President Obama really wants a "deal" with the Castro brothers... it is beginning to seem as "no matter what." In supporting his zeal, he often invokes the Pope's newly-flowering relationship with the brutal Castro brothers.
What it is not often discussed is that the "real" behind-the scenes force in "brokering" our President's's one-sided deal, which pretty much just benefits Cuban dictator Raul Castro, was Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Secretary of State and thus the number two man at the Vatican.
The same Cardinal Parolin who yesterday, in response to Ireland's historic national support for marriage equality, referred to the referendum as "a defeat for humanity."
As CHC puts it:
The Vatican welcomes and joyfully embraces brutal dictators, who have murdered, tortured and imprisoned countless innocent people -- regardless of whether they repent for their crimes.
But peaceful, loving couples -- who have harmed no one -- are "a defeat for humanity"?
And meanwhile... what's going on in Cuba?
As we noted recently, the Havana Biennial is being marred by arrests of Cuban artists in the capital, and mass arrests of dissidents in the provinces; yesterday alone over 200 dissidents were arrested throughout the island.
And yesterday more dissidents from Cuba's Anti-Totalitarian Front were arrested as they distributed pamphlets with the images of political prisoners. Among those arrested were Luis Dominguez, Hugo Damian Prieto, Andres Sabelino, Lazaro Mendoza and Eugenio Hernandez.
Also arrested today was independent journalist, Yuri Valle Roca. And political prisoner Yuset Perez Moreira, a youth activist for The Emilia Project, is on the 27th day of a hunger strike protesting his unjust imprisonment.
Meanwhile, the Congressional delegation led by U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) continued the disturbing trend -- enhanced by the Obama-Castro deal -- of ignoring Cuban democracy leaders and keeping mum on all the mass arrests - including the re-arrests of several political prisoners who had been freed as part of the original Obama-Cuba deal!
Senator Udall!!!!!!!!!!!
We, Ladies in White, believe that these relations and conversations between the Cuban and U.S. governments will not be of any benefit to the Cuban people. And even less will it empower civil society, as President Barack Obama says. If no conditions are placed on the Cuban government, it will be more of the same or worse. We don't see the U.S. government, the European Union, or Pope Francis, pronouncing themselves as regards the violations of human rights on the island, which is giving the Cuban government a green light to continue violating them.
-- Berta Soler, leader of The Ladies in White democracy movement, during the Oslo Freedom Forum, EFE, 5/26/15
Here in the DMV we are all active participants in the national debate over the Washington Redskins name and logo - in the past we've offered an alternative to the issue: Rename the team The Washington Redskin Potatoes, a suggestion which was promptly stolen by PETA and submitted as their own.
The issue of potentially racially or ethnic sensitive/offensive logos, names, etc. has many side and multiple vectors affecting it, but the slice of the issue dealing with our Native American fellow citizens is a particularly salient one, with multiple opinions (even amongst the Native American tribes themselves) and so it is understandable why the Madison, Wisconsin School Board attempted to address the issue by banning student attire with Native American mascots, logos, etc.
But my issue with that attempt is that they've gone waaaaaaay too far in their wording of the ban, far over reaching waaaaay past Native American related imagery and into areas that technically (and I know that I am a pedantic Virgo, but you'd think that these knuckleheads would read the wording of the ban a little carefully) cover a whole lot of other logos and mascots beyond the first Americans.
The amended rule states that students may not "wear clothing with words, pictures, or caricatures based on negative stereotypes of a specific gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
I could pick this apart starting with who decides what is a "negative stereotype," but I suspect that just like pornography, it is hard to define but we'd all know when we see it.
But do we as a whole "we" - hopefully all of us defenders of the first amendment - agree on what's offensive? There are certainly a lot of logos out there that to many eyes seem offensive... but...
Is the Fighting Irish logo a negative representation of people of Irish ancestry? Five gets you ten that you can find some Irish who think so. In fact, check out these responses... And Pulanski H.S. in Wisconsin: You're in trouble too in your... cough, cough... adaptation of the Notre Dame logo.
Is the vintage 1960s Pittsburgh Pirates (or the 1997) logo a negative representation of people with a handicap?
The Chicago Blackhawks logo doesn't seem to cause any issue, but now it is also banned in Madison.
Can you wear a retro Chiquita Banana logo? Only if someone in the Madison School Board decides that it is not offensive to either Carmen Miranda or bananas... cough, cough...
And if you wear anything with the Two Rivers High School athletic logo, (or Gilman H.S.) also in Wisconsin, you may get in deep kimchee, as it may be deemed offensive to handicapped people... I'm just sayin'...
And none of these cut the mustard.
I hope that it is clear that I'm having a bit of fun with a somewhat sensitive issue; however, my issue with the issue, cough, cough, is the heavy-handed way in which it has been handled by the Madison, Wisconsin School Board.
This is all really about free speech, and if the board bans images speech that is offensive to some, where does it stop? The wearing of attire with American flags is already banned in some places... Now Madison has added a huge and quite possibly unenforceable set of new imagery to the banned list.
Makes my head hurt!
