Re: Kerry's words betray Cuban dissidents, by David Brooks, June 22.
Brooks' good words not withstanding, now is not the time to expect a sensible policy on Cuba to emerge from the political debate. Both Sen. John Kerry and President Bush are in election mode. Their political advisers are pressing Cuba policy statements based solely on expectations of political and electoral jossling for advantage. These are directed to their political allies in South Florida and have nothing to do with policies good for the Cuban people.
More specifically, members of the South Florida Cuban elite are holdovers from the Castro revolution of more than four decades ago. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they hold sway over a bloc of voters in South Florida that could swing the presidential race one way or the other. Thus, both candidates are attempting to pander to them. This situation does not bode well for sensible policy thinking.
This raises the question, "What policy and when?"
The policy should be patterned on our policy toward China. That is, open trade and free exchange of people and ideas. This policy will ultimately lead to a strong surge of interaction with the Cuban people and amelioration of the worst repressive tactics of the Castro regime. Therefore the embargo should be lifted at a stroke, and free flow of people and money should be instituted.
When should these changes take place? The real answer is "now," but that doesn't take into account the political realities of the day.
The first real opportunity would come in the election of President Bush to a second term. That would allow him in the first days of his lame-duck administration to do things that he couldn't do politically now. It would also allow four years to elapse before the next election and hopefully allow time to make real progress in Cuba and Cuban relations such that the next presidential election wouldn't have a significant Cuban exile dimension.
If Sen. Kerry is elected, the next opportune time would be after an election in 2008 that returns him to power. That would provide him with the political cover, even though less needed, to do the same thing.
As regards the David Brooks column, the Varela Project is just a casualty of the electoral debate and will be suppressed without U.S. action. It is a sad but realistic commentary.
-- John Christman, Tierra Verde
Get clear on Kerry's position
Re: Kerry's words betray Cuban dissidents.
David Brooks distorts Sen. John Kerry's position on the Castro regime. Here is part of his June 5 statement on U.S. Cuban policy as reported by Friends of Cuban Libraries. Go to http://www.friendsofcubanlibraries.org/ and click on Recent News.
In this document, Kerry said: "I am committed to seeing the end to the Castro regime, which I have long condemned for its flagrant human rights abuse and political oppression." Emphasizing the need for an international, multilateral strategy in dealing with the Castro regime, in contrast to what he called the failed unilateral approach of the Bush administration, Kerry declared his intention "to bring about a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba, putting the focus on Castro's failures instead of our policy."
Emphasizing the need to educate the Cuban people in the values of a civil society, Kerry stated: "I also support the free flow of information to Cuba. Enhancing communication through news bureaus, people-to-people contact, effective support for dissidents and civil society, and an accessible, soundly managed, fair and balanced Radio and TV Marti can help reduce the isolation of the Cuban people."
In response to this statement, a Cuban government publication, Librinsula, attacked Sen. Kerry as a "ferocious wolf." Castro's mouthpieces don't appear to have any doubts as to where Sen. Kerry stands on human rights in Cuba. Would that Brooks and his fans had the same comprehension.
-- Ben Fiedler, Seminole
Pandering to economic interests
Re: Cuba policy counterproductive, editorial, June 25.
Your concern about the Cubans on the Island who will receive reduced remittance and fewer visits from their relatives in the United States is not sincere. You are only pandering to those economic interests that wish to make some blood money by selling products to the communist dictatorship 90 miles from our coast.
You should be worried about the 11-million Cubans who suffer under that dictatorship and lack relatives in the United States to send them economic help. We are grateful to the Bush administration for its policies to obtain the liberation of Cuba, and it will show in the November election.
-- Reinaldo Rodriguez, Miami
It's all about money and power
Re: Kerry raises $100-million in 3 months; Bush still ahead, June 17.
We live in a society today that only caters to the rich. It is no wonder our children are messed up. We seem to worship overpaid athletes, Hollywood types and politicians. They are corporate feeders. It's all about money, power, their $5,000 lunches, while the majority of people are excluded.
Money, money, money. It is one reason why we have so many problems today. We have 48-million Americans without health insurance, but we can spend $400-million to get a candidate into office.
-- James R. Badolato, Tampa
We need patriots, not partisans
Re: Seeing a different reality, letter, June 18.
The letter writer hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Our wonderful country has been slowly torn apart at the seams for many years now. The economic, social and cultural gaps that exist seem to be widening bit by bit, every day, month, year. Perhaps the American people need to dust off the ol' needle and thread and attempt to patch things up before they are irreparable.
A definition of democracy is a government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives. The United States has followed this definition for more than 200 years, in theory at least. But in reality, we have a government by two warring political parties that are more concerned with power than the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, the citizens who elected them.
We have more choices in cell phones, TV programs and potato chips than we do in elected officials. Our governmental choices boil down to two self-serving groups who put their mouths where the money is. Money is not a symbol of intelligence, integrity or morality; its primary symbolism is clout. Shouldn't our elected officials be patriots, not partisans?
I thought the U.S. Constitution began with "We the people," not "We the wealthy," not "We the corporations," not "We the special interest groups."
-- D. Berringer, Seminole
Americans just want the facts
Re: We shouldn't mix politics with media, June 23.
I think Robert Samuelson has raised a very interesting issue, but I think two very significant points were completely overlooked in his evaluation.
First, his study focuses entirely on the left-wing/right-wing divide when according to the statistics he cited, most of the country is moderate. There's a lesson to be learned. Unlike the media, most Americans view each issue from a position of reason and fairness and then judge each issue on its merits. That's moderation.
The media are looking for an angle. In newswriting 101 I learned that it's not news when "dog bites boy." When "boy bites dog," that's news. My take on that is that the poor boy who was bitten isn't deserving of coverage because it's mundane. I often relate this to coverage of the Middle East crisis. When a Palestinian kills a pregnant Jewish woman and her children, it's not news. Dead Jews/angry Palestinians - same old, same old. However, when a Jew picks up a gun and kills someone - that's front page, headline material. Sadly, that's how most newspapers cover the issue. Most Americans just are saddened that someone was killed on either side.
The second point that was missed was the "reason" for the explosive popularity of the conservative news outlets. Again, his statistics claim that only 18 percent of Americans are liberal, yet the media is overwhelmingly so. Rush Limbaugh is strictly conservative and his listenership reflects this. On the other hand, the Fox News channel is considered conservative. I think the more important lesson is this: For every Sean Hannity, there is an Alan Colmes. Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams are also decidely liberal.
Fox News is moderate. It only appears conservative because conservative views are welcome. Conservative pundits have a voice. We are so used to being denied that perspective, that any viewing of it is seen as partial. I think Fox News clearly divides its news segments from its opinion and analysis segments, unlike newspapers whose perspectives bleed off the editorial pages into the headlines.
The real lesson is that Americans want the facts so that they can decide for themselves.
-- Lisa Smajovits, Largo
Why voices have grown still
Re: Wakeup call silenced by Ashcroft, June 23.
Paul Krugman, in this article regarding Attorney John Ashcroft's silence on the discovery of weapons and the subsequent arrest of a potential domestic terrorist, cites what he calls the usual problem: "The truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill."
As I read that line I realized that this is what has happened to the Democrats! Even I have had to curb my outspokenness about some issues because I was tagged as strident, causing disharmony in the group and fatigue in me. The voices of reason have been subdued because of the extremities broached by the powers that be. Any thoughtful person has to justify speaking out alarmingly about any subject. And yet, unfortunately many thoughtful people are today keeping silent, thinking that for sure, the accusations, being so extreme cannot be true or worse, must be justified. I'm speaking of actions of the administration in this war in particular. But, I would speak against any war. I've never seen violence beget anything but violence.
This letter is not to discuss the war. It is to thank Krugman for giving me an explanation as to why more of us are not speaking out.
-- Bernadette Menz, Safety Harbor
Look at the miracle of creation
Re: Let's stick to the patriotic part, letter, June 18.
The writer says that if there were conclusive proof of the existence of God, he would have no problem keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I say just look around at nature, at the flowers and trees that grow wild. Look at the ocean and the life underneath. Look into the cosmos at the stars and the planets. All of this is too organized to have just happened. It was created. If that doesn't convince you, look at the human body itself. Every one of our parts was created with a specific function in mind.
You believe in radio waves even though you can't see them because you see the results. You believe in oxygen even though you can't see it because you are able to breathe. You believe in the electricity even though you can't see it because it runs everything in your house. Why is it so hard to believe in God when all you have to do is look in a mirror or look outside at all the wonders of nature or look at an expectant mother and marvel at the miracle of childbirth? It is all conclusive proof that God does exist.
-- Jimmy Folsom, St. Petersburg
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
