Obama Lands In Cuba As First US President To Visit In Nearly A Century (theguardian.com) 242
An anonymous reader writes: Barack Obama descended on Cuba with a pomp unmatched by the Pope on Sunday, becoming the first American president to visit Cuba in nearly a century, and the first since a revolution led by Fidel Castro toppled a U.S.-backed strongman in 1959. As he arrived, Obama used a Cuban phrase meaning "what's up?" when he tweeted: "Que bola Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people." "This is a historic visit," Obama said as he greeted U.S. Embassy staff and their families at a Havana hotel. "It's an historic opportunity to engage with the Cuban people."
One of the many results of the new diplomatic relations between the two countries is the ability for Cuban residents to become more connected to the internet. Reuters is reporting that Alphabet Inc's Google is poised to expand internet access in Cuba. "One of the things that we'll be announcing here is that Google has a deal to start setting up more Wi-Fi and broadband access on the island," Obama said in an ABC News interview that aired on Monday. The U.S. Treasury Department has even authorized San Francisco's Airbnb service to expand its home rental listings in Cuba to non-U.S. travelers.
This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:3)
Or a strong contender, at the very least [twitter.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama portrayed under the looming eye of a mass murderer............ fitting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before you congratulate yourself for cleverness, you might want to look at this:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/... [asset-cache.net]
Re:This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet due to Reagan, you don't exactly see all that many Lenin statues in the world anymore.
Sadly I don't see hipsters & their Che t-shirts going away anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "Gorbachev".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:2)
Dukakis brought down Communism
Apparently his wife would down Aqua Velva...
Re: (Score:3)
Like ISIS? I mean ISIL? I mean Daesh?
Re:This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:5, Funny)
I think he's blaming Reagan for the Barbary pirates.
Re: This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:2)
Re: This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:2)
"Cleverness"? What the hell are you taking about?
In any case I'm clever enough to understand Reagan has been dead for over a decade now, so unless he's a zombie now he is out of this competition...
Re: This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:2)
Re: This is quite possibly the photo of the year (Score:2)
About what? Sheeze, i was not making a political statement. It is an amazing photograph, however you feel about the subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we care about this photo of President Obama:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433048/barack-obama-che-guevara-american-people [nationalreview.com]
Wifi (Score:3)
Because when you need basic things like food and shelter, nothing satisfies like wifi.
Re:Wifi (Score:5, Informative)
How much do you know about Cuba? Have you been there?
I've been there several times, and trust me, the levels of abject poverty in Cuba is a lot higher than you seem to think. You don't need to go very far to find people living in cinder block homes with dirt floors and a couple of chickens scratching in the yard. And that's a couple of notches above poor by Cuban standards.
The official rations people get? A bit of beans and rice per person, and people who are trained as engineers and doctors are working as bartenders because it pays a lot more.
Yes, they have education and health care, but much beyond that and there's probably a lot of people who are literally starving.
That cuts two ways. Cuba isn't a land of plenty, they've come a long way, but there's still a tremendous amount of poverty, and there are many many things they simply cannot get ... like basic toiletries and the like.
Cuba is a very poor country, with pockets where some people can make a lot of extra money working in the tourist trade.
But there's also people who are pan-handling, and waiting for the side of the road to catch a ride on an overcrowded bus which wouldn't even be legal to operate in a first world country.
The difference between the resorts and the rural parts of Cuba are massive. And increasingly in the larger cities there are huge signs of outright poverty.
It's very complex indeed. But if you think people aren't actually at risk of starving, you really know a lot less than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is how does Cuba compare to other similar countries. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? Does the average Cuban have to worry about death squads like much of Latin America? Do Cubans worry about getting beheaded for expressing themselves like many Mexicans do? How many children are forced to go bare footed due to not being able to afford shoes? How's the crime rate?
Is the average Cuban better off then the average Cuban in 1958?
Re:Wifi (Score:4, Interesting)
Who collects the data and compiles the statistics on things like literacy rate and access to health care in Cuba?
Re: Wifi (Score:2)
They are still receiving food aid (small island, large population) but nobody would starve without it
That's neat how you can form words with your asshole...
Cruz isn't a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is what Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-cuba-visit-ted-cruz-213749 [politico.com]
If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.
Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.
I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
The US does business with countries like China and Saudi Arabia, so why would Cuba be left out in the cold? Besides, the national interest is best served by not having China replacing Russia as a major force in Cuba, which is exactly what will happen if relations and trade with Cuba are not normalized.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
The US does business with countries like China and Saudi Arabia, so why would Cuba be left out in the cold?
I'm not a fan of dictatorships but I do understand the realities of the world. The USA can't just snap its fingers and reform China or Saudi Arabia, or even Cuba.
But what I'm talking about is using the historic, one-time-only opportunity of getting something in exchange for lifting the embargo. We don't have any similar embargo on China and Saudi Arabia, so they are not very relevant to my question: why did the Obama administration simply unilaterally drop the embargo without getting anything in return?
the national interest is best served by not having China replacing Russia as a major force in Cuba, which is exactly what will happen if relations and trade with Cuba are not normalized.
So, it's not worth making even the smallest effort to help out the prisoners of conscience? The one-sided deal where the government of Cuba gets what it wants, and the USA demands nothing, is the best possible deal?
Maybe it is. If so, I'd like for someone to make that case.
I do agree that China having Cuba in its pocket is undesirable. And I realize that really major demands (break the dictatorship and hold free elections, etc.) would never be met. But again, the appearance here is that the Obama administration granted a huge boon to the government of Cuba, no strings attached, and I don't understand why that's a good deal (or even the best possible deal).
Re: (Score:2)
I wish to make a correction: the Obama administration has not yet unilaterally dropped the embargo; the article contains quotes saying they want to do it, but it hasn't happened yet.
From the article:
Re: (Score:3)
I wish to make a correction: the Obama administration has not yet unilaterally dropped the embargo
Even your correction needs a correction. The word "yet" there is just silly. This has nothing to do with Obama. Only Congress can remove the embargo. Considering our current Congress makes the term "act of Congress" an oxymoron, and has primarily spent the last 6 years cosplaying Khan from Star Trek II whenever Obama says he'd like something, I don't think anyone has to worry themselves much that they might soon do so.
Re: (Score:2)
But what I'm talking about is using the historic, one-time-only opportunity of getting something in exchange for lifting the embargo.
They survived 50+ years with the embargo in place, what makes you think they'd be willing to trade something to get it lifted?
Re: (Score:2)
The leaders survived like kings. Their subjects, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
And it would be the leaders who would have to agree to a bargain so.....
Re: (Score:2)
That's true of most of Central and South America as well as 3rd world countries every where. Is the average Haitian better off then the average Cuban? What about Dubai, where the workers are dieing like flies? Saudi Arabia, where woman aren't even allowed to drive, little well have any other civil rights, and the imported labour is also treated like shit.
There's a lot of shithole countries, many where the poor are treated a lot worse then Cuba. This includes pre-Castro Cuba, which I understand had death squ
Re: (Score:2)
But what I'm talking about is using the historic, one-time-only opportunity of getting something in exchange for lifting the embargo. We don't have any similar embargo on China and Saudi Arabia, so they are not very relevant to my question: why did the Obama administration simply unilaterally drop the embargo without getting anything in return?
That's basically what Donald Trump is saying. That he's the negotiator, and he can get stuff in return for stuff. He even wrote a book about negotiating.
So, it's not worth making even the smallest effort to help out the prisoners of conscience? The one-sided deal where the government of Cuba gets what it wants, and the USA demands nothing, is the best possible deal?
Obama has the idea that the best way to fix Cuba is by making them successful, since decades of embargo have done nothing. That is the strategy he is following. Yeah, he's not negotiating the best deal out of it, but you know, next time elect the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal. Maybe that will go better for you.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't make any concessions for decades; why would they suddenly do so now?
The only thing that the embargo accomplishes is the negative effect on Cuban economy, which affects the general populace, not the rulers.
It was an absurd measure to begin with, and by now it's lost all semblance of rationality.
Re: (Score:2)
So how about inspection of the US interrogation centers? No? I thin you should be placed under embargo..
Don't be silly, there are no good guys in politics.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cruz isn't a fan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"That Gantt fellow [wikipedia.org] seems all right and we all know Jesse's a bastard... but I could never tell my pa that I voted for a nigger."
One of the things that made me quite happy to leave North Carolina.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the heck modded this Flamebait? Someone who's never been to China or any of the former Warsaw Pact countries, I'm guessing...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And you don't need to go anywhere for that. Just take a look at this video - the queue to the first McDonald's open in Moscow, back in 1990 (so still USSR):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what Senator Ted Cruz wrote about this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-cuba-visit-ted-cruz-213749 [politico.com]
If you are a fan of President Obama, could you please explain to me why you think Senator Cruz is wrong about this? Because at the moment I agree with Senator Cruz. President Obama's administration has dropped the embargo and helped out the government of Cuba, and I'm not aware of a single demand that Cuba has granted in return. Set free political prisoners? Allow Amnesty International to visit the prisons? Maybe beat the political prisoners a little bit less? No, no, and no.
Not only did President Obama not make any demands of Cuba, but now Cuba is making demands of President Obama. Pay reparations, return Guantanamo Bay.
I do hope that President Obama will at least use his "bully pulpit" to say something about human rights in Cuba. Words are what he is best at. I would have preferred a binding agreement, but he already didn't do that.
Maybe because the embargo probably really isn't doing any good and there's no reason to continue it? Nobody is going to try and host nuclear weapons there ever again, I don't think. And we're not going to win any friends by trying to destroy the economy of the country. I'm not saying that we should concede to any demands about Gitmo (though I do not agree with the prison camp there), but we could certainly be better neighbors to Cuba and many other Latin American countries.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the US does business with White ISIS (Saudi Arabia), your point is practically moot.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
the countries we do billions of dollars of business with a year do far, far worse than Cuba and no one gives a shit. why make Cuba special, I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida is a swing state.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Cuba was treated like a colony and then made itself independent.
Same reason as the irrational hate towards Iran.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of Cubans had their property seized and fled to Florida. They want it back, or compensation. Hence the law allowing them to sue any foreign company doing business in the US that also does business in Cuba.
Now most are dead, so the government can blow off their political interests.
Re: (Score:2)
My ancestors had their land seized during a revolution as well. They stayed loyal to King George during the American Revolution. They owned about a quarter of what is present day Philadelphia. Can we get that back too?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of my ancestors had their land seized, too! Damned cowboys.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who were kind enough to provide them refuge in Florida now want to go to Cuba on vacation and drink Cuban rum and watch babes on the beach. They should not be asses.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
What has the fifty or sixty years of the embargo achieved on that front? The status quo has achieved nothing so far.
Let Cuba have a hit of sweet, sweet capitalism. Once they get hooked, we can refuse to offer more unless they start doing what we want.
Re:Cruz isn't a fan (Score:4, Insightful)
Let Cuba have a hit of sweet, sweet capitalism. Once they get hooked, we can refuse to offer more unless they start doing what we want.
This sounds like a great plan. But why do you think it is going to happen? Is the government of Cuba about to allow free enterprise by its citizens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba [wikipedia.org]
Actually, that article goes on to say that after the Soviet Union collapsed, the government of Cuba began to allow a tiny amount of free enterprise. But:
I agree, if the people of Cuba get a taste of free enterprise they will want more. But I fear the government of Cuba knows this and will not cooperate with the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a great plan. But why do you think it is going to happen? Is the government of Cuba about to allow free enterprise by its citizens?
In practice, we've seen that as countries go richer, they start to demand more and more political power, and then the people throw off the dictatorship. A pattern followed in S Korea, and Taiwan, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
The last 40 years in the US just add weight to the argument by providing an example of the converse.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the facts on the ground. Free enterprise has been growing considerably in Cuba the last few years, though largely from the bottom up with self-employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same Ted Cruz who boasted about "winning states from Maine to Alaska [encyclopediadramatica.se]"? Just asking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice theory, except that the US has never *not* recognised Burma that I'm aware of.
First since 1959? Or first in nearly a century? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is the first sitting US President to visit Cuba since 1928 (Calvin Coolidge) [theatlantic.com]. That's 88 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The last U.S. president to visit was Coolidge in 1928. They mention 1959 because that's when the U.S. effectively lost its influence there.
I'm so jaded (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find your views interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
A or an? (Score:2)
I'm happy I'm not the only one who has no idea which one is correct.
It took way too long to end the CE hypocrisy. (Score:5, Insightful)
It took way too long for this to happen. Back when we gave China MFN status, what, early 90s? I was already complaining about the hypocrisy. The rationale was that by engaging with China we would eventually transfer our ideas as well as our goods. The theory behind this was called "Constructive Engagement".
But if CE was really the proper way to deal with these regimes, what about Cuba? It never really worked anyway. CE was just justification--it was all about the money, and earlier it was about playing China against the USSR. It was hypocritical on its face, right from the start.
I've literally been complaining about this since before some of you were born. Sheesh! Look, I get it. Castro stole your stuff, and you're mad; but most of the people who directly lost are dead. Aside from that, conquest happens. It's how America was built. At some point you have to write that off.
Don't get me wrong. Communism sucks. It's an evil little anachronism that exists down there; but our way of dealing with it didn't work. Time to try something different... finally!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hypocritical at all to try different methods if you aren't sure which will work best. The real problem is that in order to
directly (Score:2)
"looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people."
He can't be that stupid. Can he?
He's going to hear from a carefully selected Potemkin village of people who fear for their lives and freedom if they say anything less than glowing things about life in Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
How does any sane person not see that?
Presidents generally have leeway in how their administration implements the law. Just because you don't like the actions that Obama has taken on immigration doesn't mean that he committed treason.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are required to at least implement the law. They take an oath that it be faithfully executed.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are required to at least implement the law. They take an oath that it be faithfully executed.
What makes you think that Obama haven't faithfully executed his oath?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is one of many reasons why Obama is a liar and a failure.
Obama on signing statements [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In his defense, he can accurately say he has not issued that many 'executive orders'... by issuing 'executive memoranda' instead: http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
Re:Obama is a traitor (Score:5, Informative)
Because even if he's breaking laws, that's not treason...
Treason has a rather specific definition, and not merely "I don't like that guy..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obama is a traitor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Cuba's got at least ninety miles of water on all sides...)
A statement that is both factually true and utterly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
A pretty fucking considerably different situation, and I tend to be on Snowden's side.
Re: (Score:2)
The last president that was the target of impeachment was a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, whose...
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please look up the definition of treason. Even if what you said were true (it's not), that's not treason.
Re: Obama is a traitor (Score:2)
Re:While we're all bemoaning wretched Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to say what Saudis do, or the Chinese? I don't understand why people get fixated on the problems with Cuba when other nations that do far, far worse are our best pals and we do billions of dollars of business with those dirtbags.
Re:While we're all bemoaning wretched Guantanamo (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Cuba is 60 miles from the United States.
Re:While we're all bemoaning wretched Guantanamo (Score:4, Insightful)
and Mexico is zero miles and have horrific prison conditions and has government complicit in religious discrimination against non-catholic groups, and we do a third of a trillion dollars in trade with them. Do you even have a point?
Re: Don't Let Him Back! (Score:5, Interesting)
The mark of a true leftist, is that they always view themselves as the political center. There's always room to move farther left, and every who disagrees is to the right.
Re: Don't Let Him Back! (Score:5, Insightful)
The mark of a true leftist, is that they always view themselves as the political center.
Does the expression "Fair and Balanced" strike a familiar note?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The global balance is totally recognised. Universal health care is centrists, anything more than that is left, ie universal dental care and anything less than that is right. Barack Obama based upon activity is far right, based upon the puppet prompter and his lying mouth he is centre right and based upon election speeches he is centre left, no different to Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. There is no way in hell any government can pretend to call itself centre left without universal health care, just a str
Re: (Score:2)
The mark of a true leftist, is that they always view themselves as the political center. There's always room to move farther left, and every who disagrees is to the right.
From a global perspective, Obama is unmistakably centrist or center-right.
Though BernieSanders has described himself as a democratic socialist, Noam Chomsky has called him "basically a New Dealer." Which is about as far left as you can go in the states, and still win an election.
Bernie Sanders [wikipedia.org]
Re: Don't Let Him Back! (Score:2)
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
His point is that you "definitions" are are straight out of Humpty-Dumpty.
Re: (Score:2)
The mark of a true leftist, is that they always view themselves as the political center. There's always room to move farther left, and every who disagrees is to the right.
So, you're saying that people like Ted Cruze is a Ture Leftist? As well as Donald Trump, the 13th Apostle and patron saint of all who suffer chronic constipation? All politicians will say that their views are moderate and in the center, it sort of goes with the territory.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Politics has more than one defining axis. The left/right dichotomy is very much a false one.
Obama is quite far "left" on some social issues (i.e., homosexuality and abortion). But, I wouldn't classify him as left or right on some other important issues, such as:
- State Surveillance - the Nazis are often held up as an example of an out-of-control "right", while Stalin's Communists are an example of an out-of-control "left". And yet, neither of them had surveillance systems as extensive as that established by
Re: Don't Let Him Back! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can attempt to muddy the water, but the US scale of left/right is mostly focused on how much regulation is applied to capitalism, with some ancillary points as they apply to taxation and social services.
If that's how you want to define it, then sure you can have a coherent discussion on that basis. Your definition is far from universal, though.
If what you really mean is, "There has been a strong shift [towards deregulation of business] in America for the past 40 years[, which is a bad thing]" - then why not just say that? You'd probably provoke more thoughtful responses, and less tribalistic name-calling that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My dad was a Republican starting from the mid-50s, and voted for Reagan the first time. By the time Reagan was up for re-election, Dad had already seen enough of what was to come that he switched parties, and remains a Democrat to this day.
Re: Don't Let Him Back! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hear what you're saying, but I don't see the US having much of a moral platform on this, as we have the largest per capita prison population in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the huge prison population is disenfranchised, I guess that'll have to do for "political prisoners" until some come along.
Re: (Score:2)
The largest per capita prison population doesn't mean anything alone. USA is also having the largest per capita illegal immigrants population.
Not been to Germany or Sweden recently, I take it?
There is a lot of good and legitimate reasons to put someone in prison. The prisons in USA are not full of political prisoneers.
Just lots and lots of non-violent drug offenders. But that's not a political issue at all, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? And make Elian row.