P. Ryan and the Cuban Embargo

When M. Romney finally revealed his choice for a running mate, Paul Ryan, a bug-eyed professional walker-back from Wisconsin of this, that, and everything, I  happened to catch just a snippet of something that in my eyes stood out more than anything else on his rap sheet, though I guess that to most other people it was of towering insignficance when compared to budgets and Medicare.  So far nothing has been said about it in the campaigns of either party, because of the Cuban refugees in Florida, who draw attention because they are the most Republican group among the Latinos, and they have pretty much taken over the Miami-Dade County area in Florida, and neither side wants to risk kicking their hornet nest.

So what did Ryan do?  A while ago, long before he reached his present notoriety, he voted at least three times for an end to the Cuban Embargo!

Surprising as it was to hear of a Republican voting to end the pain and suffering of dark-skinned people by any means other than by shooting or starving them to death, Ryan probably did this back in the days when Republicans could now and then take a side excursion or two into the land of being reasonable.   Nowadays, within their party, that kind of thing isn't safe at all, and since then he has predictably and obediently voted the other, misguided way, just as he is now trying to make it look as if he didn't actually cuddle up inside Ayn Rand's petticoats.

It seems that Ryan voted that way not out of ordinary human decency but instead because he believed in free trade, and he was trying to be consistent in seeing trading with Cuba to be no different than doing business with the Chinese, which of course is the most sensible point of view.   But then China didn't have the bad luck of having its refugees turn against the mother country with as much malice aforethought as did the Cuban immigrants, and there is no enormous colony of Chinese Nasties that have taken over the entire city of San Francisco or any other American burg, as the Cubans have done in Miami.

Castro had hardly taken power in the late 1950's when it became clear as day to me that the best way for it to come back under the American armpits was to continue leaving that island purely in the hands of the tourists.  And I still believe that if that had been done, without Castro throwing up a stone wall completely around the place,  the tourists would have subverted things there so much without even trying, that Castro and his regime wouldn't have lasted much past ten years.

But what happened instead was that, ever since then , U.S. leaders of all persuasions have feared the political power of the vengeful refugees who kept pouring into and reproducing in Miami, and so we've had the enduring crime and failure of the Cuban Embargo.   By seeing that that embargo always remained firmly in place, the Cuban refugees, obviously short on gray matter, have kept the Castro Revolution going all these years, instead of ending it, as was allegedly always their intention.   That embargo merely threw the stayathome Cubans farther back on their own resources, and that has proven to be enough to keep them from going under.   And they take pride in that, and for one thing, they are said to have that all-important amenity, a great medical system, and it's hard to see how they would ever welcome back those who fled.

     But I think that, no matter what they preached, ending the Revolution was never the goal of the refugees.   Their intention, born of spite, was always instead to keep those who remained behind, voluntarily or for other reasons, deprived of the material things in life to the max and so to make those staybehinds suffer.  Above all, the key role that race always plays in nearly all of human life also can never be discarded here, since the refugees are reputed to be preponderantly European in origin, while those who remained behind with Castro have a much larger amount of African ancestry, and we know how that always goes.