Controlling the flow of information is a good thing

[Truthiness Inspector]

if you are Cuban and live in Cuba. If you are American, no probs, speak your mind, as we all do very freely here and take for granted. Some of us fight to the death for it.

It's ok if Uncle Fidel does it, but it's not ok to imagine the BFEE doing it. Is this the twilight zone?

We may all argue here on various topics, but the day we couldn't do that would be so damn sad - the end...and we couldn't even write about it. Seriously, what the hell is going on?

[Wonk]

1. You're responding to a post where someone said

"It's ok if Uncle Fidel does it" ?

[liberaltrucker]

2. "Uncle Fidel" beats the hell out of Batista

Think about it. Batista was a fascist dictator who quashed the "common folk".
Fidel came in and quashed the corporations. Result: the common folk, while still
in poverty, have health care, education. The ONLY reason the Cuban people remain
in poverty is the inhumane US sanctions. Socialism works as long as there isn't
a capitalist behemouth 90 miles from your shores hell-bent on your destruction.

[RB TexLa]

4. If socialism works why would it not work without trade with a capitalist

neighbor?

Hopefully the Cuban people can reclaim their island and live in freedom instead of simply having a "dictator that is better than the last dictator," as so many have claimed Castro to be.

[liberaltrucker]

7. Any economic system depends on trade

We'd be screwed without nickle from South Africa, or platinum from various sources.
The US has no natural deposits of these essential materials, and several others. What if
we were embargoed by those suppliers? No platinum for your catalytic converter on your
car, etc. BTW, we trade with China and Vietnam. WTF is the difference?

[manic expression]

9. This really isn't that hard to understand

every country needs to trade if it wants to thrive economically. Being socialist doesn't negate the fact that trade is a central part of any economy. EVEN WITH these huge economic burdens, however, Cuba provides excellent education, medical care, very respectable standards of living including universal housing and more. If you put those embargoes on a similar country with a capitalist system, people would be dying in the streets. In Cuba, however, people do have very decent standards of living and their necessities are met. So, in reality, it does work IN SPITE of absolutely tremendous difficulties.

By the way, just take a quick look at Cuba's achievements in everything from literacy rates to infant mortality rates to the amount of women holding jobs and more. It's quite impressive.

The Cuban people did reclaim their land, they kicked out the oligarchy and the corporations who were sucking the country dry. They made sure everyone had what they needed and deserved, they made sure there was parity, equity and justice.

[manic expression]

3. What are you talking about?

Show how "the flow of information is controlled in Cuba". The FACT is that anyone with a simple radio can listen to American news in Havana. The FACT is that people are allowed to demonstrate and organize. The FACT is that Cubans are not afraid to speak their minds (I've been told this by many people who have been to Cuba).

Read up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

You really have no idea about the situation in Cuba. If you did, you'd know that what you just said is decidedly misled, incorrect and wrong.

[Truthiness Inspector]

5. Thanks for the link

it actually reinforced my point.

"Cuban authorities did not intervene but had earlier expelled several European politicians who planned to attend."

On edit:

"The delegates have called for the release of all political prisoners in Cuba.

On Saturday, they discussed projects dealing with subjects such as freedom of expression."

[manic expression]

6. No, it didn't

because you simply have no grasp of the situation.

"Cuban authorities did not intervene but had earlier expelled several European politicians who planned to attend."

And that hampered the meeting? No, it didn't. Show how it was with intent to restrict the meetings and then you MIGHT have an argument, because right now, you don't.

"The delegates have called for the release of all political prisoners in Cuba.

On Saturday, they discussed projects dealing with subjects such as freedom of expression."

Once again you haven't the slightest clue. Those "political prisoners" (as the "dissidents" call them) were arrested and convicted for recieving funds and support from groups based in the US, as well as the US government. What's the problem with that? Recieving funds for political use without notifying anyone is illegal in the US (and basically any country). Further, there are established ties between the groups, and the aim of those groups is to topple the Cuban government, making those ties subversive.

Don't believe me? I found this quite quickly:

"Unlike some Cuban dissidents, Payá does not accept aid from US government sources, and opposes the US embargo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswaldo_Pay%C3%A1

Olswaldo Paya is a prominent dissident who has criticized those groups (who were arrested and jailed) for their connections, since it discredits the dissident movement. In case you're wondering, he's spent a total of one night in prison. Nice try.

Oh, and the meeting itself shows that freedom of expression is not significantly restricted in Cuba.

To reiterate, you really are clueless.

[killbotfactory]

8. It's not good when anyone does it

The term "banana republic" actually originated in reference to United Fruit's domination of corrupt governments in Guatemala and other Central American countries. The company brutally exploited virtual slave labor in order to produce cheap bananas for the lucrative U.S. market. When a mildly reformist Guatemala government attempted to reign in the company's power, Bernays whipped up media and political sentiment against it in the commie-crazed 1950s.

"Articles began appearing in the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the Atlantic Monthly, Time, Newsweek, the New Leader, and other publications all discussing the growing influence of Guatemala's Communists," Tye writes. "The fact that liberal journals like the Nation were also coming around was especially satisfying to Bernays, who believed that winning the liberals over was essential. . . . At the same time, plans were under way to mail to American Legion posts and auxiliaries 300,000 copies of a brochure entitled 'Communism in Guatemala--22 Facts.'"

His efforts led directly to a brutal military coup. Tye writes that Bernays "remained a key source of information for the press, especially the liberal press, right through the takeover. In fact, as the invasion was commencing on June 18, his personal papers indicate he was giving the 'first news anyone received on the situation' to the Associate Press, United Press, the International News Service, and the New York Times, with contacts intensifying over the next several days."

The result, tragically, has meant decades of tyranny under a Guatemalan government whose brutality rivaled the Nazis as it condemned hundreds of thousands of people (mostly members of the country's impoverished Maya Indian majority) to dislocation, torture and death.

Guess who lived through this US sponsored military coup? Che Guevera, before he left for Mexico and hooked up with Fidel. I'm guessing they learned the "lesson" the US taught about the "free press" with this incident.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html