As for the whole gang of quasi-commies, I can't speak about them all - but having once lived in LA I can explain Waters; she's just plain and simple stupid. I mean, really - she's dumb as a box of rocks. She was placed in her position by the power brokers in her district because she does precisely what she's told - apparantly, she was told that she had to go see Castro, and off she went. She can't be trusted with a burnt out match, but she's a member of Congress...and a supposed leader of the Democratic Party and the Congressional Black caucus.

Anyone who doesn't believe that she's as monumentally stupid (and I'm talking IQ of 60 kinda stupid) only has to read any speach she's ever given.

Not to mention that she's quite possibly the most nasty member of Congress. "Shrew" is nowhere near powerful enough a term: "Fury" or "Banshee" would be much closer.

I read the article "Castro's Cockroaches" and I have questions. How is "pro-Castro" defined? The article refers to pro-Castro support on the part of various legislators, but does not explicitly state what form that support took.

Furthermore, I looked at the sites for the Democratic Socialists of America and at the personal sites of several of the above-referenced Congresspersons, and could find no listing of their membership. The No-Castro site cited no sources. What were they?

There are Congresspersons who believe that lifting the embargo against Cuba would have the long-term effect of improving relations between our countries that could eventually lead to reform or even revolution in Cuba. Does this make them pro-Castro, or just misguided in the eyes of people who believe lifting the embargo would only strengthen Cuba (even though we know that trade sanctions against Iraq strengthened Saddam Hussein and further impoverished his people)?

It sounds like we're all being asked to take a "You're either with us or with Castro" stance here, which leaves little room for debate -- which is certainly something any liberal thinker would take umbrage at.

I feel tired of qualifying myself, but I think Communism is despicable. It's a horrible system of government and nearly ensures that atrocities are visited upon entire populations. How to end Communism, however, is another story altogether. the U.S.S.R. crumbled under the weight of its own failed government, U.S. nudging or no. But is Cuba the U.S.S.R.? If we can agree that Castro has to go, can there be debate in regards to how he goes? Or do we just wait for the bastard to die and then make a bold move?

Just for fun, thought I'd bring in a few quotes from Ms. Waters:

When will this travesty of injustice stop? - May 10th, 2000, at a Food First rally

Rep. Maxine Waters was addressing nearly 4,000 people in Moscone Center's huge Esplanade Ballroom, recalling how, when she was in the state Assembly, then-Speaker Brown asked her to do something she thought was against legislative rules.

" 'Don't worry about what the rules say,' " she said Brown told her. " 'You just make up the rules.' "

So our challenge and our chore is to correct it, to get it right, to make sure that we take the problems out of the system and take out all opportunities for intrigue that may exist in many corners across this country that are denying people their right to vote. - Regarding the 2000 FL vote

“You would think the U.S. media are employed by Rumsfeld,” she concluded. “We need truth from these ‘embedded’ journalists who say that when a missile hits Iraqi civilians the Iraqis did it to themselves. U.S. polls claim that 73 percent of Americans are in favor of this war. I believe that is a lie” - on the liberation of Iraq

It is a complicated game of trying to get something out of them. I don't think it works to just be mad at them -- Maxine Waters out ranting and kicking down the doors. It would be so easy to dismiss you and marginalize you. - a flabbergasting answer in a Robert Scheer LA Times interview of Waters; her whole career has been about ranting and kicking

We have to fight every day that we get up for every little thing that we get. And so I keep struggling. Whether it is getting a Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center on the corner of 109th -- it took me years to get, but it's a beautiful brand-new facility. That's an accomplishment. - Same interview. Geesh!

He needs to stop pushing policies that send our tax dollars to Columbia supporting these right wing dictator-types! And move out of the way and allow us to develop some good drug policies that's going to stop incarcerating the victims of this so-called drug war. I want you to know that you are seated in this building right on the edge of the community that the CIA allowed to be over-run with drugs.- speech, 8/14/2000

John,

Well, lets just say that Democratic Socialists of America makes a bit of a big deal about them - or, at least, they did last month when I checked; the blogosphere spotlight has been of late turned on them, and they might be modifying things. You know, changing names to protect the guilty.

Lets just say that no decent person goes to one of Castro's ribbon-cutting events...the only reason a decent person goes to Cuba is to either attempt to overthrow the government or to provide direct, material succor to the long-suffering Cuban people.

I'm amused that Ron Paul voted against the resolution; I thought libertarian-minded Republicans were supposed to hate Castro. But I digress . . .

The "Cuba's Cockroaches" is a bit of exile fury which I don't feel accomplishes much. We know that Charlie Rangel and most of the Congressional Black Caucus is in bed with Castro, just as they were in bed with Sani Abacha and Charles Taylor and Muammar Gadhaffi and so on. But an extremely polarized discussion won't help here. Like John says above, we do need to have a real debate about the embargo.

I'm opposed to general (not arms) embargoes because dictatorial regimes can control where the pain falls. Thus, Castro remains fat and happy while his people scrape on by. And Castro gets to blame the embargo (rather than his policies) as the source of Cuba's troubles. I'm not advocating making Cuba an MFN anytime soon, but I do think we should lift the embargo while continuing to expose and condemn Castro's crimes.

Rosemary,

I think it is slightly intellectually dishonest to link the DSA with "Pro-Castro" congressmen and women that you mentioned. I'm willing to concede that their lack of criticism of the Castro government is more than unsettling, but to say that the DSA supports Castro is simply not accurate. The DSA (www.dsausa.org) is an organization committed to democracy, open political dialogue, and "...share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships."

Not all socialist support Castro, just as all conservatives didn't support Pinoche or any of the other (non-communist) dictators.

Tim the Soldier

I think there is a serious need to debate the embargo too. I am also completely worthless in such debates, because I can never decide where I stand.

I remember when we gave MFN trade status to China. Some were convinced this would help make China more free, by giving them a taste of free enterprise and what it could achieve, thus helping them end their belief in the failed dogma of Marxism.

Others believed it would just help transition China from a Communist to a Fascist regime--which is, arguably, exactly what they are now, and there really isn't much difference, is there? They also said it would legitimize the biggest slave-labor regime on the planet, which it appears to have done. Then again, it would also give more Chinese freedom, which it also appears to have done.

Every time this comes up I want to bury my head in my hands because I don't know what the right answer is.

I do know that the embargo is not likely to be lifted until enough Cubans in Florida decide they think it should be lifted. Florida is a crucial state in Presidential elections--not just as 2000 showed, but as it has been for a long time. Most Presidential candidates, of either party, would prefer to keep up the embargo just so they don't imperil their support among Cuban voters. Ditto Florida's Senators.

Also, the members of Congress who are actually of Cuban descent generally favor the embargo (ironically, none of Castro's supporters in Congress are Cuban). So, who's going to make "End the Embargo on Cuba" his primary political objective?

Answer: no one, probably.

and yes, Maxine Waters is clinically stupid.

Tim the Soldier

But Dean, China is so far far away, and Cuba is so close and currently so unable to produce low-cost/high-profit athletic apparel for the western world. Out of sight, out of mind seems to be the way many politicians try to sell it to us today. Plus, China didn't have a Bay of Sweet and Sour Pork fiasco, and they did build one hell of a railroad for us. Still MFN for the PRC leaves alot of people SOL...IMHO.

TTS

We need to ask ourselves what good will lifting the embargo do. To open the doors to trade in Cuba? Great. But who will benefit from that? The common Cubans? How will that benefit them if they have no money? If lifting the embargo will allow travel to Cuba, then who benefits? The Cuban people or the Castro regime?

The embargo has never prhibited the send of food and medicine and other humanitarian aid to Cuba, so then, lifting the embargo serves what purpose?
Will that allow US companies to go and sell their products in Cuba? Who is gonna buy them? Will it allow Americans to travel to Cuba? What good is that to the Cubans as long as they arent allowed to be equals to tourists in their own country?

The Florida Cuban Exile community is a bit divided on the subject.

Let's not kid ourselve here folks, one thing and one thing only will benefit the Cuban people. The death of the dictator. He and his regime are SOLELY responsible for the deterioration of the country, it's people and the culture. Short of Castro's death, the Cuban people will still be repressed. Wanna cure Cuba? Then treat the disease and not the symptoms.

Tim:

I didn't link them I was directly quoting the article I cited.

Furthermore the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are nothing more than a group of socialists perverting the word democratic. As a Democrat you should be a little disturbed that so many Democrats in Congress are listed as members. As much as I would be if I discovered that Bush was a card carrying member of the communist party. The fact that Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee are members should speak volumes for what they stand for and it should seriously concern you.

John:

You asked me to find pro-Castro public officials.
Define it yourself. You can throw away the entire list if you wish but do not discount the FACT that I found at least two buddies of Castro in Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel. There is also Jesse Jackson but since he isn't an elected official I didn't include him.

I and I'm sure Dean do not believe you are some evil Lefty. I am just doing as I was asked - by you.

We all have our cross to bear - politically. For every leftist has Rush Limbaugh to kick around. Course, he isn't an elected official.

Matthew:
Ron Paul is a staunch, isolationist libertarian. If I remember rightly, he votes down every foreign policy measure as a protest against internationalism or whatever.

This will get me in trouble in the libertarian-minded blogosphere, but I think he illustrates the bankruptcy of that philosophy. We cannot act in the narrow self-interest post-9-11. In order to stop terrorism, we must intervene in tyrannical states. We cannot allow these breeding grounds of terrorism to flourish. We are all liberal internationalists now (albeit of the speak-softly-big-stick variety). That's why I support intervention in Liberia, in addition to the moral reasons and the long-standing ties we have with that nation.

"This will get me in trouble in the libertarian-minded blogosphere, but I think he illustrates the bankruptcy of that philosophy."

This is the problem with labels. Most people who consider themselves libertarian, incuding myself, don't believe isolationism is viable. I'd call myself something different to distinguish the two but there doesn't seem to be a relevant term available.

In following the "Bright" theme, maybe I'll call members of this ideology the "Corrects" or "Smarts".

Speaking solely for myself, there is a difference between those living within the rules and those not. Libertarianism works at the national level because we have a legal system to enforce basic rules of behavior. Especially without the US, internationally there is no such analogous power.

People like Paul basically say "not our problem". But I think history has quite clearly shown us that it will become our problem eventually.

I do quickly tire of those who say "Cuba would be fine if it weren't for Cubans in Miami". You damn well this is said because Cubans vote Republican most of the time. In many circles they are no longer "hispanic" but ordinary whites. IE: if you vote Republican you can't come from a minority.

Cuba is under a despotic dictator and anyone who is keen on Castro is cretin. PERIOD.

I have respect for the DSA, unlike many of their fellow Dems they at least admit they are socialists. Unlike many Dems who propose socialist policies yet get offended when they are refered to as one.

mj,

Just as there has yet to be a functionally successful communist nation (and there never will be) there has yet to be a successful libertatian nation (and there probably never will be). Libertatians can go on and on about how their economic and social paradigm is the best suited to govern our nation, but the fact is, it will never happen, can't prove that it would work. However, good ideas come from socialists (and we do see successful socialist countries that enjoy individual freedoms albeit at a higher tax rate than I want to pay) and good ideas come from libertarians. Hell, alot of good ideas come from conservatives, just can't think of any offhand (jk).

Rosemary,

It does concern me when members of the democratic party offer a big hug to the thug just south of Miami.

Tim the Soldier

As a newly confirmed libertarian (also Libertarian - just got my card), I cannot fathom how any freedom (read: liberty)-loving member of Congress could support Castro.
Castro is a communist. In theory that makes him an authoritarian and collectivist, though in practice he is an autocrat. These schools of 'thought' go against the personal self-government and economic models that libertarians suppose to espouse.
As Americans, we should all grow up loving liberty. Unfortunately, many (most) of us don't. We have no clue what liberty is. There are those who feel that liberty means free health care and equality of outcome. As Dean and Steven Den Beste have said in the past, show me an authoritarian, collectivist dictatorship, and I'll show you a leftist who praises him for the universal health care...or something like that.
This is dangerous to America. People who overtly or tacitly support Castro and his ilk need to be "outed" and ostrasized for doing so.

Darth,

Well, my solution for American's attenuated sense of liberty is actually a bit of big-government strong-arm tactics:

One thing we know is that the educrats love to get more money - so, we offer them, oh, a 20% increase in the swag we're sending them but the kicker is that we're going to require that all kids by the age of 12 can write out the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution in long hand. Its neat on a lot of levels; we'll know the kids can read, we'll know they can write, and we'll know that they'll know what liberty is.

Insidiously clever of me, huh?

Tim,

"Just as there has yet to be a functionally successful communist nation (and there never will be) there has yet to be a successful libertatian nation (and there probably never will be). "

America from the Revolution through much of its existence, I would say until the New Deal, was libertarian to a great extent. Others end that period earlier when government began to more heavily regulate business.

If you don't agree with this, your statement is meaningless since you deny there has never been a libertarian state. It's a little like justifying segregated baseball because there had never been a successful black major leaguer.

Libertarianism isn't a single set of policies any more than Democracy or Republicanism. It certainly doesn't mean that there would be no restrictions on anyone's activity, as you appear to believe. But America is clearly more libertarian than Europe. Which has been more successful?

I also find interesting your justification for denying libertarianism: we "can't prove that it would work". What a revealing standard. I guess we're done discussing all policy changes since there is never PROOF any will work.

Isn't this from the same person that claims liberals are more open to new ideas?

There is plenty of evidence that libertarian priniples work. America's long term success. NAFTA. Welfare reform. Removal of gas price caps. The entire history of economics is support for libertarianism. All you have to do is look.

mj,

I clearly stated that there are principles of liberatianism that work in our nation. But I think you will see that the rise of the working middle-class coincides with the rise of the labor unions. Up until then, workers were often exploited and well underpaid. This is not an instigation for class warfare, I am simply stating a fact. I think you will find that our nation only became a great super-power after the T. Roosevelt administration, and some would argue only during WWII did we truly come into our own.

Let me ask you something. Do you think there are any principles of socialism that work well in our society or should the market dicate everything?

Ceertainly you are not opposed to seat-belt laws? Helmet laws and such?

Tim the Soldier

Dear Dean and Rosemary:

Thanks for the list -- I'm not shocked to see that a couple of Congresspersons, out of either ignorant Communist sympathy or outright ignorance, support Castro and see the U.S. as the Big Bad Guy in this conflict. I'm also happy to see that it's just a couple. I'd give most legislators the benefit of the doubt on Cuba, since historically-speaking, the only way Communist countries really crumble is under their own weight. Embargoes rarely work, invasion rarely works. You just have to wait until the peoples' desire for Coca Cola(tm) and blue jeans reaches a certain tipping point and everything fals apart.

In the former U.S.S.R. they don't exactly have capitalism or democracy -- not really. But our own history should teach us that democratic and captialistic values don't develop overnight. It took the original colonies many years to build democracy -- centuries, in fact -- and the philosophical and political history that led up to that flashpoint took additional centuries.

I don't really think you can force cultures to change, but you can set a good example for them to follow and give a good nudge when the center of gravity is right.

Tim,

"But I think you will see that the rise of the working middle-class coincides with the rise of the labor unions. Up until then, workers were often exploited and well underpaid. This is not an instigation for class warfare, I am simply stating a fact. I think you will find that our nation only became a great super-power after the T. Roosevelt administration, and some would argue only during WWII did we truly come into our own. "

Completely and utterly false in virtually every respect.

The greatness of our nation was a process begun when people first settled this country. The speed of our development waxed or waned variously throughout subsequent history. But the idea that we just existed until unions came to save us is silly, although revealing of your attitude. The twentieth century was the point at which it became impossible for europeanists to deny our success.

Our country devised certain protections related to the change from an agrarian society to an industrial one. To imply that these protections gave rise to the middle class is completely off base. The middle class in America pre-existed these by centuries.

I've never given seat belts and helmets much consideration. But if an adult has a constitutionally protected right to engage in sexual behaviors that increase the risk of death, how can that same constitution allow a law that forces others to avoid other actions that increase the risk of death?

I don't know what policies you consider socialist. I wouldn't rule out that something might be appropriate to specific circumstances. But in general a system that allows people to make their own decisions is better. We call it freedom. If you don't have freedom to make the wrong choice, you don't have freedom at all.

mj,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the positive effect that organized labor played in the development of our country - among other things. I doubt you and I agree on anything regarding politics. How about sports? How bout them Braves?!?

Tim the Soldier

MJ, I don't think the US was very libertarian before the New Deal. Economically, yes. Socially, no. The US was more conservative. Although I suppose in theory one can be libertarian and support the enforcement of social norms through community disapproval, for all practical purposes libertarian policies will result in accelerated social liberalization and the destruction of important institutions like marriage and the family.

Tim the Michigander (not to be confused with the Soldier)

As long as people love and remain faithful to their husbands and wives and children, the family cannot be destroyed. NO amount of social "liberalization" is going to make me stop loving my wife. Marriage: Still strong in my liberal house.

Tim the Soldier

Please forgive the cheap applause rhetoric.

Tim S.

I didn't claim organized labor wasn't positive. I said it didn't create the middle class. There were many positives to organized labor, although their successes are predominantly in the distant past.

My point was that their accomplishments related specifically to the transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The rules they devised weren't important before that (who complains that children worked on the family farms?), but were vital post-industrialization. Your analysis seems to start during the industrialization process. Hence your idea that the unions saved us. In fact, unions were a natural and predictable attempt to deal with new problems created by a societal change unsurpassed since man first learned to grow his own crops.

I suspect part of this difference in outlook is regional. Although I now live in Maryland I lived most of my youth in Arizona and Texas. It's a different perspective in the west, particularly during the 19th century. No, I wasn't alive then, but you would be surprised at how much a region's history affects their current outlook.

I'm primarily a football, college basketball, and golf fan. Free agency killed baseball for me. Even if you know every single player on a team, three years later only two or three guys will remain. Football now has the free agency problem but it doesn't seem to be as bad yet (although it probably will be eventually).

Tim M.

My comments on libertarianism relate solely to government action. I believe many things are wrong that shouldn't be illegal. For example, I think in the best world we can devise drugs would be legal, which isn't to say I would legalize them tomorrow if given the choice.

But I would still disapprove their use and believe such use to be a perfectly acceptable reason to discriminate both socially and economically. If you're an adult you can make your own choices, but you also deal with your own consequences.

You're right that libertarianism leads to social liberalization in general. But I don't see this as leading to the destruction of the family. I think socialism is the death of the family. The primary effect of socialism is to diffuse responsibility for a person's actions throughout society. If I were single and decided to have a child under a perfectly libertarian system the economic consequences would be drastic. That same decision in a socialist system would be much easier to make since such systems generally include government supported day care and education.