March 29, 2004
WALTZING MEPHISTO:
Songs of Cuba, Silenced in America (JACKSON BROWNE, 3/22/04, NY Times)
Carlos Varela, the great Cuban singer-songwriter, applied for a visa to come to the United States to sing his powerful, amazing songs. He had concerts planned in Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Our government turned him down.Visas have been denied to other Cuban artists because their visits are "detrimental to the interests" of our country. In essence, the government says that if Carlos Varela plays concerts in the United States, the money he makes would go to Fidel Castro. This is untrue. In Cuba, renowned artists keep much of what they earn, because the government does not want them to leave the country and live somewhere else. Yet, the Bush administration used the same reasoning to keep Ibrahim Ferrer, of the Buena Vista Social Club, and Manuel Galbán from attending the Grammy award ceremony in Los Angeles last month. (Both men won awards.)
So, is he really saying that the fact that those who collaborate with the regime get to keep this blood money is an argument in their favor? Was Leni Riefenstahl less objectionable because she got to keep the proceeds from her films? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2004 12:14 AM
This is pure politics.
If this is a moral stand, why not prevent Cuban-Americans from sending money to Cuba, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars over the years ?
Because Cuban-Americans determine Presidential elections, that's why.
It's not as though any serious person believes that allowing some Cubans to earn money in the US will prolong Communistic rule on the island, beyond Castro's death.
Or, conversely, that preventing Cubans from playing gigs in the US will cause Castro to fall.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 29, 2004 1:48 AM"It's not as though any serious person believes that allowing some Cubans to earn money in the US will prolong Communistic rule on the island, beyond Castro's death"
A serious person can not think that an active supporter of Castro and Communism might use his resources to prolong Communism? Sounds like it is within the range of rationality to me.
Regarding the side issue of whether Cuban-Americans have the same rights as other citizens to invest and spend their money as they see fit, unhindered by governmental regulation, please expain how that relates to non-citizens having such rights.
Posted by: h-man at March 29, 2004 5:17 AMh-man:
Cuba will have a Communist government until Castro dies, or becomes an invalid, but after his death they'll either degenerate into simple dictatorship, or evolve into a socialistic society.
As for the Cuban-American issue, NO American can legally invest in Cuba right now.
If the rational is that allowing Cubans to earn money in the US undermines US foreign policy, why should we allow Cuban-Americans, US citizens, to send money to prop up a sworn enemy of the US ?
Isn't that... Treason ?
After the moral stance is stripped away, the man behind the curtain is crass political gain.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 29, 2004 6:05 AMThe economically rational fate of Cuba is to be
an offshore tourism and transit depot for the U.S. It is hard to imagine Cuba continuing down a socialist path after In-Fidel is gone.
Jackson Browne wrote this in between beating up his girl-friend.
Jackson Browne is still smarting from being on the wrong side of the fight against communism in Central American in the 1980's. He is pissed because Danny Ortega is no longer oppressing his people.
Posted by: pchuck at March 29, 2004 10:09 AMUnless the guy sings misty tributes to Fidel, I don't see any problem letting him in. Especially if we issue the Visa with an open invitation to stay if he likes.
Posted by: Twn at March 29, 2004 12:03 PMWe didn't let Ewen McCall in either, but I don't think that was what ruined Scottish socialism.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 29, 2004 3:16 PM