The Bushes Would Ruin Cuba If Castro Croaks Now
![]() |
by Glynn Wilson
With most of the media attention of late focused on the stupid exchange of rockets between Hezbollah and the Israeli military, another story closer to home has been relegated to a slanted, pro-American capitalist news footnote.
Even the Cuban government got into the act of condemning Israel's bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana this week, calling it "cowardly, vile and criminal" and urging the world to force an immediate cease-fire.
While the rockets continue to land on both sides, the socialist leadership assured Cubans on Friday that Raul Castro was in firm control as acting president, and the health minister said Fidel Castro was "recovering satisfactorily" from intestinal surgery, according to the Associated Press.
While cable news networks took a brief break from the war in the Middle East to give a mini report on the situation in Cuba, they focused mainly on anti-Castro Cubans dancing in the streets of Miami - with no condemnation of people who would celebrate at the prospect that Fidel Castro might be dying.
What are they thinking?
If Castro were to croak now, with Bush and his oil cabal in power here, and if Castro's brother Raul were to appeal to the American government to lift economic sanctions, chances are the oil companies and real estate developers would move in and ruin Cuba forever.
After spending a couple of weeks in Cuba during the Christmas holidays in 2002, I came away with the impression that about the only thing the Cuban people really need from the United States is more food - and maybe some investment capital to rebuild Havana.
An honest, educated and realistic comparison of Havana with any American city would reveal a wild dichotomy that few American reporters seem willing or able to understand or report.
Thanks to the policies of a true socialist-democracy under Castro, virtually everyone in Cuba has a college education - even the chicas, or prostitutes.
There are no illiterate dumbasses roaming the streets of Havana with guns like there are in every, single American city. Crime is almost non-existent in Cuba.
For all the talk from the Bush administration and the conservative movement about being pro-education and anti-crime, they could learn a thing or two from Castro – if they were willing to listen, learn and conduct an honest assessment.
![]() |
| Photo by Spider Martin |
| A little old lady smiles for the camera in downtown Havana, Cuba, December 2002 |
There are also no toothless, homeless people in Cuba, like there are in every American city. Every single human being in Cuba is entitled to free health care, including dental care.
But the supposedly richest and most powerful country in the world cannot provide that for its citizens right here in the good old U.S. of A.
Does anyone else see the irony?
And here's an interesting fact. While studies show more obesity and related health problems in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, there is no such thing as obesity in Cuba. I walked from one end of Havana to the other, talking to people and taking photos with Spider Martin, and we never saw a single fat person. Not one.
The irony here is that the food in the homes and restaurants was sparse, simple and frankly scarce. But they are not starving either. They just live on fish and rice and do not over eat.
Imagine the boon it would be for Alabama chicken, soybean and corn farmers if only they were allowed to sell to Cuba?
According to research for a story I wrote about that trip, estimates show that lifting the sanctions on trade with Cuba could result in U.S. exports valued at $658 million to potentially $1 billion a year, or 17 percent to 27 percent of Cuba's total imports.
But no, the South Florida anti-Castro Cuban lobbying money, which funds the campaigns of Republicans such as Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his brother in the White House, prevents a reasonable policy toward Cuba. That money even trumps the pro-business and conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which for years has urged Republican and Democratic Party presidents to lift the sanctions against Cuba.
So we hope the press releases out of Cuba are accurate, and Castro will be back on his feet and well soon. We hope he is able to survive until a more reasonable Democratic president and Congress regain power in the U.S. and finally decide to change our policies toward Cuba.
It is a beautiful place in the universe.
With a good bit of honest forethought, re-engaging with Cuba could be a win-win situation for America, Cuba and Alabama.
But it would best be done with some planning for sustainable redevelopment, not American-style suburbanization. The oil companies should not be able to rape Cuba's environment and spoil the beaches. And real estate developers should not be allowed to put a McDonald's on every block and a highrise condo on every dune.
While Soviet-style Communism proved it cannot work indefinitely, due to its propensity to lead to totalitarianism, that does not mean a bit of socialism mixed with democracy can't create a better world for everyone – not just the privileged few, the born rich.
![]() |
| Photo by Spider Martin |
| For the fun of it, here's the photo Spider shot of me with the guy who drew the caricature used for these columns. He did it unbeknownst to me and then offered it to me for something Americans are banned from spending in Cuba - one American dollar. How could I refuse? |



Comments
Our policy towards Cuba should have changed when the Berlin wall fell. It is beyond me why we haven't normalized relations and flooded the island with yankees and their dollars. That's the best way to effect change.
Richard Vance
richardlvance(at)yahoo(dot)com
Posted by: fast2write
|
August 6, 2006 04:10 PM
Wow, you're really far left.
As a Libertarian I don't care much for Socialism. But I do think that if the US would just go ahead and admit that it is largely a socialist state then we would probably get better results than what we are getting from our current socialists-in-denial situation.
Alabama enjoys a unique status in regard to it's relation to Cuba. Last I heard we sell 'em chickens and power poles. Most people in the US aren't allowed to do this but we have some sort of special deal worked out in Washington.
Posted by: Terry Nall | August 7, 2006 07:49 AM
The U.S. is far from a socialist state. We do have a few policies left over from FDR's "New Deal" like a minimum wage and 40 hour work week and Social Security. We have policies left over from LBJ's "Great Society" like food stamps and Civil Rights laws.
But thanks to Bush and the Republican Congress, we cut taxes on the rich and never raise the minimum wage, and disenfranchise black voters and the poor at the ballot box.
Where we agree on libertarian policies are the drug laws, which allows criminal thugs to control the black market, including a lot of law enforcement officials who are in on the deals. And when it comes to the federal government telling women what they can do with their bodies in their bedrooms. On those issues I am a libertarian.
But I cannot agree with the Libertarian Party that virtually everything should be privatized, like prisons and mental health facilities and even the water supply.
There are jobs government can do better than the Haliburton's of the world, if the government officials doing the jobs actually believe in government openly - rather than destroying government to allow giant corporate conglomerates to run everything - like Bush.
He's no libertarian. He's not even a conservative. He wants to be a monarch.
I believe in making government work like some of the Europeans, who realize you have to pay some taxes to take care of the least amongst us.
Surely you are not the kind of libertarian who would say "let everyone fend for themselves" in some kind of social Darwinism.
Posted by: fast2write
|
August 7, 2006 11:11 AM
I should have explained that I use a very broad definition of socialism. Whenever the government takes someone's money and spends it on something, that's socialism to me. Kind of a catch-all term really.
The examples you mention, Haliburton and private prisons, I don't see any way to justify privitizing those government functions because there is no way they can be truly private. After all, it is the government that decides who we will bomb and who will be drug from their homes and placed in the forced-labor camps.
As for the "giant corporate conglomerates", the way I understand the story is that first government regulated industry, then industry lobbied and influenced congress, then they all got into bed together and eventually it turned into one big glob of shit so that now you can't tell which is which and who is who.
Maybe I should expand my vocabulary and learn some new words like "Fascism".
Posted by: Terry Nall | August 9, 2006 08:13 AM
Way too broad. When any government levies a tax, say on using the roads, and spends the money, say on fixing the road, that is not socialism. That is just government. It could be any kind of government: Democracy, monarchy, totalitarian dictatorship, or what we have, a capitalist dicktatership...
Calling someone a socialist is one way to dismiss them and indicate to the audience that there is no reason to listen to anything they have to say - like calling someone a Communist, a Nazi, or DOG forbid, "a liberal."
We are at least making the attempt to raise the level of dialogue. In a polarized world, it's not an easy thing to do...
Posted by: fast2write
|
August 9, 2006 02:29 PM