Drowsy Emperor

I've never heard him say anything ridiculous. But I'm not exactly a Chomsky scholar either

We can criticize Castro from the standpoint of individual ethics (as pointless as that is without taking into account the context), but no American president has a leg to stand on in this regard by comparison. The combined body-count of the ten US presidents Castro outlasted makes him look like a paragon of virtue and humanity. Besides, the Bay of Pigs is proof enough who the Cuban people identified with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CDkWN1-BwE I sometimes put on one of his lectures if I can't sleep. The way he drones on in an unexcited monotone about power structures. It's comforting. I was talking about Zizek. I feel Chomsky still has intellectual credibility and is as a rule clear about the things he says. Zizek just blabbers on and on, hits on something true at a rate of one sentence per hour - just enough that you can't call the mental ward to take him away.

That seems very dramatic. Its just common sense

This was actually more pro-Castro than Russia today's embarrassing Zizek stint Incidentally why do they keep asking that prick to give his opinion on anything - I've never heard him say anything worthwhile

There is no stepping down from that position. The only way to leave power is to strike a deal, death or exile. And no one will choose any of those options unless they're already on the edge of defeat.

*shrug* I'd say the answer is patently obvious to everyone

What was the alternative? He went to the US first, realized he would get no support there and that they would try to depose him. After that any "elections" would have cost him his head. Money would have flowed to any pliable opposition on the island and there'd be as many regime change operations as it took to get rid of him. This isn't Sweden or Canada where nobody cares what they do with no real opponents, massive buffer zone between any source of instability and limitless resources to build up in peace. It was either rule the way he ruled or not at all.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects. Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily. Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government. On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies. Where does this small government you speak of exist? They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur. So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure. Lol, that "small" government also went on to all but obliterate Native Americans. Paradise indeed Why do Castro's acts against his political opponents disqualify his legacy but those of your ancestors do not?

S' nice, but it was an absolute monarch that put bread on his table

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects. Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily. Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government. On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies. Where does this small government you speak of exist?

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Every Cuban I've ever met has a serious issue with Castro. I take their word over anything else. I'm hoping that you know even the basics of Cuban history. If you do you should be well aware that the opinions of Cubans living in the US are, at best, a one sided view of those affairs. But do feel free to ignore fifty years of established international politics and world history for someone's bitter anecdotal evidence. By the way, shouldn't you, as a teacher, be dealing primarily with facts? Funny Teachers teach what they are being told to teach. In many cases like the sciences, that is obviously teaching facts. But there is no uktimalye truths when it comes to politics. Or rather, there is, but people (especially in America) want their children to support their country. So everything is taught in a way that supports the US. Now, obviously there are exceptions, but this is the general consensus. And obviously this is true for basically every school system ever-if children are taught politics, they are usually also taught underlaying principles. And in the case of the US those are democracy, capitalism and (to a greater or lesser extend) patriotism. In some parts also religion. But history and especially politics is always taught an talked about at an angle. Always! Yes, but its the duty of any self-respecting academic and intellectual to try to entertain other points of view and educate himself as broadly as possible on a topic, weighing the extent of his knowledge on the topic and trying to get at what is likely the truth. What Hurlshot said is no better than a farmer saying that he doesn't vaccinate his animals because Bob from next door said "they are, like, really bad for you". Sure, there are more than a few people that hate Castro. You don't get to be a leader for half a century without inspiring some hate in the process - even Ghandi is positively despised in most of India. But there are also millions of people to whom Castro is the best leader they can imagine - and millions of others across the world who see him as the symbol of national liberation, a champion for equality and freedom. His status in Latin America, most of Africa and Asia - and much of Europe is unrivaled. Its ridiculous to discount that legacy merely on account of the minority of Cubans living in the US.

Every Cuban I've ever met has a serious issue with Castro. I take their word over anything else. I'm hoping that you know even the basics of Cuban history. If you do you should be well aware that the opinions of Cubans living in the US are, at best, a one sided view of those affairs. But do feel free to ignore fifty years of established international politics and world history for someone's bitter anecdotal evidence. By the way, shouldn't you, as a teacher, be dealing primarily with facts?

Politics level over 9000

Mass murdering is an extreme exaggeration. All revolutions are filled with misdeeds, and all governments eventually devolve into an oligarchy. Those two truisms aside he could have held onto power without giving the people anything and behaving in the exact same manner as Batista before him. Yet he chose not to do that, built a healthcare and education system out of nothing, supported several national liberation struggles that were probably done at a greater cost than profit, managed to defeat a foreign invasion, managed to keep a superpower at bay, made it state policy to send Cuban doctors pro bono to help Latin american countries, supported the independence of other nations and a whole lot of other remarkable things. The man is an icon of freedom the world over, barring anglo-saxon countries and non-state satellites like Canada. So, the overwhelming majority of the world. Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country.

The US hates being baulked, and Castro did it for 49 years, including through the 90s when he was supposed to go the way of Ceacescu etc. That a lot of people in the US take it personally is no real surprise. Would have said that Tito could, but you'd know more about that than I. And for most of his time Castro was nor genuinely politically independent as he was solidly USSR sphere, albeit more by necessity than outright desire- it was only the last 15 years of his rulership where he was independent. Such irony that I forgot about Tito. Yeah his political acumen was second to none. I just have a general distaste for the way nation politics were handled within former Yugoslavia so I sometimes tend to overlook his objectively impressive achievements.

There was also play piece states in Europe during cold war that successfully kept their indecency and do much better economically. And some of them even have free education and free healthcare systems that are accounted to being some of the best in the world. Those states also had strong willed governance but they succeed not making enemies from either USA or USSR. But of course it is hard to say if what they did was similar, better or lesser demonstration of political independence and sheer willpower, but at end they left their countries in better economical and political positions in the world, which of course don't mean that they necessary did better job. And most of them were either former colonial powers with massive accumulated wealth or in the the protected back of Europe with someone else banking their defense costs ... and no one attempting to kill their leaders or invade them.

Surprised at the amount of salt here. Castro is one of the most remarkable politicians and leaders of the 20th century. He turned Cuba from a US gambling den and whorehouse into a country with one of the best healthcare systems in the world (relative to what can be had for what is essentially a very poor country) and very good free education. The price was the centralization of political power and a cult of personality. Poverty too, but then Cuba is never going to be an economic powerhouse. But, so what. To achieve that, while defying the worlds largest power at their own doorstep - that is something no one in Latin America can claim. In fact - no leader in Europe post WW2 can claim a comparative demonstration of political independence and sheer willpower. Even de Gaulle caved in eventually - Castro never did. With him die the great politics of the 20th century, and even though they brought a lot of misery as well as progress, its still sad to witness the end of an era.

Okay, so 60+ million people voted for him because they had nothing better to do that day That's an ass backwards way of looking at it too. Its much harder to get votes as Donald Trump than it is as McCain or Romney. If they had the kind of media machinery against them that he did they probably get half as much. Actually if they had that kind of bias against them they'd never get to run a campaign in the first place.

Then I am not sure how you can possibly characterize the west as in decline. Growth amongst lower and middle classes is terribly stagnant compared to the wealthy, but compared to the past most people are still seeing an improvement in most areas. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. Which past? You can take any time period you want. Food production, medical technology, and housing have all become better over time. We aren't even a generation removed from asbestos in the walls. Just look at the infant mortality rates over the last 80 years. We've had this argument before. Give me some real evidence that the western world is in decline as a whole, not a handful of tragic examples. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-2014-inflation-1950-vs-2014-data-housing-cars-college/ http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/ I am not disagreeing that the stagnant wages are a major problem in our society, in fact it is the one thing I mentioned earlier. But that is one issue among many, and despite decades of it being a problem, people are still driving around in their increasingly safe cars, getting increasingly sophisticated medical care, and eating fairly inexpensive junk food that makes that medical care so important. Those developments apply worldwide to some extent. Do you think that maybe sitting in the richest state of the richest country in the world has skewered your viewpoint a bit? If not, then explain why America elected Trump. If things are good, and both Trump and Sanders pointed out many times that they are not, why was the most criticized, underdog candidate the one to win at the end?

Then I am not sure how you can possibly characterize the west as in decline. Growth amongst lower and middle classes is terribly stagnant compared to the wealthy, but compared to the past most people are still seeing an improvement in most areas. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. Which past? You can take any time period you want. Food production, medical technology, and housing have all become better over time. We aren't even a generation removed from asbestos in the walls. Just look at the infant mortality rates over the last 80 years. We've had this argument before. Give me some real evidence that the western world is in decline as a whole, not a handful of tragic examples. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-2014-inflation-1950-vs-2014-data-housing-cars-college/ http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/

Then I am not sure how you can possibly characterize the west as in decline. Growth amongst lower and middle classes is terribly stagnant compared to the wealthy, but compared to the past most people are still seeing an improvement in most areas. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. Which past?

Your view that the West is in economic decline is horribly inaccurate ... Come on the Internet is easy to use ? http://howafrica.com/worlds-largest-economies-2016/ Decline is defined by having less of something than you had yesterday, not whatever one figure is relevant at any given moment.

Frankly Bruce, I've had my fair share of disagreements and arguments in this forum with a lot of people, but if there is one person that strikes me as being genuinely incapable of empathy, its you. And I don't say this because of your well known comments regarding the bombing of Yugoslavia, I say it because you speak like a political mouthpiece and its simply impossible to tell what is your genuine opinion (if you even have any) and what is just passive-aggressive baiting of others.