Last night, the U.S. men's national team played its first game in Cuba in over 60 years, beating the Cubans 1-0. While I watched part of this game (holy crap, our national team looks terrible), it got me thinking about our stance towards Cuba.
We've had a trade embargo with Cuba for years, and it made a little sense during the Cold War. But Cuba no longer has its Russian enablers, and yet the embargo still exists. This embargo has been completely ineffective - there have been zero signs of reform in Cuba. Opening trade with a totalitarian country leads to a freer country, as the citizenry can observe what freedom is to the nations they trade with and demand the same things from their government. It's time to lift (or at least ease) the embargo on Cuba.
This is an issue that Republicans are usually wrong on, though, because they are beholden to the mistaken idea from the Cuban-American population in south Florida (that they need to get elected) that this embargo is necessary to be "tough" on the totalitarian regime. In the meantime, their families continue to suffer.
In general, however, the Republicans get it right on free trade. A few weeks ago, I read an article about "reverse illegal immigration" - basically, illegal immigrants in south Texas were going back to Mexico because of more favorable economic conditions down there. This is something that, I believe, NAFTA can take credit for.
Anyway, as an aside, read this story about a Cuban with some honkin' brass cojones.
4 comments:
Everyone knows my viewpoints on trade, and no one really disproved what I said far below, but that's neither here nor there and I moved on.
Trade is probably the only issue with conservatives I'm somewhat "maverick," although I think in recent memory, conservatives are split on trade as you watch pundits and experts. I do agree with trade, but I don't agree with ultimate 100% free. Our interests have to play a role. With that said, I do see some benefits of opening up to Cuba - mainly national security and there has got to be some sort of accountability. These our facts: our jobs are disappearing over the last 2 decades and wages either stayed level or barely went up because of this ultimate free trade we're experiencing.
We still have a Castro (even worst than Fidel) leading there and we have Cubans fleeing to this country (understandably so), but until there's a regime change, we're not gonna see changes on a grand scale because people tend to forget the policies their own leaders execute on them. Do you think free trade in Africa will lead to democracies there? It'll actually empower the dictators there and that's majority it.
I'd beg to disagree with Cuba not having "enablers." I think that's a good launching point and I won't go any further there.
By the way, the US Soccer team gets so much hype, but they just don't ever live up to it...
>>>In the meantime, their families continue to suffer.
Is it safe to say that you think countries around the world suffer because we don't engage with them? Do you think it's our policies that's leading to the Middle East to hate us? They're suffering because of their leadership. Not us. I know "Middle East" I just brought up is a different topic, but I always hear from liberals here that it's either our policies around the world or lackthereof that's leading to conditions today
>>>illegal immigrants in south Texas were going back to Mexico because of more favorable economic conditions down there. This is something that, I believe, NAFTA can take credit for.
This is kinda what I said months ago, yet I got hammered on it...either they go back or they stay there
Dude, I think people dislike arguing with you because you always (and I'm not exaggerating when I say always) say these words:
"as I said X days/weeks/years ago, and now I'm proven right and/or nobody has disproved me"
Just FYI. That leads quickly to pressing the "ignore" button.
I'm not in the mood for argument on this blog (especially not when it comes to the actual mechanics of politics - I could care less how someone's speech plays to JoeBob in Peoria) so I'm just using it to post stuff that's interesting to me, and that I think the rest of you guys might find interesting.
By the way, I didn't mean it to sound harsh (I've found that since I moved out here, honesty with interpersonal relations has greatly increased, as people out here just tend to say what they think). I've just found that that sort of argumentative style is a real turnoff, and it's one that I've employed in the past and I don't ever want to use again, especially with friends - which is the reason why I decided to just not to argue at all. It's really easy for an argument to degenerate into that sort of confrontational, Fox News/CNN/MSNBC style.
That said, I won't take the bait. To reiterate - I use this blog to post stuff that's interesting to me (for the moment: science & technology; Latin American policy, esp. regarding trade; general theory regarding the roots of American conservatism and libertarianism; the war on terror). Hopefully you guys find it just as interesting, and if not, well, just don't read it.
Bottom line, I seem "arrogant" because when I debate, I expect people to at least answer questions I ask. Offer me your 75 points, that's cool, but if my questions get ignored anywhere in there...I'm level-headed in the beginning, but when my retort is basically ignored, I assume one is ignoring it for whatever reason.
That's just a baseline thought not targeted to anyone.
If this is a board to post interesting articles, I can back off a little from firing away. Or I'll just post my opinion, whether you agree or disagree with it, and feel free to do whatever you want with it. This is probably why in the past I asked for liberals on here.
Don't worry about harshness. If I go through a day of work without some bonehead at Lockheed Martin insulting me in some way shape or form due to policies or whatever, then I feel weird...although I think you being in New England is driving you to this a little. I never heard you talk like this in the past. My adventures in New England in the past included Boston, Hartford, New York City, and Newark and I always felt like I was surrounded by super-intellectuals that know nothing but socialism or the other side of the spectrum...and it was always crummy weather which made the mood worse.
Post a Comment