I have the day off and am planning on spending it looking over some beautiful cars at the Barrett-Jackson Auto Auction in West Palm Beach, but first I wanted to make you all aware of a situation that has materialized in the SoFla blogosphere over the last couple days.
After what I went through over at Stuck on the Palmetto, I have loads of sympathy for any anonymous blogger whose identity is threatened or, in the worst case, revealed. When your job, your identity, or, as in the case I share with you in this post, your relatives and friends lives, are jeopardized by being "outed," it's extremely upsetting.
Val Prieto at Babalu blog knows this. He's a family-oriented kind of guy. He understands the tyranny and ruthlessness of the Castro regime. And he has anonymous bloggers writing at Babalu. So when he goes and reveals the name of an anonymous writer who uses the pseudonym "KillCastro" at a blog of the same name knowing that writer has relatives in Cuba, it's an offense of the highest order.
Prieto is the guy who holds himself out as a spokesman for Miami's Cuban-American exile community and is looked to often times when the media needs a quote or a sound bite from a CA in Miami. But yesterday, as he did at SotP so many times before, Val Prieto demonstrated that he is nothing more than a Cuban-American hardliner goon who resorts to thuggery when someone doesn't view Cuban politics the way he does. What the media really needs to know is that Val Prieto is a crass, boorish, vulger and dangerous Cuban-American troglodyte, who no more represents the Cuban-American community than the Tropichop Max at Pollo Tropical represents the quality of food you can buy in Little Havana.
What makes this all the more ominous is that just a little over an hour before he commented at KillCastro, Val Prieto had this to say here at SFDB...
Of course, Val Prieto was alluding to the controversy that brought SotP to a screeching halt in the hopes that, somehow, that situation still created concern for me.
This is who Val Prieto is. This is what he does. And everyone, especially the media who have anointed him one of Miami's CA representatives, should know it.
Val Prieto clearly owes an apology to KillCastro. But therein lies the problem. Val Prieto never apologizes. To anyone.
(Photo: Carl Juste, Miami Herald)
......
3/30/2008
In a post that is dated yesterday, KillCastro reports that his relatives in Cuba have been detained, phones are being monitored and, basically, it looks like the Castro regime has acted on Val Prieto's outing of KillCastro.
I'm not sure how much of this to believe as KillCastro and his followers appear to be pretty sensationalistic about the thing, not that I really blame them, but the bottom line is that all this is hard to verify.
Having said that, and not really knowing whether this information is accurate, babalu's Henry Gomez has taken the extraordinarily arrogant step of posting this caricature that he has given the file name "squashingthelosers."
The post is not titled nor is there any content but in the comments Henry Gomez says this...
Without getting too deep into it, there are douchebags out there that think they can viciously attack a female contributor to this blog and not expect the editor to do or say anything about it. And furthermore when the editor called their bluff they think that they can spread calumnies about said editor. And even furthermore there are sanctimonious sons of bitches out there who have stolen thousands of hours from the taxpayers blogging at their government jobs that think they can repeat the calumnies. Well maybe they can. But it doesn't matter really, does it? At the end of the day they are still coachroaches, douchebags and sanctimonious time stealing weasels and Babalu is still an island on the net without a bearded dictator.
In a nutshell, Gomez not only verifies that Val Prieto intended to do what he did but expresses absolutely no concern for the Cubans who may be detained as a result of his words. In fact, one can interpret the cartoon as a statement of satisfaction that things have turned out the way they have.
Which leads me to wonder as a spectator to this fiasco whether Val Prieto and babalu writers are more of a risk to the freedom of Cubans than the Castro regime they despise so much.
......
3/31/2008
Henry Gomez's post has been removed from babalu. And for Val Prieto, it's all a joke.
.
47 comments:
I love the TropiChop Max zinger
I expected a much bigger man...
Wow, I always wondered what a douchebag looked like...
That's the difference between the Old Guard of Cuban Exiles and the New Guard.
The Old Guard doesn't have family in Cuba, so they couldn't care less about the people of Cuba.
All they care about is regaining power.
Carlos, there's alot of "Old Guard" that never had power to begin with.
And watch how you use "Old Guard", please. You cannot define a person by when his/her exile began. Leave that to smaller minds. Unless, of course, you actually believe that.
Actually, most of the early exiles Guard" never had power to begin with, which is why most of them supported Castro against Batista in the early days.
And you're right, it's not good to talk in generalities.
But when I talk about the "Old Guard", I am talking about el exilo extremo, the type that shows up at Versailles in support of Luis Posada Carriles, who has killed Cuban civilians in his fight to liberate Cuba.
I am talking about the exiles who believe in tightening the embargo,
even though all it does is cause more hardship on the Cuban people and has done nothing in almost 50 years but make Castro politically stronger.
I am talking about the ones who blindly support politicians like the Diaz-Balarts, whose father was part of the Batista regime, who like Castro, never had the interest of the Cuban people at heart.
Again, Carlos, you oversimplify. To have been displeased with, or even actively opposing, the Batista regime cannot be easily translated into support for castro. The opinion that a choice between the two would have been "same crap, different bag" is widely held and the catalyst for a significant part of the original exile.
And while we are at it: Though I don't necessarily agree with it, and despite whatever moral objections may be valid, maintaining the embargo can still be a valid debatable position. The only problem is the mutual lack of respect for considered debate afforded by people who think they're right and know everything about everything.
Val won't apologize.
The background of this conflict is based on KillCastro's differences with the exile hard-liners whom Prieto supports strongly.
Last Saturday, Kill Castro made his position very clear on US-Cuba policy, in response to recent reforms in Cuba:
"We [Cuban exiles] had the chance, it was again EASY, but a bunch of Guyabera wearing, cigar chomping, cafesito drinking dinosaurs fucked it up. Blame THEM for the continuation of the dynasty. The Castros just played a much better game and as it looks from here, THEY WON!"
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
2008/03/do-not-want-to-say-i-told-you-so-but.html
There's plenty more from Kill Castro in the comments section (in Spanish) where he just basically tears apart the "historic" hard-liners. And, this position just angers the intransigents.
I wouldn't say that Prieto become angry when someone disagrees with HIS personal politics, rather we should view this as a case of different collective identities, namely the different waves of Cuban exiles.
Prieto, the "historic" hard-liners, and their supporters want to FORCE their Free Cuba movement on others. They do this by using propaganda, aggressive tactics like calling them names (shaming), and coercion (by telling exiles they have the "responsibility" to be hard-liners). If the new exile does not conform, then they are open to endless hostility. This explains the large use of insults (such as from Henry Gomez alone).
Now, Kill Castro is another victim. But, the intransigents won't care. They DO NOT CARE about Cubans on the island, their priority is a collective identity: Memories before the '59 Revolution, Bay of Pigs, 13 de Marzo, Brothers to the Rescue, the intransigence of Marti, Alpha 66, Posada Carriles, Bosch, Arocena and Perez Roura.
THOSE elements of a hard-line collective identity is far more important than Kill Castro, or anyone who takes the same position. As the years go by, the positions of the "historic" hard-liner will begin to fade, and they may become more desperate.
This act by Prieto represents that desperation.
"What the media really needs to know is that Val Prieto is a crass, boorish, vulger and dangerous Cuban-American troglodyte, who no more represents the Cuban-American community than the Tropichop Max at Pollo Tropical represents the quality of food you can buy in Little Havana."
~ great line, Rick.
Val Prieto is a crass, boorish, vulger and dangerous Cuban-American troglodyte
The Trogs are not amused.
Be a "RAT" - "even a caveman can do it"
yosoychivato.com
Nonee,
At the time, many Cubans did not view Castro as "same crap, different bag".
Of course, it didn't take them long to realize that was what he was, which is why the mass influx to Miami did not start until 1961, two years after Castro came to power.
And I don't see how the embargo can still be a debatable position if the Cuban people in Cuba do not get a say in the matter.
What we have now are two embargoes, Castro's embargo on forbidding the Cubans from leaving the island at will and our embargo.
To get rid of Castro's embargo, we must first get rid of our embargo.
I'm going to step in here against my instincts, only because Val is my friend and I know him much better than you or any of the previous commenters.
I won't speculate on the whole Killcastro thing because I just heard about it now.
Rick: did you contact Val for an explanation before throwing up your post? If not, then you're just jumping to the same conclusions you accuse everyone else of doing. Don't begin with "but..but..look what Val did". Please. Do the right thing for once and make sure you have some background before slamming him the way you did, picture and all.
As far as his comment about you posting on our dime, please give it up. He didn't threaten to give away your identity, he doesn't even know it! And before you start to tell me about your job situation, remember you and I are employed by the same entity and I know the regulations quite well.
Rick, this post verifies every dark suspicion and accusation that's been thrown your way. You decide to turn a personal issue into something public, slandering and accusing a man you don't know. Don't come back with a childish "but Val does it to me", because it doesn't make it any better when you do it. And obviously, you're going for the jugular by wanting "the media" to know about Val's "true character" without any background to justify it.
This whole post is beyond utter bullshit. It's personal and so so petty from a person who fancies himself as decent hard working rule-following. This post seals it for me. You have no credibility whatsoever, but even worse, you're mean-spirited and nasty for putting up this post.
Carlos,
When Cuba decides to grant basic human rights for their people, we can most definitely lift the embargo.
I'm sure you can relate to rights, can't you?
Carlos,
a great deal of people did not leave Cuba until 1961 because they believed that Castro would not last. They could not fathom the US allowing a Marxist government 90 miles from their border. Most of these middle class (not rich) were waiting for change . . . that didn't come.
Robert,
Our embargo hasn't worked. I think we should try the other route. Flooding Cuba with capitalism. Then let capitalism takes its natural course.
Because of our embargo, Castro has been able to retain power by accusing the U.S. of being the evil empire that denies Cubans medical goods and food.
Ms C,
That's true. It was the middle and working class that came in the early 60s. The power elite minority came in 1959.
And even once the masses were living in Miami, they always viewed it as a temporary stay. They still didn't think Castro would last.
But the whole point of my original comment was that Castro was welcomed by this same middle class.
There is no way Castro would have been able to topple Batista otherwise.
Carlos, the only thing our embargo does, as a practical matter, is forbid American foreign investment in Cuba, moderately prohibit free American trade with Cuba, and therefore deny the regime the concommitant access to credit from U.S. banks. This last one should help you draw a direct line to your own pocket and mine, given the governments penchant for coming to the rescue every time our banking industry shits the bed.
If you stop for a moment and think beyond knee-jerk platitudes (except for the one that pokes fun at the embargo of one, I kinda like that one), you might see that your entire preoccupation with human interest for the Cuban people, at least in the sense of our denial of comfort< can be summed up and addressed by the lifting of travel and remittance bans. It has nothing to do with any embargo, such as it is.
But you go on ranting about the two embargo theory. No critical thinking involved. It starts to resemble the same "Old Guard" you're so well acquainted with.
@Robert: I think you're forgetting Prieto's whole crapping in my living room analogy. He crapped in someone else's living room. Eso es de pendejo. You're a reasonable guy. Don't defend that cowardice at any level.
Carlos,
agreed. Castro was able to come in when there was much discontent and say all the right things. He won over the idealistic youth in the universities and the quasi-intellectuals and borgeous. That is why I have a very tough time believing what politicians have to say and try to look for what they have accomplished and who they've allied themselves with in the past. I find these are better indicators of who these people are. Another factor to look for is "follow the money". It's tough for me to trust any politician actually.
Carlos,
agreed. Castro was able to come in when there was much discontent and say all the right things. He won over the idealistic youth in the universities and the quasi-intellectuals and borgeous. That is why I have a very tough time believing what politicians have to say and try to look for what they have accomplished and who they've allied themselves with in the past. I find these are better indicators of who these people are. Another factor to look for is "follow the money". It's tough for me to trust any politician actually.
Ah Robert, always the same huff huff with no substance from you. What, do you know any "background" abou this episode that colors it any different than what Rick wrote? If you do, put it forward. If not, Rick's conclusions are completely valid and supported by KC's blog (And I'm no friend of KC). As for his "blogging on my dime" comment to Rick, YOU give it up. It had nothing to do with what was being discussed and it was just another infantile swipe.
Your only "background" here is excusing Val based on your friendship. Yes, you should have followed your instincts and kept quiet, because revealing somebody's identity againts their expressed wishes is inexcusable and defending Val sinks that rational and softspoken image you like to cultivate.
You got some nerve Robert.
You said that Rick has decided to "turn a personal issue into something public"?!
Val is the one who posted KC's real name on Babalu Blog's comments! From that point it is no longer a private issue. KC has also responded publicly on his blog, and that action too no longer makes this a private issue. I'm shocked that you would point the finger at Rick, but it does reveal your blind allegiance to Val.
Is this the "instinct" you are referring to?
And, to top it off, you accuse Rick of being "mean-spirited" and "petty"?! Do you even read the Babalu Blog, the very blog you occasionally write for? Show me the last time you have accused them of the same, and maybe then you won't look like a hypocrite.
But, if you admit that Rick has every right to be outraged (as he does), then your criticism is meaningless.
The nerve.
Alex,
You know what? I'm going to keep on talking as long as people like you keep on misreading and misinterpreting words and pull garbage out of dirty places.
What, do you know any "background" abou this episode that colors it any different than what Rick wrote? If you do, put it forward.
I admitted plainly and simply that I didn't have any background since I read about this for the first time here. I know English isn't your first language, but I KNOW you can understand that, can't you? My issue, which I again stated plainly and clearly, is Rick's accusing of Val as a "thug" (it's in the headline, didn't you read it?) without any substance of his own (Rick hasn't answered so I will allow for the possibility, albeit remote, that he DID contact Val). I didn't make the accusation, therefore I don't have to present any substance. Rick did, and it's on his shoulders.
A swipe at Rick working on Val's dime is pretty minor compared with being called a thug, among other things, don't you think? You know that as much as I do, I'm sure.
Yes, I consider Val to be a friend. I trust my judgement in choosing friends. I don't agree with some things my friends say or do, within reasonable bounds.
And lastly, I don't "cultivate" any image of myself for anyone, especially people on the internet that I don't know or barely know. I am who I am, for better and for worse. One thing I don't like is trash people the way Rick did, in public and with malicious intent, unless I have substantative evidence. When it's done to a friend, all the worst.
As for me staying quiet, hah, fat chance. Surprising coming from a haughty liberal such as yourself who is supposed to favor open dialogue. Of course, I already covered liberal hypocrisy yesterday, so your behavior is not surprising in the least.
[Correction to my last post: "Val is the one who posted KC's real name on KILL CASTRO's comments!]
MW,
Do two wrongs make a right? Based on the stuff you like to publish, you would probably agree with that statement. Accuse Babalu of whatever you'd like. Then be fair and accuse Rick of taking it a step further.
Rick obviously used Val's notoriety and is attempting to stain his reputation without understanding the full context of the situation. In other words, he's getting into something that totally NOT his business, and turned it into a vicious and personal attack. I don't condone anyone's identity being revealed without their consent, and if that's what Val truly did without a valid excuse or reason, then that's bad on Val. But I know Val (you don't), so I give him the benefit of the doubt until he offers some clarification.
It doesn't surprise me that you would be shocked at my pointing the finger at Rick. Blind allegiance to Val? I don't know. No less than your knee-jerk allegiance to trash Cuban-American conservatives in general and making excuses for a murderous regime. Comprende?
It was a rhetorical question, Mr. English-is-my-first-language. Comprende? You want Rick to prove what's proven. Did Val wrote KC's name or not? You can click, can't you? What "substantative" evidence are you looking for?
But let's take your absurdist logic to its full extent: suppose -and this is a big supposition, but indulge me- you could be convinced Val broke KC's trust. Would you call him a thug? Could you bring your little lily-assed self to criticize him in any way? Yes, it's another rhetorical question.
(BTW, when using the always original "English is your second language" insult, it's a good idea to spell and grammar check your diatribe first. Kinda embarrassing. Is your Spanish any better?)
A couple things here.
When you post comments on a blog, Robert, it is not a "private matter," as you term it. It is public. In fact, THAT is exactly why Val did it. So that the public reading KillCastro's blog would know who he was.
No, I did not contact, Val. Nor did he try to contact KillCastro, nor did you try to contact me before posting your opinion in SFDB's comments. It's not required and it isn't even expected. And the photograph is retrievable when you Google "Val Prieto." So let's just dispense with that rubbish, Robert.
I familiarized myself with this situation before writing the post. I don't write something like this on a whim, Robert. But you know what? I don't care what KillCastro had done to piss Val Prieto off, it wasn't enough for Val to do what he did. To expose someone who so vehemently speaks out and has a blog named "KillCastro" AND has relatives in Cuba. Please, Robert, there is no excuse or justification good enough.
Val is a guy with a great passion for Cuba like everyone else at babalu. And he writes some great stuff at times. And, in fact, he does some great stuff at times like when he helped out the disabled vet. I'm sure there's lots of other things he does that he doesn't even mention on babalu. That's great. But what he did at KillCastro was a mistake and a lapse in judgment, plain and simple. We've all had them. I could run down a list of mine.
What Val did, the language that he used and the threats that he made are those of a thug, Robert. I stick by that. I understand the position you're in and that's fine but you also have to be realistic in your criticisms of me.
.
Robert,
I'm accusing you of hypocrisy because you are accusing Rick of being "petty" and "mean-spirited", yet don't make the same criticisms toward Babalu Blog, who CONSTANTLY engage in ad hominems. If you show me where you have (especially since you write for Babalu), then MAYBE you criticism will have meaning and veracity.
So far, I have not expressed my judgments about Rick's use of insults. But, I AGREE with you. The use of derogatory and malicious language from ANYONE is "petty" and "mean-spirited." I believe Rick could have made a better argument if he had chosen better words, but his argument is still valid once we get past them. Val posted someone's private information without permission. But, on this point we also agree.
Yet, since Val made this a public issue by taking action on the internet, then Rick (as well as all other blogs) have the right to get all steamed up as they wish. Just as Val does on his blog, with the same right.
So why are you criticizing Rick? Where do your words have any meaning? Because you are Val's friend? Because you "give him the benefit of the doubt until he offers some clarification"?
Are you saying that Kill Castro is LYING? Have you read his post? Is this an elaborate and fantastic scheme against Val?
You have chosen to side with Val, while there are others who can verify that Val did what he did. You comments above are nothing but meaningless defenses for Val, and techniques to obviate from what is an inexcusable action.
Alex,
See I hit a nerve. Oops. That's OK, my lily-ass can handle it. I don't think you can, however, thus the reaction. Perhaps if you took the time to read and understand my comments before opening your mouth, I wouldn't have to wonder aloud about your English reading comprehension skills. I can't spell things out any clearer, but you only understand what you want. That's your real problem, as smart as you make yourself out to be. Finally, don't expect to make smart-assed comments to me without some kind of retort in return.
Rick (and everyone else who disagrees with me):
I appreciate your level-headed response. The reason I wondered whether you had bothered to contact Val is because maybe, just maybe, there's a reason behind this, as bad as it may have seemed. Val is my friend and I trust his judgement. If he indeed revealed KC's identity in a moment of thoughtless anger, then that's bad on his part and he should apologize.
What ticked me off about this is that you escalated the whole thing to an attempt to ruin Val's reputation. How so? Well, by posting a picture of Val which was published in the Herald under a headline which reads "Val Prieto: Cuban-American Thug", followed by a post which includes the following paragraph:
Prieto is the guy who holds himself out as a spokesman for Miami's Cuban-American exile community and is looked to often times when the media needs a quote or a sound bite from a CA in Miami. But yesterday, as he did at SotP so many times before, Val Prieto demonstrated that he is nothing more than a Cuban-American hardliner goon who resorts to thuggery when someone doesn't view Cuban politics the way he does. What the media really needs to know is that Val Prieto is a crass, boorish, vulger and dangerous Cuban-American troglodyte , who no more represents the Cuban-American community than the Tropichop Max at Pollo Tropical represents the quality of food you can buy in Little Havana.
I'm not saying you have to like the guy. It's your call. But you're calling out to the media in an attempt to discredit Val and tear down something that he has worked very hard for the last 5 years, all because of something he did that you didn't like. You could have easily stopped at showing displeasure at Val for revealing KC's identity, without taking the next step which was an attempt to damage Val's hard-earned reputation over something that doesn't directly or even indirectly involve you. That's what's so petty about this.
Mambi Watch: I have never condoned nor directed any type of personal attacks on anyone, whether it's from Babalu or SOtP or 26th Parallel, or anywhere else for that matter. Please look up anything where I condone or even encourage personal attacks before calling me a hypocrite. That would be all the evidence you need right there.
The reason I hesitated to get involved in this is because I don't like it when others try to fight my fight, and Val will probably kill me for doing this. That's OK, it was a decision I consciously made and one I would do again to defend the reputation of a good man.
If that makes me "unreasonable", well then so be it. I'm not trying to impress anyone, just making an honest point.
What Val has done over the last 5 years is try to make himself as *the* voice of the CA without doing shit for Cuba. It's all about him and his ego. Really though, he suffers from a massive inferiority complex and deep insecurity - it's obvious from 20 miles away.
Meanwhile, he hasn't done shit for Cuba - not its people, not for the cause and certainly not even for el exilio. Show me where Val has acted as anything other than a pompous windbag, show me where he's devoted time and energy to reaching out to dissidents and to sowing unity in this community.
You can't. In the end, he's as divisive and useless as any other intolerant hardliner (Perez-Roura and co.)
Robert: Because I was referring to Val being the media mouthpiece for Miami's CA's, I suppose I believed it logical to refer to the media when I was describing him. What I said is nothing that hasn't been said before by others. You know that just as well as I do.
They are strong words, Robert, but his attitude and his actions towards those who disagree with him or don't share his ideology are just as strong, if not stronger.
It is no secret there is no love lost between us. I credit him and Henry and their attitudes with moving me from a person who was relatively naive about CA hardliners and what they were about just a few short years ago to someone who has learned to despise their angry and divisive rhetoric.
The man is capable of doing some good things, I'm sure. But you know what? Even 50 Cent probably buys his posse lunch every now and then. That doesn't make him any less a thug.
It remains that it is despicable to do what he did on Wednesday to KillCastro. If he hadn't chosen that path, we would not be having this conversation.
.
Robert,
I agree with your last post arguing that Rick has certainly taken the "next step" to bring attention to Val Prieto and lay out a whole line of insults against him, some of which may be unjustified and provocative. ANYONE is certainly better than allowing malicious comments to dominate their argument.
But, where's your courage to do the same against the Babalu Blog? A blog that regularly directs insults at others. A blog that regularly resorts to pettiness and mean-spiritedness? Where is it?
I accuse you of hypocrisy for you SILENCE. Just as you have condemned the media for their silence on Cuba, where were you when Val insinuated that Lisandro Perez may be a "Castro agent"?
http://www.babalublog.com/
archives/006411.html
Where were you when Henry Gomez called Martin Sheen an "asshole" and referred to his "fuck you" list?
http://www.babalublog.com/
archives/007277.html
Is this not petty? Are these not attempts to ruin reputations? Where was your criticism when you posted your latest piece on the Babalu Blog?
Is silence not betrayal?
Of course you don't condone it or support it! But, just as you made the effort to criticize Rick here, where's your "instinct" to do the same with Val?
How long are you gonna wait until you hear a "clarification" from Val? Will you post you criticism of Val on your blog if it is true what KC says? Will you make any comments about the Babalu posts above? Will you tell Val to apologize personally or on your blog?
Or will you be silent again?
I made my point as clearly as can be made. The media had nothing to do with the issue until you brought them in. The logical step for you would have been to stop after making your point about the revealing of KC's identity, especially since you have no clue about the history between those guys (there's a lot I don't know myself, if that makes you feel any better).
When you boil everything down to the basics, this ended up being an easy opportunity for you to take a serious broad-side shot at Val and other Cuban-American hardliners. Your statement about Val and Henry making you despise Cuban-American hardliners says all one needs to know about where your biases are. It's reflected in several unfortunate posts at your old blog, such as the one with the mob holding weapons as a representation of Cuban-American "aggression". That post and the others like it was a huge turn off for people like me and many others who want intelligent and honest debate about the issues, not ad-hominem attacks coming from either side. Your political posts have the same effect.
You can't just jump from saying that Val made a "mistake and a lapse in judgment, plain and simple" just like we all have, to calling him a "Cuban-American Thug" without some serious explaining. On second thought, your last comment explains a lot of where that comes from.
You don't have to like Val, Henry, me or anyone else. But there are 2 paths you can choose: one which is critical but avoids potentially damaging accusations, or you can fall into the trap set by others AS WELL AS yourself, trade punches and try to one-up those you don't like. You choose the latter way too often, Rick.
To lift a paragraph from my reaction to one of your SOtP posts last October:
You can start your fairness campaign (on Cuba healthcare) by focusing and passing judgement on the idea, not the person or people who present it. Otherwise, your own bias is transparent and we are right to call you out on it.
I couldn't say it any better tonight.
Robert,
Why do you keep mentioning the "history" or "background" of this situation? Are you saying that perhaps Val was right in his actions?
I'd like to hear you say it because you haven't so far.
And, stop being all bothered by Rick. Yeesh, NO BLOG is gonna ruin Val. (Especially this one.) Your worries should be elsewhere I think.
Mambi Watch,
I couldn't give a crap about Martin Sheen. And, yes, Lisandro Perez may very well be a castro agent by the way he thinks and the things he says. So what's your point?
I'm not going to sit there and criticize someone every time they call someone I don't know or give 3 sheets about an asshole, or worse. C'mon, give me a break.
Is this not petty? Are these not attempts to ruin reputations? Where was your criticism when you posted your latest piece on the Babalu Blog?
No. They're about as damaging as your own "exposes" at your defunct blog which most assuredly but unsuccessfully tried to ruin and discredit the reputation of hardliners. Go back and read your own material. And I AM the hypocrite here?
And, anyway, what does that have to do with my latest piece on the Babalu Blog which had absolutely nothing to do with this issue?
Remember the CodePink "parade" in January? I'm sure you do. I was very critical of the prevailing attitude in Babalu to defend those who tried to steal the siding from their crappy float. I'm sure you remember that too. If not, go to the archives, or go to my own blog.
There have been other times in which I have disagreed with the approach taken by some hardliners which others at Babalu have supported. Please. Take the time to look around. The problem is, you want me to denounce them entirely because of your own feelings against them. Sorry, that's not going to happen.
Robert:
Thanks for the lecture. Next time I promise to make you proud of me. Sheesh.
Listen, there is so much crap those knuckleheads post at babalu it would be easy pickings for me to take swipes at them when I felt like it.
This was different. This bothered me. And it should bother you, too. Because when the editor of a blog like babalu behaves in this manner, everyone needs to sit up and take notice.
And the truth is they did cause me to despise the tactics and the boorishness of the typical Cuban-American hardliner. Pin that one on me, Robert. I could care less. Call it bias. Call it whatever you want. I don't like Cuban-American hardliners. Just like you guys can't stand libs, I can't stand CA hardliners.
I can't stand grown men who flip off women in public. I can't stand people who have to use vulgarities to communicate. I find it reprehensible to "out" someone merely because he holds a different opinion than yours. I hate bullies. And I don't agree with holding up a terrorist as a man who is a hero to your cause.
I can't stand Cuban-American hardliners because of the above, Robert. And if that bothers you so friggin' much, maybe you need to start looking at the company you keep.
And if it doesn't, then just keep on keepin' on, my friend.
But get off my back.
.
Robert,
I read your comments about the Code Pink demonstrations. I thought you made excellent points. I even quoted you on my blog I think. But, did you point your finger to anyone specifically when it all went down, just as you are doing with Rick? Did you send you personal condemnations against so-and-so?
The posts on Babalu that I mentioned are as petty and mean-spirited as your condemnations on Rick. The fact that you make exceptions when it comes to Babalu's comments shows your hypocrisy in this case.
So, do you believe Val possibly was correct in revealing the name of KC? Was the background significant between the two?
KC must've deserved it like Sheen and Perez, I guess. Val being a reasonable guy and all.
Hit a nerve? Please. You are not the first one who brings out the cheap insult because you can't keep up with the argument. Nor are you the first person in the history of the internet to "wonder aloud about English comprehension skills", silly wabbit.
You can keep saying "I can't make my point more clearly" all you want, but that's not where "your problem" is. Everybody understands what you are saying. Everybody is telling you you are wrong. I told you once before, one thing is to be truly ignorant and quite another to know what's right and choosing to be wrong. I used to think it was just your pathetic desire to fit in with the intransigent crowd, but now it's clear it's just your kiss-ass nature.
Alex,
Thanks once again for showing your arrogance for all of us to see. Are you the only person who knows what's right and what's wrong?
I'm damn proud to be in the same company as those you call "intransigent". I don't have to agree with every single thing they say or do, but I agree with their principles and values. Too bad that you, like Rick, have a preconceived notion of those you don't agree with. That right there is what's truly pathetic, Alex. You can debate issues all you want, and that's always well and good, but you always find a way to make it personal.
If you consider sticking up for a friend after being attacked a form of kissing ass, then fine. But you clearly demonstrate that it's much better to be a kiss-ass than a smart-assed comemierda, which you most definitely are.
Rick,
Thank you. That puts everything you post and comment from here on out in perspective.
Perhaps that's something I should have realized a loooong time ago.
All that high-horse, don't-make-it-personal attitude from the guy who came in calling Rick "childish", "petty" and "mean" and then "wonder aloud about your English comprehension skills" to me as if his last name didn't end in a vowel or he was himself such a gifted writer. All that "preconceived notions" from the guy who posts all-liberals-are-hypocrites rants.
Show me where I made it personal in my first response to you. I talked about your pathetic defense of Val, not about your person, but you couldn't muster more than insults. So shove that little violin up your butt.
I'm not the only one who knows what's right and what's wrong in this situation. Obviously there are many like me. You, on the other hand, are alone defending Val's action.
The same guy who said this:
You can debate issues all you want, and that's always well and good, but you always find a way to make it personal.
Said this:
I know English isn't your first language, but I KNOW you can understand that, can't you?
Did I mention Robert that another other thing I can't stand about CA hardliners is their hypocrisy? It is.
Thank you. That puts everything you post and comment from here on out in perspective.
Perhaps that's something I should have realized a loooong time ago.
You're very welcome. See, if you were as perceptive as I am, you would have figured that out back when I realized how much you and "the Boys," as they like to be called these days, can't stand liberals.
I never took offense at that and there's absolutely no reason why you should be offended at my "biases" either.
Well, right?
.
Alex,
You just proved that you don't read my comments. I guess you just don't want to "get it". All I said was that for Rick to take the course he did in the post, it would have been better to know the entire situation. I repeatedly said that if KC's identity was revealed without good reason, then that was the wrong thing for Val to do. Geez...how many times do I have to say it? The main issue I have is the route Rick took, not that he disagreed with the revealing of the guy's identity. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least understand where I'm coming from. Is that too much to ask? At least Rick seems to understand my position, and he's the one I'm criticizing.
Alex, for as long as I've been reading your comments and posts, you have shown a propensity for taking little personal jabs at people during a spirited discussion. I'm not talking about the name-calling back and forth, but controversial issues in which people are trying to have honest debate. It's subtle at times, but always noticeable. After a while, you just get tired of it.
Sorry Rick, I don't hate liberals. I know that must come as a disappointment. I only detest the ones who are blatant anti-Americans and bigots.
I know you take offense to a lot of the things that you claim don't bother you. It's OK, Rick. It's totally human to do so. Otherwise why would you post some of the things you do? We all do this.
Looks like the 24-hour limit on this discussion has come and gone.
Over and out, thank God.
Robert,
Just curious, have you figured out yet the history and background of the matter at hand? Were Val's actions against Kill Castro justified?
Just wondering how your deliberations are going? Keep us posted.
Ok, so we are clear, you can't show me where I made it personal with you, before you went into the "English is your second language"... can we call that a "little personal jab"? Yes we can.
Here's a not so subtle, not so little, very personal, not a jab but a punch: you are the comemierda with no dignity or credibility, Robert. Frame it and hang it on your wall.
I know you take offense to a lot of the things that you claim don't bother you. It's OK, Rick. It's totally human to do so.
What the heck does this mean? One of the problems I run into around here is that I say exactly what's on my mind. There are no mixed messages, Robert. What or who are you referring to?
Sorry Rick, I don't hate liberals. I know that must come as a disappointment. I only detest the ones who are blatant anti-Americans and bigots.
So you detest some liberals, Robert? Great, so now you know exactly how I feel when I say I detest some Cuban-Americans of the hardliner variety.
I believe we've made some progress.
.
Awesome comment thread. My vote goes to Rick and Alex. That Robert dude just doesn't get it, especially when his words come back to bite him in the ass, but I know someone else who can only think in black and white. Thankfully he only has 296 more days in office.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.