My
daughter Stephanie was visiting from Honolulu, reconnecting with high school
friends as well as her East Coast family, as per above photos.
Sat. April 18 was Earth Day, celebrated with music and speeches
on the National Mall, including an appearance by UN Sec. General Ban Ki-moon. It
was a bright, summery day, very nice for a celebration.
[This does not need to be all bolded, but I cannot change it.] First,
there were the extremist anti-Palestinian
signs on public transportation in DC and Philadelphia, equating Palestinians
with Hitler. Now, turnabout is fair play, with anti-Israeli signs on Israeli apartheid appearing on public buses
here in DC. The transport system has felt compelled to run both types in homage
to free speech. [Now I see it comes out in red, not bolded on the blog--???]
As
for the senseless tragedy of the current civil war, a power struggle in the
fledgling nation of South Sudan, below
is an e-mail from a young Kenyan supervising construction there, someone I met
in 2006. He is referring to a new hospital that I saw being built then, laboriously
by hand, stone by stone, both men and colorfully-dressed women working
side-by-side, but now apparently destroyed. Above is a photo of a Sudanese
woman and another of me with a local woman.
|
Tania Bruguera, the Cuban performance artist
prevented from mounting her open-mike performance in Cuba after the
announcement of the Obama/Castro accords, now has the support of MOMA, the
Guggenheim, and Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei. Bruguera had her passport
confiscated in December after being arrested and has been unable to leave Cuba.
The Cuban prisoner whose name Afro-Cuban dissident
Antunez gave us at the DC Amnesty International last January, Ciro Alexis Casanova Pérez, is now
mentioned in an article in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/missing-cuba-thaw-basic-human-rights-322234
However,
they did not win—both said the deck had been stacked against them. Still, the
fact that their names were even on the ballot was unprecedented. However, one
Cuba watcher tells me that they may have been fake dissidents—of whom there are
many infiltrating and undermining opposition groups. [Again, excuse different type sizes, no use meddling with them.]
However,
it was disgraceful that at the summit, the Castro regime brought in its usual mobs
of physical attackers—the Rapid Response
Brigades-- against peaceful dissidents, something it does all over Latin
America wherever opposition Cubans appear in public. Independent blogger Yoani Sanchez has encountered them at
speaking engagements all over the region, though never in the US, where either
they are not allowed entry or the regime decides it’s a better tactic not to
unleash them. Some such gang members have said they have been forced to
participate, while others seem to relish the opportunity to beat up other people.
Taking
Cuba off the list of state sponsors of
terrorism, whether or not completely justified, was something required for re-establishing
formal diplomatic relations. Certainly Cuba is less of a threat now to the
United States and the rest of the world than during the Cold War and maybe the Cuban
leadership will now try to live up to the non-terrorist designation? But the regime
is not exactly benign and it would have been good if President Obama had gotten
something in return in terms of greater freedoms for the Cuban people. Just
reducing the pressure on the regime from the US is not going to automatically
help ordinary Cubans, even though curbs on their freedoms have long been
justified as necessary to protect against American aggression. While most
Cubans are not used to having political freedom and a voice, most people
everywhere do prefer self-determination if given half a chance. Obama’s
apparently unilateral concessions to the Cuban government are somewhat worrying
as they are not necessarily being reciprocated. Although Raul Castro has made
laudatory remarks about Obama, he remains wary and won’t hesitate to cry “wolf”
to arouse his partisans in Latin American and around the world if he feels his
position and that of his inner circle are threatened. The Cuban regime long ago
won the international PR battle with its appealing David-Goliath narrative. Many
other leaders who feel small vis-à-vis the US (and maybe our country and
leadership do bear some blame for this) readily identify with poor little Cuba.
But poor little Cuban citizens get little sympathy. Predictably, the Wall Street Journal decried the removal
of Cuba’s state-sponsor-of-terrorism designation http://www.wsj.com/articles/another-gift-for-castro-1429054312.
President
Obama’s game plan regarding Cuba remains murky, perhaps because the American
and world public wouldn’t really understand it. Some of us are trying to give
him the benefit of the doubt, hoping he’s just playing his cards close to the
vest so as not to propel a wary Raul Castro into a defensive mode. He also
seems to have taken a somewhat less confrontational approach with Congress,
realizing his remaining time is short.
Pres. Obama has wanted to create a Cuba legacy and to
counteract the negative image of the US being successfully perpetrated,
especially by Latin American leftist leaders. They have been kind of set
off-kilter by his outreach to Cuba, especially Maduro, who was ready to pounce
on the US for the sanctions against some of his officials in Panama. While
Obama in Panama and US officials in Cuba have made a point of meeting
with dissidents, this alone does not promote more freedom of expression and
association. They still got beaten up, even in Panama. I haven't yet
heard Raul Castro castigating Cuban mobs for physically
attacking peaceful demonstrators, even if they disagree with them
(quite to the contrary, he organizes and applauds them). If and when he tells
them to stop, it will be noteworthy.
As I've said before, I do fear that the current US approach will
end up promoting a system like China's and Vietnam's (exactly what Raul
Castro has been aiming for)--an economic opening under a
strict one-party system with executions, political prisoners, and curbs on
assembly and communication. Still, most Chinese and Vietnamese are better off because of
the economic opening. Yet, it would have been much better if those countries
and Cuba could have taken the path of Eastern Europe and moved to a more
democratic system, with free assembly, free expression, and elections.
Might that have happened if Obama had hung tight and the inevitable demise of
the Castro brothers had occurred?
It
will be interesting to see how Hillary
Clinton handles Cuba and Iran issues—probably distancing herself from
Obama, but not too much. Years ago, when Hillary was First Lady, I was with her
at some small forums where she seemed candid, thoughtful, and handled herself
well. Since then, I’m not as crazy about her performance as she seems less
genuine, but, of course, now the stakes are much higher. If she becomes the
Democratic presidential candidate, which looks likely, I will vote for her, as
I cannot bring myself to vote for a Republican and would certainly like to see
a female president. But I’m not committed to voting for her until she actually wins
the nomination.
If
another Democrat should win, a dark horse like Obama, then he or she will get
my vote, unless that person should happen to be Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (quite unlikely), for
whom I would never vote, Democrat or not. I believe he behaved hypocritically and
in an extremely self-serving manner during the whole Cuba/US debate. Although I
often get appeals from him for money, I completely ignore them. Why am I so
opposed to him? Leahy seemed to have regularly leaked sensitive USAID Cuba information
to the press and therefore to the Castro government, and then loudly berated USAID
for being ineffective and for permitting those same leaks (thanks, Leahy, for
making USAID even more ineffective). Subsequently, while railing against US
government secrecy toward Cuba, he clandestinely arranged to transport sperm (twice)
to inseminate the wife of the Cuban Five mastermind, boasting later about that
transport, and, then, after all his scathing criticism of USAID’s efforts to
facilitate democracy in Cuba (totally non-violent efforts to promote freer
communication), he prominently escorted freed prisoner Alan Gross back to the
US and supported his several million-dollar settlement with USAID. Sorry,
Leahy, if you should happen to aspire to the presidency, you’ve lost my vote.
As for
the local “free-range” children
picked up again by the police in a DC suburb, it’s quite true that most
American adults, myself included, have had ample experience as free range kids
them(our)selves. Why then, are most unwilling now to allow their children that
same freedom? Perhaps it’s due partly to a few high-profile child abductions
now being disseminated more widely in our internet age. My own concern, for my
grandchildren and great-grandson, has less to do with unsavory and dangerous strangers
and more with fear of accidents. What if a child playing alone or with a
sibling at a park falls or chases a ball into the street? An alert parent would
intervene quickly. Perhaps I’m being over-vigilant, having lost both my son and
foster son in quick succession (but as adults, not children), so I’m not prone
to taking unnecessary chances. While realizing that the odds of a serious
accident are quite low, the remote possibility of injury or death justifies
keeping a parent always on the scene in my opinion, at least until a certain
age, maybe 10? The particular age does depend on the child and a child of 10
should not be in charge of a younger one, as in the case of Maryland kids. If children
need to learn resilience and independence, parents can take an unobtrusive
stance, bringing along a book or electronic device to a park, sitting on the
front steps while youngsters ride bikes or scooters around the block, and enrolling
them in sports and swimming lessons—then sending kids off to day- and overnight
camp. A cell phone carried by a child when not in sight can help parents to
check in. Even when physically present, adults cannot always protect children. And,
it’s quite true that the greatest danger to kids comes from friends and family
members—sometimes even from parents themselves--and occurs in their own homes. The question is how much leeway should parents have in raising their own kids and when does the public and the government need to intervene?
Much has
also been made of hovering or helicopter
parents who undermine their offspring’s own self-confidence and development,
intervening at every turn, but after being a member of The Compassionate
Friends, a self-help group for bereaved parents, where all manner of unexpected
deaths have occurred, I’d rather err on the side of being overprotective. Bad
things happening to kids are rare, but when they do happen, their effects can
be devastating and irreversible. Remember a boy walking to school for the first
time in a NYC Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and being abducted and murdered by a
member of his own community? Why even take that small chance when children can
acquire self-confidence and independence with only light adult oversight?
I
was painfully reminded of the bouts of vomiting
and diarrhea that I endured in Honduras as a Peace Corps volunteer once again after eating a recent meal
prepared by my Zambian visitor. He and his colleague from Kenya were fine after
eating it—I was the only one affected. Such an episode has never happened to me
here in the US, but, as in Honduras, I woke up at midnight with that familiar horrible
feeling of blood flowing from the extremities to the stomach to expel its
contents. Amid alternating chills and fever, that continued all night long. The
only bright side is that I lost a couple of pounds. But I remembered our advice
to Honduran mothers regarding their kids with stomach and intestinal upsets: always
keep them hydrated. Even if everything gets expelled, liquids should be kept
flowing into the body to prevent dehydration.