CUBA GEARS UP FOR POST-BUSH ERA
A government report ordered by Fidel Castro says that Cuba should act fast to support opposition parties as George W. Bush's rule ends and that it should get advisers on the ground within weeks of the 2008 primaries. It also recommended a "democracy fund" of $80 million (US currency) over the next two years to increase opposition and suggested yearly financing of $20 million for American democracy programs. Bush has suggested his brother, Jeb, should succeed him.
What do you think of the above item? It does kind of, sort of appear in this morning's New York Times. On page A6. But the thing is, it's not Cuba gearing up, it's the US. The dollar amounts are correct (and the items entitled "CUBA: U.S. GEARS UP FOR POST CASTRO-ERA" in "World Briefing").
It's part of the attitude that allows the Bully Boy family to look the other way with regards to terrorists -- sometimes they woo them, sometimes they pardon them. Poppy's pardon's didn't include Marc Rich, they did include a terrorist. For all Bully Boy's bluster about his War of Terror, he's made no statements about the terrorist who downed an aircraft and said of some of the victims (an Olympic fencing team) that they were legitimate targets because they praised Castro in a victory speech. That piece of trash was allowed to wink-wink sneak into this country and instead of turning him over to authorities where he could be tried, we're all supposed to look the other way.
When some piece of human trash (Pat Robertson, Simon Rosenberg) starts making noises about Hugo Chavez, it's not about democracy any more than it is when they do their war dances about Castro. It's about the human trash (the names sometimes shuffle around a bit -- the trash quality always remains) wanting to express and act on their greed and overcome their sense of impotency.
Cuba threatens America how? In no way at all. We could have diplomatic relations with them. (Though that would really upset certain elements the CIA has off and on funded for years and looked the other way while they've broken actual laws -- unlike the day campers in the FBI sting operation that the Times wants to write about yet again today.)
If you're in the United States, it's your country. You can get caught up in all this never-ending crap about Cuba that's gone on for decades or be ignorant trash like Robertson or Rosenberg (or the ones who support either -- the fundies and the psuedo-left) or you can wake up to reality that two nations that offer no threat to America are constantly suffering from attempts to destabilize via your tax dollars.
It's stupid. It's stupid that telecom whore Simon Rosenberg was pushed by some of the supposed left sites as a DNC chair. (It's stupid that Sam Seder played footsie with him during this period and then couldn't understand why listeners of The Majority Report were outraged but Seder's demonstrated that though volume's never his problem, actual thought is.) When you read the item before (as switched by me), did you wonder, "What the hell is Cuba doing trying to interfere in our democratic process?" You should have. We'd be outraged in this country if that happened.
But when your impotent, ignorant and a weak-sister (to use an old phrase) trying to make sure everyone sees you as "manly," you'll resort to anything.
When the trash that is Simon Rosenberg wanted to run for DNC chair, did anyone (we did) questions his comments about the need to deal with Hugo Chavez? No, they didn't. The little cheerleaders of the psuedo left lined up because he understood the net. Actually looking at his vile record wasn't an issue. It didn't matter to them that he was a War Hawk who supported the war on Iraq. It didn't matter that he was one of the first out of the gate (and the first of the junior-division) to stab John Kerry in the back after the election. It didn't matter that he inflicted his wound with false facts and never corrected the record. (Nor did it matter that the slime who never said one word about the Hispanic vote during the actual election or the lead up suddenly was passing himself off as the protector of the Hispanic vote.)
Nothing mattered except his close relationship with a few would-be Cokie's (one of whom might need to borrow Tom Cruise's device -- dubbed the "squeak suppresor" -- before he attempts to storm the gates of mainstream punditry) and the fact that he "got" the net. He got it so well he went to work lobbying for the telecom industry.
Slimon never had a chance at a DNC chair. Nor do social climbers have a chance at "impact." Vegas was both laughable and dismaying. Dismaying because you saw just how little independence mattered and just how little difference there was in whores (wanna-bes were as craven as the established ones). Laughable because they are this year's out-of-town publisher (no offense to ____, who learned his lesson the hardest and most publicly a few decades back). Storm the gates all you want, you're not getting access and you made yourself useless and laughable the moment you revelead your motives. Squeak may make it in, through the servants' entrance. He'll be allowed to dust and clean up after the party.
Maybe they're suffering Madonna-damage, but naked ambition's a lot like visible sweat, it doesn't get you "in." I move in several circles and there's not a damn bit of difference in any. Naked ambition gets you dubbed a "social climber" and that's what the Squeak set has revealed themselves to be. They'll be co-opted for a presidential election cycle. Then they'll storm into DC (strut more like it) and find out, as so many outsiders have found out before them, they can carry the trays, but they're not invited guests. Simon Rosenberg is this cycle's Mr. Doris Kearns Goodwin. One more fool who wants to lead a pack but can't. A social disaster on decline. There is something really sad about social climbers who can't even grasp that they're 'introductions' are on the outs. (Hopefully, unlike the aforementioned publisher, they didn't waste money picking up the tab on their hopeful social guide drinks.)
They've made themselves useless as they've fashioned themselves as "king makers." There was an e-mail from a writer of a publication asking that we note a few things. I don't care for the social climbers. I've known them as the town joke, regardless of which town I was in. But if the writer thinks he can call "chicken" to get me to publish/promote his claims, he's mistaken. (This entry is being e-mailed by Jess to the writer as a response -- members are aware that this happens quite often, confused visitors should know I don't reply privately to various writers and others -- pundits, et al -- who write the public account.) Nobody "owns' The Common Ills, including me. And we don't owe anything to either of the two your e-mail mentions. You can write your you-must-be-chicken e-mail all you want and include whatever gossip you want (like many an unimportant scribe, he's about five months behind on the gossip) but you're not going to get a rise out of me that prompts me to put your gossip up here. I'm not scared of them, they're useless. They have nothing to do with this site. I've never spoken to them in person and, honestly, wouldn't.
You name dropped someone that I did call to ask, "What the hell did you say to ___?" He denies most of your claims. He admits that he said we weren't part of that "unwashed crowd" (his term) but says that's all he said. I care for your publication about as much as I care for them. (Translation, neither of you matter.) You write that you know (you're so knowing for someone so ignorant) that it would be "death" for us (me) to go up against them (oh really?) but that I should know (I love hearing what I "should" do or know from people so ignorant) that I would have "support." I don't want your support. I don't need your support or your publication's. Maybe you missed it, but we don't link to you. When you or your magazine is mentioned in anything I write here or co-write at The Third Estate Sunday Review, we laugh.
The friend you cited and I spent two hours on the phone this morning attempting to figure out the point of your e-mail. As we see it, you thought you could "light a fire" and get me to repeat your rumors (if they're facts I would assume they'd already have appeared elsewhere). I really don't care much for Congressional scandals (personal) so I don't know why you'd assume I'd care for your rumors? (If anything, they actually made me feel sorry for one of the two you focus on in your e-mail.) You're also under some impression (or attempting to work anything that you feel might get your rumors noted) that I'm alternately courting and in fear of the two. I'm not.
They don't matter in my offline world and they're not sites that we promote here. Please apologize to my friend that you've misquoted and don't write again because I won't read you. This is the only response you're getting.
Before I checked, I thought you might have had some sincerity in your e-mail and were just mixed up on a few details. After getting off the phone with my friend, I realize that you're desperate to promote your claims (and probably yourself). Squabble with the two you wrote of. I'll enjoy laughing. But don't think I'll help you. This is your intra-mural feud. You're both serving the same sop. I'm not here to help you or to steer you or to promote you.
We don't form "alliances" (your term) outside the community. We turned down one publication that (at that time) was one we supported. We certainly wouldn't 'partner up' with you. We don't need you, we don't need them. This community has built up on it's own without help from anyone so when you write: "I understand why you'd feel you owe them something for their support . . ." What support? You don't know what you're writing about.
We don't promote them, they don't promote us. "Owe"? I don't feel I owe anyone outside of the community a ___ damn thing. More so after last night's group phone call. Members should check out Mike's column in Sunday's Polly's Brew on who ignored Nancy Youssef's article even when it was brought to their attention. We got some links early on (to entries) and I've gone from grateful over that to thinking, "Well why the hell shouldn't we have gotten them?" (A number of members, a large number, who've complained repeatedly that I've promoted a site need fear no more. I did like that site and we'll continue to provide the link to it. However, Mike contacted them personally about Youssef's article and if they're too stupid to realize that is a story worth noting, then they aren't as smart as I thought they were.) (Note to the idiot this is being e-mailed to, the site referred to now is not one of the sites you're writing about.) So I really don't care what someone did two years ago or a year ago. As Mike notes in his entry (prelude to Sunday's column), members stopped supporting that site a year ago. That's their business. I don't control what members do (I'm just a member of this community myself). But no, I don't feel we owe anything.
And the sites the e-mailer's writing of have never done anything I'm aware of to promote this site so I have no debt to them. I'm not "silent out of fear," I just don't care for them. (I feel sorry for one of them based upon the e-mail that I'm responding to in this entry.) The e-mailer writes that "like everyone, you're scared of their power." You've got a ___-up notion of what power is. Power is personal. It's come from telling your truth.
There are things I've sat on because friends have asked me to. (Such as the vile Matt Cooper because to address that while the issue was before the court re: Miller was said to hurt the larger cause.) And there are times when I've been so embarrassed for someone that I've avoided naming them but I have commented (and everyone knew whom I was writing about).
Power comes from speaking your truth, not from shady alliances or back-door deals. Your as bad a social climber as the two you're writing about and if you knew anything about me personally, you'd know I've never had any use for pretenders or social climbers. (I've noted before, many times, I'm not a nice person.) Your hope was that your claims would make it up here. They're not going to. All you've accomplished is that I will be laughing at you with a number of friends and it's going to be in the set that you and the two you write of wish you were in.
Your full of promises (bribes) and under the impression that your idea of "success" matches mine. It doesn't. If it weren't for Iraq, I wouldn't even be online. Your offer of an interview both fails to grasp that I wouldn't appear in your rag (either as C.I. or myself) and that it's been stated many times here that I will not do interviews as C.I. (and genuine requests have been turned down or ignored so your bribe's even more laughable). You also offer other outlets.
I'm not interested. I've made that clear from the start of this. The community's actually too large as it is now and we don't need your help or anyone else's. (With or without strings attached.) In case you missed it (you seem to have missed quite a bit) I would like for this site to go dark after the November 2008 election. I want my life back. This was never a means to promote myself. The reason this site started in the first place was because I was looking at what I didn't do in the lead up to 2004. I didn't jump on the blame John Kerry bandwagon. I didn't whine and moan that someone else had let "us" down. Instead, it was look at what worked and what didn't. I made changes based on that. I also looked at what I didn't do. One thing, that many, had suggested was doing a "blog." That's the reason this site started. It's not a "blog." It's not what-I-want-to-write-about. I added the Cuba item to the top because otherwise I had no interest in even writing about this. But your offensive e-mail demands some sort of reply so we'll force it together with the Cuba item. They relate because they're both 'macho' mind games and they both make me sick.
Please don't e-mail me again.
For non-social climbers who aren't members (members need to use the two private e-mail addresses), the e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.