

[manic expression]

140. In other words

your philosophy is based on your personal impressions. That doesn't fit ANYONE'S definition of support, so there's no argument for you to continue in the first place.

I'm the one showing that people directing their own communities is not unjustified. You're the one showing us your thoughts and trying to pass them as actual evidence.

[slackmaster]

149. You're more interested in "proving" you are right than in basic human needs

One of which, especially in modern society, is free access to information.

Typical far left authoritarian gobbledy-gook. I outgrew that way of thinking about 30 years ago.

[manic expression]

150. I'm still waiting for a real basis

That was the point here, you showing me a basis. So far, you've failed.

[slackmaster]

154. You have failed as well

To convince anyone other than your fellow authoritarian state apologists that censorship has ANY place in a free society, or that a society that embraces it can be called free.

[manic expression]

158. Not really

because I've supported the claims I've made. You can't even pinpoint the existence of the concept you promote.

[slackmaster]

160. Show of hands please - How many minds has manic expression changed here?

:rofl:

[manic expression]

162. This is a bad excuse

for an argument.

Go ahead and have the last word, they're for people who haven't said enough already (and I doubt you'll say enough with it).

[nick303]

176. What's the basis for saying that people directing their own communities is justified?

You've failed to define that.

Great form of argument I'll have to make sure that I use it whenever I get stuck.

[manic expression]

179. The difference you neglected

is that the promoters of "rights" and "liberty" hold that those things are NATURAL AND INALIENABLE.

Did I ever say people directing their own communities is "inalienable"? No, I didn't, so I don't need to find a similar basis for such a thing.

The desire for people directing their own communities does NOT depend on an independent foundation, unlike rights, it depends on the desire for an end to exploitation and inequity.

[Amused Musings]

135. I think that you are trying to make

the term "society" so broad that it is impossible to define anything outside of it. In essence, the logical conclusion to your argument is that there is no "truth," just competing ideologies. This might be true or it might not- our limited sensory capacities prevent one from coming to a definitive answer. Because you believe in the reactionary ideology of communism, you find the ends justify the means. But in your dizzying rationalization of totalitarianism tactics, you forget that being liberal entails an inherent respect for what we consider the natural rights of individual freedom and protection from tyranny of the majority. If there is no truth, as I think you are saying, surely then no society can be allowed to control the minds of any who make up said society.


The ends never justify the means. Not now, not ever. We compromise our integrity when we do such things. Unfortunately we are still human and we are all bound to fail in this standard- but we must try. Information must be eternally free because it is necessary to have the fullest extent of input possible to make just and reasonable choices. Even if they turn out to be wrong, we cannot be nannied by an all powerful government. This goes for competing thought as well. As a liberal, the cornerstone of my beliefs are those founded in the enlightenment. You balk at the examples given earlier where "society" believed in terrible things and inflicted these horrific ideas, slavery, gender subjugation, etc. on the minority. Yet you only disagree with them because they are in the furtherence of a societal ends which you oppose. If you thought they were needed to preserve dying communist regimes, you would think they are just. Except you would label all dissidents American spies, whether they knew it or not.

I do not think that you actually think censorship is a good thing or any totalitarian tendencies built into a communist country (I could be wrong, but I hold out hope you just do not understand the implications of what you are saying). But I do think that you are too quick to defend the indefensible. I am not trying to justify the embargo, I am very much against it and think that it should be repealed, especially now that the Cold War is over. I am very disapointed in Clinton for not making such concessions. I am a proud liberal who thinks that people can make decisions on their own about what to think and oppose any "daming" of the free flow of information.

[manic expression]

144. Not exactly

because things exist outside of the definition of society. Class is something that is concrete, class actually exists; property, on the other hand, has NO basis outside of what society tells you "property" is. In the same way, "rights" are not seperate from what society says they are, which effectively makes them meaningless. Society made them, so society can unmake them.

You make many other objections, and I'll try to address them.

You say that I think there is no "truth". That is wrong. The truth is that rights do not exist. Ideologies compete, and the winner gets to direct society while the loser gets the shaft, but this does not mean there is no truth in the world.

Next, communism is not "reactionary", and that much is a fact. Calling communism "reactionary" is like calling red blue, it just doesn't make sense. Next, I argue for worker control, the abolishment of private property and other things, so call me what you will, it changes nothing. Moreover, I'm NOT a liberal, and I disagree with liberal values and liberalism. Likewise, I see no reason to believe in natural rights.

The ends may justify the means, as long as there is something to justify the ends (Trotsky). That is right, I oppose bourgeois states and support worker states, because that is what largely defines the very nature of those societies. Not all dissidents in Cuba are American spies, namely Oswaldo Paya.

Rejecting American propaganda is defensible, and further it is justifiable.

[Amused Musings]

157. Class is concrete?

You mean like it is written into our genese? Nope, class, like race, is very much a social construct. It may appear in all societies throughout history but the definitions of who fits into what and how are all very different. By your definition, which I disagree with, class falls into a societal construct. Like I said before, we have natural rights not because some divine invisible Emperor granted us them at creation, but because we live in a world made up of individuals with unique minds, we must not coerce that what is our quintessential identity.

Of course communism, as developed by Marx, is a reactionary ideology. It reacted to watershed event in history called the Industrial Revolution. Marx and the anarchists Kropotkin and Bukunin (sp?) set forward alternative ideologies in response to the prevailing notion of laissez-faire capitalism. History is not some determined event series of progress winning over the forces of conservatism. It is quite messy and the outcome is usually one that is unexpected. Communist historical theory is not science, it is an ideology created in reaction to a revolutionary shift in how western society was organized over an incredibly short time. In the words of Nietzche, one could call it a slave morality (not that there is anything wrong with a slave morality, but the circumstances surrounding the genesis of both are astoundingly familiar -at least to that most cynical of German philosphers).

If you do not believe in liberalism or liberal values, why are you a democrat? I imagine it must be lonely. I would think that liberalism is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. Also, I find your belief of ends justify the means in the pursuit of "worker" revolution (ironic that every socialist revolution occured in peasant countries without an idustrial base? Kind of disproves Marx's theory of history, doesn't it?) to be disheartening. How many have been enslaved or slaughtered for some unreachable and always beyond the horizon "Greater Good?"

[manic expression]

161. Yes

it is defined by an individual's relationship to the means of production. That relationship actually exists. I never said class is natural or independent of society, I said it is based in something concrete.

We live in a world of individuals. So what? Those individuals are not islands unto themselves. How does that statement justify "rights"?

Do you even know what "reactionary" means? Just because Marxism developed in response industrialization doesn't mean it's "reactionary". Every political philosopher responds to a crisis, that much is a given. For your information, "reactionary" implies that it is right-wing, which it is not.

Communist historical theory looks at history in a scientific way. Different developments shaped the world; societies are defined by their economic situation. These are all taken from the study history.

I'm not a democrat. Why did you assume I was?

How many have been enslaved? Through socialism, the workers have been able to shake off their chains in many instances. How many have been killed? Not sure, but revolutions are not tea parties, they are struggles, and we must recognize this.

[slackmaster]

163. This forum is for Democrats of all stripes

Why did you assume I was?

Most of us probably have given you the benefit of the doubt that you have read the posting rules and are abiding by them.

[manic expression]

164. This forum is also for 'other progressives'

I fall under this catagory. Check the posting rules if you don't believe me.

[slackmaster]

166. I consider your politics to be regressive, not progressive

But that is a matter of personal opinion.

[Amused Musings]

173. I guess I should respond in order

1. I'm guessing you believe that people fall into two categories: worker and exploiter. No wonder the information and technological revolution passed by the Second World.


2. Well we could debate endlessly about truth, nature- all those other things dealing with philosphy 101 and political theory and all those other classes freshman have to take but this is about Cuba so I will try to do it again in simpler terms: Because we are born individuals and have independent minds-even if we also end up indentifying with larger groups and people, it is natural to seek your own best interest. To deny such urges is to dismiss our humanity-which would be stupid considering that it is a characteristic that one is unable to shake off. This means coercion, although quite, quite ample in life, should be resisted or at least minimized because it infringes on our nature. This is not really a comprehensive argument for negative liberties and as a communist you already don't believe in negative liberties so I suppose this whole thing will fall on deaf ears and is not really part of the topic.

3. It would appear that the political spectrum is like a horseshoe: The ends tend to curl into themselves. Reactionary might imply right-wing but so does censorship. Maybe they both describe Cuba's political climate accurately. But hey, ends justify the means, right?

4. If marxism is a scientific theory, then its hypothesis has been proven false and should be discarded. Determinalistic historical analysis is bunk and always overlooks events and trends that do not coincide with the bias of whichever ideology your trying to prove with it

5. Maybe it was the moniker of this website. I apologize for assuming you were a Democrat (an honest and understandable mistake). Although, it is a head scratcher why someone who does not believe in libeal ideas associates with a group (I think- maybe I am over-generalizing again) that does in fact believe in liberalism. Or to use that apocryphal (and probably false) saying of Lenin: we liberals are just "useful idiots."

6. There are other ways to enslave people than with shackles. When a government strips people of all freedom as many, if not all Communist countries have done (I do not include Venezuela in this as they are still relatively free), then the people are enslaved. Furthermore, I refuse to recognize your cavalier attitude towards so many deaths.

[manic expression]

177. OK

Not precisely. There is also the lumpenproletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie. Their relationships are different as well.

We are not individuals alone, we are members of our community. Of course we are individuals, but to ignore our relationships to others is shortsighted. To pursue self-interest at the expense of the community is, by definition, greedy and self-centered. Those are bourgeois values, and they are values which exploit and deprive. Cooperation, not competition, is how humans best operate.

The political spectrum does not curve to the liberal's delight. In other words: the world does not revolve around liberalism. I say this because people have a painfully small view of the world. Communists and anarchists are progressives, we see the world in different ways but that does not make us reactionary. Censorship can take many forms, it is not a measuring stick.

What hypothesis do you speak of? That the workers will rise and overthrow capitalism? Marx never said that it must take place before Feburary 2007, no one set a time table. It takes awhile for entire systems to be overthrown, just look at feudalism and how long that lasted. Just because the revolution hasn't come yet doesn't mean it's not going to come.

Your assumption was completely reasonable and I have no problem with it. I think that presenting another (progressive) viewpoint is helpful and constructive. I hope to get people thinking about things in a different way. That is one of the main reasons why I'm here.

When you say "free", you are using a bourgeois definition. The workers' lives can never truly be improved unless cooperation and collectivity is promoted. Communists make no bones about suppressing the bourgeoisie and other reactionaries during the period of socialism (communism has not yet been implemented, by the way), many of us feel that it is necessary to take action in order to prohibit exploitation and inequality. The people are not enslaved if they agree to block capitalist lies, the people are not enslaved if they decide to collectivize industries, the people are not enslaved if they control their communities, and all of that is exactly what is happening in Cuba.

Don't give me that, you have an equally cavalier attitude to people who died trying to defeat your values. I'm not going to cry too many tears over people who were defending exploitation and oppression.

[hack89]

115. So you would accept it if American society ..

decided that there was no right to abortion? To gay rights? For non-Christians to hold elected office? Is it too hard to imagine those things happening in Bush's America if they had that power? According to you this would be perfectly acceptable as there are no such things as individual rights beyond what the "people" deign to give us. What if those "people" where right wing fundamentalist?

[manic expression]

119. Strawman argument

stay on topic. A country is not without justification in opposing foreign propaganda. Compare it to abortion all you like, you're just ignoring the issue.

[hack89]

123. No - we are arguing the fundamental source of freedom

and that there are such things as inalienable rights that no government can take away. A free country would not fear foreign propaganda. And even if it it, it does not have the right to limit the freedom of its citizens.

[manic expression]

125. That's not what you're arguing

you're arguing that blocking American lies is the equivilent of illegalizing abortions, which is ludicrous.

On "rights", you haven't given a basis for them being inalienable. Unless you can do that, "rights" have no foundation in reality. You can say that they're "inalienable" all you like, but until you show me how they actually exist, you have no argument.

Any country that has endured US aggression for half a century is well within reason to block further aggression.

[Judi Lynn]

128. Speaking of American lies, there is the time the Cuban "exiles" who run, at U.S. taxpayers' expense,

the programming, all content, and all staffing, tens of millions of dollars a year to that pork black hole in Miami, sent the lie, disguised as news to Cuba through radio news that the Mexican ambassador had stated the Mexican embassy would start accepting Cubans who wanted to move to Mexico without waiting for a background check, that all they had to do was to show up at the embassy.

You may recall that several ex-cons stole a Cuban bus and crashed it through the wall surrounding their embassy, and that the embassy, completely horrified, called the police and told them to come get these creeps.

It kicked off confusion which had Mexico's ambassador, the one quoted by the Miami exiles, pitching a fit, when Cuba said he shouldn't have made that statement, and Mexico temporarily withdrew him. After people figured out what filth had actually transpired, Mexico and Cuba restored their relationship.

This crap undoubtedly was seen as a high achievement in Miami, a feather in the cap to the vicious cretins who even fight the Cubans there who approve of dialogue with Cuba, to the point of bombing and shooting them, at one time causing Miami to be such bedlam that the FBI named it the "Terror Capital of the United States."

The rest of the time they have had to waddle to their boats and run sneaky, dirty raids on Cubans, shooting at them from the water, or getting out, heavily armed and going after them. They brag that the FBI turns its head at times like this, and unofficially sanctions them, even though it's against the laws of the U.S. for citizens to conduct warfare on other countries from the U.S.

Scums, jerks. Everyone who takes time away from reading propaganda long enough to read actual history (even though it gives them a headache) knows American policy on Cuba has been in the hands of the American right-wing and the reactionary, murderous faction of the Miami Cuban "exiles" since the 1960's.

[sufrommich]

133. What do Cuban exiles have to do with

allowing uncensored internet access to Cubans?If Cubans are allowed to decide which internet site they choose to look at,do the terrorists win?

[Judi Lynn]

145. Cuban right-wing reactionaries are creating the information which flows to Cuba

through U.S. taxpayer-funded radio and tv news. They are the people who were active in the Cuban US-supported bloody dictatorship of death-squad-loving, filthy, corrupt Fulgencio Batista, who absconded, along with his government, bearing the contents of the Cuban Treasury long before justice could hold them responsible for the murder and mayhem they had created.

Don't waste everyone's time by pretending you can't get it.

Start using your time reading and informing yourself, just the way other DU'ers must in order to get past decades of utter crap spewed by right-wing U.S. policy.

You simply MUST have a grasp of the situation in order to discuss it properly. Otherwise, it's this disjointed, confused rambling, isn't it? It's like trying to hold a conversation with a deaf person. You've GOT to find out about the subject to understand what people are saying.

[slackmaster]

156. Judi Lynn, would you favor the USA censoring US right-wing reactionaries too?

Personally I think allowing them to air their ideas provides the best opportunity to discredit them.

[Judi Lynn]

169. What's not to grasp in what Mika wrote earlier in the thread?

Did you read it and comprehend it, or did you blow it off? Here's that post:

Mika (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-14-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #155
167. The only "restrictions" are against pirate IPs supplied by the US interests section &..
Edited on Wed Feb-14-07 07:05 PM by Mika
.. illegal internet accounts created by other persons in Miami.

To use the internet in Cuba one must sign up with one of the registered (as in: legal) Cuba-based IPs using one's own ID. Of course, these accounts are expensive due to the limited bandwidth access that Cuba has to the internet (due to the US's extra territorial sanctions).

The restrictions referred to in the OP article are against pirate/illegal internet accounts. In Cuba the access and use of the phone system for internet connection requires an extra fee above and beyond what simple phone-only users pay for phone service.


The phraseology of the article in the OP is simply and purely anti Cuba BS.

Yes Cuba has to monitor some connections, because there is along history of real acts of terrorism committed against Cuba with aiding and abetting by certain US funded "dissident" groups within Cuba who use pirate/illegal/fraudulent internet accounts.

As the US government is stepping up actions to overthrow the Cuban system of government (as it is) using mercenary "dissidents", then Cuba steps up the restrictions on the pirate i-net accounts set up by the declared enemies of Cuba (the US and certain Miami based terra groups).
(snip/)

Don't attempt to misrepresent what others are saying. Either struggle in the general direction of the facts, or take a break.

[sufrommich]

171. Apparently,there is only one truth and it is yours.

If I'm wasting your time,you're welcome to put me on ignore.
There are lots of information sources out there that I don't agree with,but where I get my information from is a personal choice,as it should be for everyone.One of the ways to tell you've reached adulthood is to recognize that human beings can glean the same facts and draw different conclusions from them and should be able to do so without Government intervention.You're insistence that you're right and I'm wrong because I have not studied enough to become the fine apologist that you have become is silly.Batista has nothing to do with the repressive actions of the Cuban Government some 50 years after the fact.

[Judi Lynn]

174. No one has ever implied that. Try stretching your mind to take in the history between

cuba and BATISTA'S BACKERS since the 1930's.

By all means, avail yourself of the chance to start reading, and getting caught up on US history and policy (under Democratic and Republic Presidents) concerning Cuba all these many, many, MANY years. It will do you a world of good.

[sufrommich]

175. I know history well enough

without your help,thanks.Again,what does any action on the part of any U.S. government have to do with Cuban censorship.You do understand that Castro regularly opines to his people about U.S. aggression and anti Cuban propaganda,right?I think they get it .Now,let them make their own decisions about what is propaganda and what is truth.Or do you think so little of their intellect that Government must protect their feeble minds from what they cannot understand?

[Judi Lynn]

56. There are some good lines from a Canadian article I stumbled across tonight:

Canada's silence on Washington's Cuba policy speaks volumes, experts say
Sun Feb 11 16:10:08 CST 2007
JENNIFER DITCHBURN

~snip~
But no Canadian bureaucrat or politician to date has acknowledged or backed Washington's master plan for Cuba, or expressed its "expectations" for what should or should not occur once Castro passes away.

"That's very significant. Nobody supports it," says Carleton University's Arch Ritter, another veteran observer of Cuban politics.

"The United States continues to be all alone in its policy on Cuba. They don't seem to get lonely there. Their policies have failed for so long, nobody has backed them."

Adds Kirk: "Since the foreign policy of the Harper government has been increasingly aligned with the United States, then it makes sense to see if you can push the envelope a little bit by seeing if Canada will come onside. I think Canada is too smart to get sucked in by enticements by Washington."
(snip/...)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/canada/story/3877001p-4484845c.html

(Odd "typo" in the article, which leads to a number being 180 nations short, on a vote in the United Nations General Assembly last November. The actual total number of nations voting to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba was 183. The number of votes supporting it was 4. They are: Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.
(Of the four, Israel has had periodic commercial business with Cuba!))

[rayofreason]

65. "Bombarded by US misinformation"...Oh PULEEEZ!

The only thing that I am bombarded by is spam. When I fire up a browser, and block pop-ups, I am not bombarded by anything. I go to the sites I want to go to, like the DU. But I guess we can't have ordinary Cuban people coming and reading the DU for themselves, when and if they want to. Nope, they might be "Bombarded by US misinformation"!!!!

[manic expression]

66. Do you live in Cuba?

naturally, I was talking about the experience of an internet-user IN CUBA. Your experience, unless you live in Cuba, is COMPLETELY INVALID to the issue at hand.

"There are a lot of bombs in Iraq? That can't be true, since I never see any on my way to work!" :eyes:

[Bacchus39]

78. you can set your Home Page to DU or Yahoo or www.granma.cu

so can an internet user in Cuba. and why shouldn't Cubans be allowed to visit the US propaganda sites if they want to?

[manic expression]

79. Like I said

is Cuba's stated aim to overthrow the US government? No? Then why is the fact that I can read the granma valid? Let me help you out: IT ISN'T.

Cubans can decide that enough is enough, and that is justified.

[Bacchus39]

90. give an example of the propaganda that Cubans would be subjected to

if they had unrestricted access to the internet. Why are you unwilling to allow individuals to make their own decisions and allow the government to make decisions for them?

[manic expression]

103. First of all

before I show evidence of what would be blocked, the other side should show evidence of what Cuba would be blocking in the first place. I could find a ton of propaganda easily, the question is what the Cuban people are deciding to block and what they are not. Until then, I'm not going to give sites which might actually be permitted.

[Bacchus39]

151. I think there is plenty of evidence if you bother to google

Cuba and censorship.

By the way, are Cubans allowed to google Cuba censorship?

http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/archives/2006/10/the_censorship.php

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19335

"An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders revealed that the Cuban government uses several mechanisms to ensure that the Internet is not used in a “counter-revolutionary” fashion. Firstly, the government has more or less banned private Internet connections. To visit websites or check their e-mail, Cubans have to use public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and “Youth computing centers” where it is easier to monitor their activity. Then, the Cuban police has installed software on all computers in Internet cafes and big hotels that triggers an alert message when “subversive” key-words are noticed.

The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for its political opponents and independent journalists, for whom reaching news media abroad is an ordeal. The government also counts on self-censorship. In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner. Few people dare to defy the state censorship and take such a risk."

and too funny: http://news.com.com/Cuba,+Iran+lash+out+at+Internet+freedom/2100-1028_3-5960298.html

TUNIS, Tunisia--Cuba, Iran and African governments lashed out at the U.S. government this week, charging that the Internet permits too much free speech and that the way it is managed must be reformed immediately.

[paulk]

111. "Cuba's government is a government of and for the people."

Did you get that out of your "Slogans for Armchair Revolutionaries" manual, or did you make it up yourself?

Am I supposed to take you seriously?


When Cuba has free and fair elections, then I'll accept that it has a government that reflects the people's will. Until then it's just another repressive dictatorship, and that it's a left wing dictatorship doesn't make it any better than a right wing one in my book.

[ohio2007]

24. Cuban leaders want to control all free thought. and open exchange of ideas

Well said paulk !
They see the internet as a dangerous tool in the "wrong hands" but who are they to decide what is permissible and what is a threat to "the individual".

Show us a country that denies internet access and you will see a closed society.
There are countries that deny access and we won't appreciate how good we have it til minds that think like the Cuban thought controllers decide to take it away from us.

[Pavulon]

69. No its not

they are controlling dissent. What do you expect from wacko communists. Marx and Lenin are dead, and rotting.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

88. Are you for real?

I thought they discontinued this model in 1976!

[hack89]

6. There will never be a DU in Cuba.

is that a good thing?

[ngant17]

12. The entire nation of Cuba is an advanced DU

which is 50 years ahead of the USA in terms of social progress and equitable distribution of its wealth to its citizens.

Social parasites which are tolerated in the US, like Donald Trump, to name just one, 'coupon clippers' and idling billionaires who produce nothing of value, they have no place in the Cuban system.

[hack89]

14. So there are forums for the free exchange of ideas ..

in Cuba to include criticizing the government and elected officials? That doesn't seem to jibe with the OP. Or are you saying there is no place for a forum like DU in an advanced society like Cuba?

[ngant17]

21. Cuba's Revolution

has passed from National Liberation to the Social domain, and it is engaged to that end, socialism, as it is convinced that it will be the future of humanity.

There is plenty of criticism of government policy and elected officials in Cuba.

I'm saying that Cuba already has a gigantic form of a "DU" in place, not so much based on the internet, but it's developing the internet for that purpose, of furthering its socialist evolution in its society. Discussing between citizens in Cuba on the ways to improve its society takes place on many levels, including the internet.

[Mika]

22. The Cuba TV show "The Round Table" is DU TV. eom

[hack89]

37. Yet is such a fragile social system

that it needs to be protected from foreign influence via the internet? Are you saying that in a free exchange of ideas the Cuban people would never turn their back on the revolution? That being the case, what is the Cuban government scared of - perhaps they don't share your confidence?

[manic expression]

39. No system should be forced to withstand foreign interference

no social system should be expected to tolerate unnecessary burdens from an aggressive nation.

The Cuban people are fine with different ideas, unwanted propaganda not so much. Cuba can think for itself, they are not blinded by empty rhetoric of "freedom", when they know full well what "freedom" really gets them.

I can assure you that the Cuban government and the Cuban people are not scared of hack89's misguided criticisms.

[hack89]

54. Why is it so important to you to personalize this discusion?

And why am I so wrong for wanting the Cuban people to enjoy the same freedoms I do?

[manic expression]

57. First

you can't even sufficiently define that freedom, or cite an actual basis for the idea.

Second, Cuba is in no way unjustified in countering America's lies.

And lastly, you do not "enjoy" the propaganda of a hostile country, one which is both the most powerful country on the face of the earth and unabashedly committed to destroying your society.

[hack89]

72. But why can't they simply ignore it?

every day I am exposed to ideas on the internet that I find abhorant yet it would never occur to me that the proper solution would to ban it so I was unable to see it. I simply ignore it - it has no magical properties to make me change my fundamental beliefs against my will. Why don't the Cubans have this ability for mental and moral self discipline? Why do they need a paternalistic government to shelter them from "bad" ideas?

[manic expression]

75. Many reasons

misinformation is very powerful, it can make people believe and do unexplainable things (like support pre-emptive war against a certain country in the Middle East, for example). It is a matter of principle, a matter of sovereignty, countries do not want propaganda flooding into their schools, and that is understandable. More than anything, the people should have control over their communities, and if they wish to oppose US lies, they should do that.

You ignore it, but what is at stake? Is there a powerful country dedicated to your society's destruction? If you are running (say) an abortion clinic, and there are websites dedicated to sliming you and promoting inexcusable acts against you, would you not want to stop it? Many would, and they are justified.

[hack89]

95. I feel that the Cuban people are strong enough to resist ..

it is a pity that you feel otherwise but then the strong always have to rationalize their dominance over the weak, don't they?

[Bacchus39]

99. A condescending attitude indeed

to believe that individual Cubans are incapable of thinking and acting on their own behalf.

[manic expression]

102. They most certainly are

which is precisely why they are resisting it now.

[Bacchus39]

105. and the propaganda that they would be subjected to

if they could do a Google search on any topic would be harmful in what way??

as opposed to the incessant Castro propaganda.

[manic expression]

106. If you're good at one thing

it's ignoring my argument.

Go back and read the multitude of reasons I gave for such an action.

[Bacchus39]

117. you cannot answer how they would be exposed to misinformation

or propaganda if they were ALLOWED unrestricted net access. How does having the ability to search the internet at your leisure and choosing expose YOU to misinformation? has it harmed you in the same way exposure to say radiation would harm someone??

why do you believe it would be harmful for Cubans to be able to access the internet by their own volition?

[manic expression]

120. I have

you're just trying to pretend that I didn't.

It's not that hard to read what I've written on that very question.

[Bacchus39]

139. I would be delighted to read your posts. please list the post numbers

that answers these questions:

how they would be exposed to misinformation
or propaganda if they were ALLOWED unrestricted net access. How does having the ability to search the internet at your leisure and choosing expose YOU to misinformation? has it harmed you in the same way exposure to say radiation would harm someone??

why do you believe it would be harmful for Cubans to be able to access the internet by their own volition?

[manic expression]

141. How about

75, for starters.

[Bacchus39]

153. purely speculative, and Cubans would have to look

for such "subversive" information in the first place. it would not magically appear to them once they opened up their internet browser.

do you think so lowly of Cubans that cannot discern propaganda and are not entitled to make their own decisions individually?? they have lived under propaganda for over 50 years, they know what it is.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

91. Not only are they not scared of it...

...they'll never actually see it, since almost none of them are given permission to access even the limited internet the government makes available.

[ohio2007]

32. You forgot to mention Bill Gates, Steve Jobs et el

if it wasn't for them, the internet wouldn't be on the horizon for several thousand years.

[manic expression]

35. Who invented the internet?

it sure as hell wasn't any of them.

[Bacchus39]

43. Al Gore??

what do Cubans have to fear from the net??

[manic expression]

45. That has nothing to do with my post

and Cuba doesn't fear the internet, that's why they're putting it in schools. However, they would rather not be swimming in Uncle Sam's BS, and that is more than reasonable.

[ohio2007]

89. LOL, thats right, AL Gore said that one

but it was all about seed money getting it done in the evil "free" market system. There is no way the internet could be traced back to an origin from behind the iron curtain or that Berlin "Fire Wall" of theirs they invented.
Free enterprise brought the cost of the internet down to a user friendly price and wireless technology ( which wasn't invented in Cuba ) is another Genie coming out of a bottle.

[Flanker]

9. There is considerable editorializing

I don't think they said they blocked sites, but was tacked on. I have chatted with cubans on the island and they can access sites like Univision. Perhaps there is some extreme site I am unaware of but that would be target #1.

Cuba's problem is technology, not a single fiber optic cable links it to the rest of the world, that will change within a few years and then the government should not have an excuse.

[hack89]

16. Do you think they have access to DU?

are you aware of any Cuban posters?

[Bacchus39]

19. I would welcome their contribution

although it appears they would not receive the invitation.

Imagine if Cubans could actually speak for themselves here.

[Mika]

20. Yes they do.

I have browsed DU from Cuba.

The problem is that private internet accounts are prohibitively expensive - that's mainly because of the lack of bandwidth due to the US extra territorial sanctions on Cuba that disallow any IP from doing biz in the US that does biz in Cuba. That cuts out most all IPs.

Cuba would have to connect to the Caribbean backbone of the internet via the owners - Cisco. The US sanctions prevent that from happening.

But, go ahead with the usual knee jerk "Castro did it!".

Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that
this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that

[Bacchus39]

23. and the restrictions are in place because....??

"AP) Cuba is tightening its control over the Internet, prohibiting Internet access over the low-cost government phone service most ordinary citizens have at home under a new law announced Friday. "


"According to the new law, those Cubans authorized to use the Internet must now seek additional approval to use the service on the nation's regular phone service, which is charged in Cuban pesos. "

"
The resolution further states that the Cuban phone company will use technical means to "detect and impede access to Internet navigation service" from ordinary phone lines. "


"E-net is the largest of a handful of Internet providers in Cuba all of them heavily monitored and controlled by the government. "

[slackmaster]

27. And then there's the knee-jerk "All problems in Cuba are USA's fault"

As if they didn't have plenty of opportunities to bring in cash and goods and tourists and technology from just about every other nation on Earth.

[Flanker]

28. This is a statment devoid of reasoning or economics

Where would Mexico be if not for the US?
France without Germany?
Russia and the EU?

In the end freight costs makes everything more expensive, and it does pile up.

I repeat I think that the cuban internet firewall might be neo-con propaganda. Why would they restrict something so few have access to?

[ohio2007]

30. Without internet access for the public...they don't know

what happens in the outside world.

Well, the govt tells them what they should know and that should be all they need, right?

[ngant17]

82. Cuban literacy

Cuban literacy is one of the highest in Latin America.

The Cubans know what's going on in their world and in the the rest of the world, too. But compare their situation to adjacent Haiti, which is a function democracy according to USA standards. Do you think the average Haitian has as much access to Internet as the average Cuban?

[ohio2007]

86. Literacy is what gets the doctors out of Cuba

I bet they don't discuss those issues of freedom in the Cuban media.

[ngant17]

181. totally wrong on that point

It's the Cuban Adjustment Act which favors immigration out of Cuba, this entices Cubans to come here, because they receive special economic treatments which other immigrants are denied. An economic incentive which isn't related to the literacy rate of Cuba. You are totally off-base here.

"Freedom is the appreciation of necessity". Karl Marx

[Mika]

87. Cubans have free access to the internet in most all libraries.

Plus, as noted in prior posts, Cubans can buy IP accounts for their homes from several providers.

The problem is that it is prohibitively expensive due to the limited bandwidth because of the US sanctions on Cuba.

Realistically, it is the US that prevents internet access to most all Cubans because of this.

[Judi Lynn]

31. Set aside some time and start getting the information you need, as we all do,

on the Cuban embargo and related extra-territorial legislation, like the Helms-Burton Act, and the Torricelli. You will need to actually know what you're talking about at some point.

Cuba Report To UN On Why USA's Blockade Must End
Tuesday, 11 October 2005, 10:15 am
Press Release: Cuba Government

Report by Cuba on Resolution 59/11 of the United Nations General Assembly

“The necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”

August 15, 2005

INTRODUCTION

The economic, commercial and financial blockade impose by the United States against Cuba is the longest-lasting and cruelest of its kind know to human history and is an essential element in the United States’ hostile and aggressive policies regarding the Cuban people. Its aim, made explicit on 6 April 1960 is the destruction of the Cuban Revolution: (…) through frustration and discouragement based on dissatisfaction and economic difficulties (…) to withhold funds and supplies to Cuba in order to cut real income thereby causing starvation, desperation and the overthrow of the government (...)”

It is equally an essential component of the policy of state terrorism against Cuba which silently, systematically, cumulatively, inhumanly, ruthlessly affects the population with no regard for age, sex, race, religious belief or social position.

This policy, implemented and added to by ten US administrations also amounts to an act of genocide under the provisions of paragraph (c) of article II of the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 and therefore constitutes a violation of International Law. This Convention defines this as ‘(…) acts perpetrated with the intention to totally or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group’, and in these cases provides for ‘the intentional subjugation of the group to conditions that result in their total or partial physical destruction’.

The blockade on Cuba is an act of economic war. There is no regulation of International Law which justifies a blockade in times of peace. Since 1909, in the London Naval Conference, as a principle of International Law it was defined that ‘blockade is an act of war’, and based on this, its use is only possible between countries at war.

Although the total blockade on trade between Cuba and the United States was formally decreed by an Executive Order issued by President John F. Kennedy on 3 February 1962, measures that are part of the blockade were put in place just a few weeks after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on 1 January 1959.

On 12 February 1959, the US Government refused to grant a modest credit requested by Cuba to maintain the stability of the national currency. Later, other measures were applied such as the restriction of the supply of fuel to the Island by American transnational companies, the halting of industrial factories, the prohibition of exports to Cuba and the partial, and later total, suppression of the sugar quota.

By virtue of the blockade, among other restrictions, Cuba cannot export any product to the United States, or import any merchandise from this country: American tourists are prohibited from visiting; the dollar cannot be used in the country’s transactions with foreign countries; the country has no access to the credit, and cannot carry out transactions with regional or American multilateral financial institutions and their boats and aircrafts must not enter American territory.

The blockade has a marked extraterritorial component. In 1992, with a view to intensifying the effects of Cuba’s loss of 85% of its foreign trade after the Soviet Union and the European socialist block fell apart, the United States passed the Torricelli Act, which removed Cuba’s ability to purchase medicines and food from US subsidiaries in third countries which stood at US$718 million in 1991. The Torricelli Act placed tight restrictions on ships sailing to and from Cuba, thus making formal its serious extraterritorial provisions. A ship from a third country that docks in Cuban waters cannot enter a port in the United States until 6 months have passed and said country has obtained a new permission permit.
(snip/...)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0510/S00197.htm

The 1996 Helms-Burton Act made the effects of the blockade worse, increased the number and scope of the provisions with an extraterritorial impact, instituted persecution of and sanctions on actual and potential foreign investors in Cuba and authorised funding for hostile, subversive and aggressive acts against the Cuban people.
(snip/...)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0510/S00197.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Denial of Food and Medicine:
The Impact Of The U.S. Embargo
On The Health And Nutrition In Cuba"
-An Executive Summary-
American Association for World Health Report
Summary of Findings
March 1997

After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system. But since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs patients going without essential drugs or doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment-has sharply accelerated. This trend is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the U.S. trade embargo-one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act.

A humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens. Cuba still has an infant mortality rate half that of the city of Washington, D.C.. Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system. The crisis has been compounded by the country's generally weak economic resources and by the loss of trade with the Soviet bloc.

Recently four factors have dangerously exacerbated the human effects of this 37-year-old trade embargo. All four factors stem from little-understood provisions of the U.S. Congress' 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA):

1. 1. A Ban on Subsidiary Trade: Beginning in 1992, the Cuban Democracy Act imposed a ban on subsidiary trade with Cuba. This ban has severely constrained Cuba's ability to import medicines and medical supplies from third country sources. Moreover, recent corporate buyouts and mergers between major U.S. and European pharmaceutical companies have further reduced the number of companies permitted to do business with Cuba.
   
   2. Licensing Under the Cuban Democracy Act: The U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments are allowed in principle to license individual sales of medicines and medical supplies, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons to mitigate the embargo's impact on health care delivery. In practice, according to U.S. corporate executives, the licensing provisions are so arduous as to have had the opposite effect. As implemented, the licensing provisions actively discourage any medical commerce. The number of such licenses granted-or even applied for since 1992-is minuscule. Numerous licenses for medical equipment and medicines have been denied on the grounds that these exports "would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests."
   
   3. Shipping Since 1992:The embargo has prohibited ships from loading or unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba. This provision has strongly discouraged shippers from delivering medical equipment to Cuba. Consequently shipping costs have risen dramatically and further constricted the flow of food, medicines, medical supplies and even gasoline for ambulances. From 1993 to 1996, Cuban companies spent an additional $8.7 million on shipping medical imports from Asia, Europe and South America rather than from the neighboring United States.
   
   4. Humanitarian Aid: Charity is an inadequate alternative to free trade in medicines, medical supplies and food. Donations from U.S. non-governmental organizations and international agencies do not begin to compensate for the hardships inflicted by the embargo on the Cuban public health system. In any case, delays in licensing and other restrictions have severely discouraged charitable contributions from the U.S.

Taken together, these four factors have placed severe strains on the Cuban health system. The declining availability of food stuffs, medicines and such basic medical supplies as replacement parts for thirty-year-old X-ray machines is taking a tragic human toll. The embargo has closed so many windows that in some instances Cuban physicians have found it impossible to obtain life-saving medicines from any source, under any circumstances. Patients have died. In general, a relatively sophisticated and comprehensive public health system is being systematically stripped of essential resources. High-technology hospital wards devoted to cardiology and nephrology are particularly under siege. But so too are such basic aspects of the health system as water quality and food security. Specifically, the AAWH's team of nine medical experts identified the following health problems affected by the embargo:

1. 
   
   1. Malnutrition: The outright ban on the sale of American foodstuffs has contributed to serious nutritional deficits, particularly among pregnant women, leading to an increase in low birth-weight babies. In addition, food shortages were linked to a devastating outbreak of neuropathy numbering in the tens of thousands. By one estimate, daily caloric intake dropped 33 percent between 1989 and 1993.
   
   2. Water Quality: The embargo is severely restricting Cuba's access to water treatment chemicals and spare-parts for the island's water supply system. This has led to serious cutbacks in supplies of safe drinking water, which in turn has become a factor in the rising incidence of morbidity and mortality rates from water-borne diseases.
   
   3. Medicines & Equipment: Of the 1,297 medications available in Cuba in 1991, physicians now have access to only 889 of these same medicines - and many of these are available only intermittently. Because most major new drugs are developed by U.S. pharmaceuticals, Cuban physicians have access to less than 50 percent of the new medicines available on the world market. Due to the direct or indirect effects of the embargo, the most routine medical supplies are in short supply or entirely absent from some Cuban clinics.
   
   4. Medical Information: Though information materials have been exempt from the U.S. trade embargo since 1 988, the AAWH study concludes that in practice very little such information goes into Cuba or comes out of the island due to travel restrictions, currency regulations and shipping difficulties. Scientists and citizens of both countries suffer as a result. Paradoxically, the embargo harms some U.S. citizens by denying them access to the latest advances in Cuban medical research, including such products as Meningitis B vaccine, cheaply produced interferon and streptokinase, and an AIDS vaccine currently under-going clinical trials with human volunteers.

http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html

[Mika]

84. I guess that you didn't read the article posted in the OP.

It clearly points out that it is due to the US sanctions that Cuba has very limited and espensive access to the internet.

The US sanctions on Cuba are extra territorial in nature. Any entity that does business in/with the US cannot do business in/with Cuba.

So, one can mewl on and on that Cuba can simply buy what it wants or needs, but that just isn't true. Its not up to Cuba - it is up to the entities that do business and do not want to be impacted by the US sanctions.

[slackmaster]

112. Without the US to blame, Cuba will have to face up to its problems

We should end the embargo NOW then sit back and watch what happens.

[joshcryer]

68. "The wild colt of new technologies can and must be controlled"

That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever read.

[smitty]

143. No matter how you twist and rationalize it, it stinks of government

censorship. If censorship wrong in the United States it's equally wrong in Cuba---or anywhere else.

[roody]

80. I love Cuba. I support the Revolution.

I like the cult of Fidel. I have to admit that this is one issue I have to concede on. Cuba does need more freedom of speech and of the press. If the US would f****ng back off, the government could open up to more freedoms. When is that going to happen? The country has had to struggle just to survive.

[Mika]

85. The "cult of Fidel" only exists in the USA. Primarily in Miami & Washington.

But, its not really a "cult of Fidel".. Its a cult of anti Cuba corruption for American tax dollars.

Here's a typical example of just that..


TV Martí executive admits taking kickbacks
A former executive for a U.S. government-run
broadcasting station pleaded guilty to failing
to report more than $100,000 in kickbacks.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/16692632.htm

[roody]

147. I like the cult of Fidel lovers. I could easily be one.

I think that people who love him call him Fidel. People who hate him call him Castro.

[ItNerd4life]

109. So Cuba is doing what Bush wants to do?

Did Cuba learn this from Bush or is Bush learning this from Cuba?

Of course, if Cuba is learning from Bush, then they should open up the internet, see who is saying negative things about the government, then go after the villains.

Either way, it's wrong.