Drake said something insightful. You said something idiotic. Thinking that there is any need for a “good reply” is similarly idiotic.
Really? Saying the U.S. government is somewhat less than functional is insightful? No, it’s pure hyperbole. By all means, keep on. You’re entertaining at least.
checking my info
My memory was actually right: Dr. Drake is a dual-citizen American/Canadian, his husband is British, they lived in California for several years and eventually emigrated to Canada. So his system has been chugging along for longer… maybe you should check where the target is before you start shooting?
Basically, it’s a fifty-year-old hissyfit. 
A dream trip of mine, I just hope I get there before McDonalds.
As others have said, I’m half American, including by birth, upbringing, education, and citizenship, so… 225 years or so. One of the things I learned there was that Americans have the right to criticize their government, and that a good citizen should strive to improve his country rather than resort to knee-jerk jingoistic worship of all things American, because that road leads to fascism. So either refute the point or argue the interpretation, but don’t think I’m going to be swayed by an appeal to the age of the Constitution. The document was designed to be changed when necessary, not worshipped.
Rhythmdvl had a valid point. I did focus on your last sentence to the exclusion of the insightful observation you made. I am not sure we can blame U.S. policy towards Cuba on Florida’s status as a swing state. Florida wasn’t a swing state in 1980, (no data for 1984 but since Reagan pretty much won every state…), 1988, 1992, or 1996 and our policy towards Cuba was largely unchanged during those years. That leaves the last three elections (2000, 2004 and 2008) with Florida as a swing state.
Of course the lack of swing state status doesn’t preclude the Cuban-American voter from influencing national policy towards Cuba. Let’s just assume it is for a moment. I don’t think this means that ANY minority group in Florida would be able to hold national policy hostage. First, the issue of Cuba is something that the vast majority of American voters are indifferent towards. Even for those of us who have an opinion on the subject one way or the other; it’s just not a pressing political concern. It would be a very different thing if a vocal minority tried to hold national policy hostage on a policy people actually cared about. A Representative from the 9th Congressional District of the great state of California might be able to let the Cuba question slide because her constituents don’t really care about it. She would be unable to let something like gay rights slide because she’s probably got a significant number of constituents who care one way or the other about the issue.
That’s just a theory. I think a lot of U.S. policy both domestic and foreign exist because nobody feels like changing it. But I’m ambivalent as to its validity.
I completely agree. I didn’t take exception to your criticism of U.S. policy towards Cuba (I agree relations should be normalized). I took exception to one throwaway line that came at the end of your post. You said our system was less than functioning. That statement is to legitimate criticism as any knee-jerk jingoistic worship of all things American is to a valid response.
Okay, I found my uncle’s letter. He and my aunt – again, he’s 91 (above I meant he turned 91 on the Danube last year), but she’s only in her 70s (I think; could be in her 80s by now) – are going to Cuba as participants in what’s called a “People to People” program sponsored by the Grand Circle Foundation. Seems the foundation has been licenced to do this by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the branch of the US Treasury that regulates travel to Cuba. He didn’t give an exact date but said it would be early this year, so I guess it’s any time now.
Thanks, Siam Sam, I was wondering if you would find that.
Or Starbucks. In fact, I’d give them the edge over McDonalds.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Basically, it’s a fifty-year-old hissyfit.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. There’s no reason why full diplomatic relations should not have been implementedand the trade block lifted years ago. Right now, it’s pretty much a pointless grudge.
Last summer, travel restrictions were eased. But only certain types of tours, only certain types of tours (they generally have to have a cultural or educational bents) with licensed tour operators who have filed detailed itineraries of where they’re going and what they’re doing.
Gosh, I suppose a lot of warm, poor, countries are nice if you have money and do not mind supporting the local dictator. This year, why not Burma?
My boss (who is not Hispanic) just got back from a similar trip a couple of weeks ago. His wife (also not Hispanic) has been wanting to go to Cuba for years, but he was worried about his law license if he was caught traveling illegally through Mexico.
He loved it and had a great time, and was surprised at how openly complete strangers were in talking to him - the Fidel jokes blew him away.
I just spent over a year in Cuba–not sure if I’d recommend it, though.
Sure you wanna start chucking stones at dictator-proppers, O Artist Formerly Known as Paul in Saudi?
Warm,* rich* countries are different!
The United States is a Free Country. We can go wherever we’re allowed to.
This is a silly argument. If we use age as a justification, then the longer a bad system stays in place, the harder it is to change it.