Slashdot Mirror


Domains Blocked By US Treasury 'Blacklist'

yuna49 writes "Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports today about the plight of a Spanish tour operator whose domain names have been embargoed by his domain name registrar (eNom). They pulled his domains after they discovered the tour operator's name on a US Treasury blacklist. It turns out he packages tours to Cuba largely for European tourists who can legally travel there, unlike Americans. The article cites 'a press release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was "a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do.' The only part of the operator's business in the United States is his domain name registration; all other aspects of his business lie outside the United States."

525 comments

  1. So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... are breaking the law if they go there?

    *gets out his eraser and starts removing that "Land Of The Free" line from all the songbooks...*

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    1. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      *gets out his eraser and starts removing that "Land Of The Free" line from all the songbooks...*

      Sorry, that's also illegal.

      j/k ;)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn you, PATRIOT ACT! Got me every way I turn!

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    3. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Degreeless · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't forget they're also helping generate funds for an evil, damsel kidnapping, moustache twirling dictatorship!

    4. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      They can move there and stay. No loss to anyone.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    5. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bush doesn't have a moustache...

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    6. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the country really were in that state, it would be illegal to point out the hypocrisy of the administration.

      or even to use all of those words in the same sentencAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    7. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep! Served them good, now they will learn! We shouldn't do any business with any muthafuckin' oppressive regime! We should do it with China!

    8. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Degreeless · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not in public perhaps but look carefully at some of his interviews and you will see detachable whiskers and a diabolical monocle in the breast pocket of his jacket at all times!

    9. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Fiendish!

      Where does he keep his Mr Bigglesworth?

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    10. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, you never see Bush and Castro in the same picture ... like Clark Kent and Superman ...

      ... except that Castro wasn't a coward who had daddy pull strings for him, isn't a drunken coke-head, etc.

      You know, you never see Cheney and Castro in the same picture ... like ... nah - if Castro pointed a gun at your head and pulled the trigger, drunk or not, you'd be dead ...

      You know, you never see Condaleeza Rice and Castro in the same picture ...

    11. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by peragrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      have you seen pictures of his wife?

      ever wonder why his daughters were always getting drunk?

      they know the truth.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's called an embargo, not censorship. And it's what's necessary and just to put pressure on Cuba to stop being a vicious dictatorship and actually respect its citizens' human rights. I'm not being sarcastic.

    13. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope... you're being genuinely, unambiguously uneducated. But not sarcastic.

      Cuba trades with Canada, Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil... but an AMERICAN embargo will force them to change. Yeah. That's working well, after four decades of communism, tourism, cheap gas, and free technology.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    14. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      NOTE: Er, typo above. Cuba trades with CHINA, not Cuba.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    15. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by alx5000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I see how the US is putting pressure on all the African countries with which they trade weapons, diamonds and oil...

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    16. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Thanks to those notorious neocons Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    17. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 0

      So we're the only ones doing what's right?

    18. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but those accoutrements are reserved for evil geniuses.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    19. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's called bullying. We bully Cuba because we can (and it appeases people in a state with a lot of electoral votes). We let China get away with human rights abuses because they're too big to bully. Wake up.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    20. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by webmaster404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So which works better? Closing a country off from (what was once) the most free country in the world, or flooding the streets with American tourists who will tell the people about life in a free state. I think the latter would work much better, because it would be like if you grew up in say a prison cell you wouldn't know what life was like on the other side, however if you get thrown in prison its much worse and you want to get out of it. Believe it or not I am sure there are more Cubans who could change the government then government officials to keep it the way it is.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    21. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give one example of an embargo working. You can't - they only end up hurting innocent people and isolating countries so change is slower.

    22. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      so, then what's neccessary to stop saudi arabia, china and pakistan to stop being vicious dictatorships and actually respect its citizens'human rights ?

      oh, wait. silly me. cuba doesn't have nukes like china and pakistan nor oil like saudi arabia. sorry.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    23. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by palegray.net · · Score: 2

      With Castro gone I predict the end of the embargo within five years. IMO it's mostly been about him, not the Cuban people.

    24. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US government is afraid Americans who go there would turn communist.. This is all about Communism, that's why you're not allowed to go there, because you might be re-educated.

    25. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by CharlieG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole Cuban embargo thing has totally to do with Florida being a swing state. Been that way since the 1970s.

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    26. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by skatedog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, it's quite obvious we're the only ones doing what's right. That evidence is echoed worldwide, why look what good we're doing in the Middle East. American Foreign Policy has not been a pretty thing for at least the past 8yrs and really, much longer than that. Off topic maybe, on point definitely. If we had free trade with Cuba, they most likely would be the 51st State by now and a fine vacation spot. Embargos typically make the poorest and weakest of the nation being embargoed suffer. Those in power, find a way to remain in power. Now free trade and capitalism, and the free flow of ideas, now those things can be infective and spark great things, (see Fall of the USSR). I think it would be difficult at best to cite US foreign policy success where Cuba is concerned. Anyway, nice story from Washington Post 2/19/08 is here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901649.html

      --
      "skate the web"
    27. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by matushorvath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't you do the "right thing" with North Korea as well? The Cuban embargo is plainly stupid, I just don't understand how anyone could not see it. You are effectively helping Castro to isolate the people in Cuba from the free world. The only thing they know about the free world is what Castro tells them. If they could meet real live US-ans on their family vacation in Cuba, they would at least be able to compare. If US businesses started operating in Cuba, Castro would have to be the bad guy who bans them, since otherwise his planned economy would quickly become irrelevant. As it is now, Castro can easily claim that the bad guys live in USA.

    28. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by webmaster404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if people want the government to be communist let them, they still need a majority vote. However I don't see them getting it anytime soon.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    29. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Software · · Score: 1

      Nobody seems to have replied directly to your point, so I will: Yes. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html

    30. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      So if Canada, Europe, China, Venezuela and Brazil all jumped off a cliff you would too.

    31. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 4, Informative

      I asked for evidence, and you provided gibberish and cut-and-paste from Sun Tzu. Bravo.

    32. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I see how the US is putting pressure on all the African countries with which they trade weapons, diamonds and oil...

      Cuba is considered different because of its strategic value (closeness to the US). No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard. Many argue, and very reasonably so, supporting Cuba is paying your enemy to subvert your own country. They decided Cuba was the line in the sand and it would be the example held high to ensure no other threats surface. They prop it up as a human rights argument (and it) but that's only because few really understand the strategic value (hint, hint...Cuban Missile Crisis) Cuba has for enemies of the United States.

      Those that beckon to strengthen the Cuban economy are perceived by the US as ignorant dupes, serving to undermine the security of the United States. And it has been perceived that way for the last 40 years (so people don't think this is a Bush-ism). By in large, those that are in a hurry to open trade with Cuba are usually completely lost as to what it means to national security.

      And when you have a country like the US keeping the hatches secure, and when Cuba is not strategic threat to you, you can easily afford to trade with that country. Most children understand that just because you know someone that doesn't like another person, doesn't mean you have to hate them too. Likewise, not every ally country shares the same priorities (no threat) as the US, and as a bonus, it works as an economic benefit.

    33. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Nope... you're being genuinely, unambiguously uneducated. Hey stop calling the neo-cons names!

      We all know that communism oppresses the upper-class when what is so obviously correct is for the rich to oppress the poor. Like here in the US! Health care for the poor only makes them suffer longer lives...
    34. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Grave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn right!

      If all that landmass jumped off a cliff, the chaos caused to the world climate would be horrible. Might as well join them on the crazy ride down that ridiculously huge cliff they've found.

    35. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by LilGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a bit ironic to say that Americans are the only bit of the free world when they're restricted from even traveling to Cuba. Yet Europeans are free to travel as they please.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    36. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by X-Dopple · · Score: 4, Informative

      The embargo won't end anytime soon - the Helms-Burton act specifies that as long as a Castro remains in power, the embargo will remain enforced.

    37. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Usekh · · Score: 1

      South Africa

    38. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Good information.

    39. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, your the only ones still holding a grudge.

    40. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by D'Sphitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think Castro is in power anymore...

    41. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I don't have any of those.

    42. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the only way to put some teeth in this embargo is to embargo Canada, Europe, China, and everyone else who is to stupid to know that the right thing to do is to embargo Cuba. That will show them!

      PS. How do you make a sarcasm tag?

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    43. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      The Cuban embargo is plainly stupid, I just don't understand how anyone could not see it. I an quite certain everyone sees it just fine. Just no one wants to admit they were wrong about it.
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    44. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No matter what the U.S. government says publicly regarding human rights, Cuba is embargoed for historical national security reasons. Whether those reasons are still valid is up for debate.

    45. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      America appears to be the only country that seems to think its the only free country. It really isn't. Its not even in the top 10 or 20% of free countries, civil rights wise. With a higher percentage of its poplation imprisoned than anywhere else in the world, and one of the last 'free' countries left with a Death sentence, the USA is a human rights dinosaur.

      But it still attempts to tell the world how we should follow [i]their[/i] example. No thanks, I actually like my freedoms.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    46. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mixmatch · · Score: 1

      Prohibits recognition of a transitional government in Cuba that includes Fidel or Raúl Castro
    47. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, US trade with China does nothing but increase, ditto Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Sudan, many others.

    48. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Uhm, thats kind of the point.

      They are supposed to hurt the country, which in turn makes the population unhappy with their leader, and the leader changes his/her ways or the leader gets changed.

      This does not always work, but I'm too lazy to go find a reference. If you'd really like proof, then I demand that you list every embargo that has happened, and proof that if failed. After you do that, I'll show you ones that worked ;)

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    49. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by overlanpark4 · · Score: 0

      Calm down, "land of the free", doesn't mean you can evade the law. I can't wait until we start arresting losers that leave from NY, go to Jamaica, then to Cuba. When people know they are breaking the law, they should pay the piper. If he is signing up American customers for a trip to Cuba, then he is breaking the law. You probably support overseas child porn, because after all, it's not in America, and it's land of the free right. No difference. P.S. You might want to check your hard drive. Just to be sure. Doh...

    50. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another reason to vote Libertarian. Fuck the Republicrats.

    51. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      The embargo was highly unlikely to have been effective, especially since as soon as Reagan got into office he weakened it because he knew it would be ineffective. In other words, it didn't have any time to work even if it would have, given more time.

    52. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Well, how long do you think this one is going to last? he's, what, 76? 5 years might not be too far off.

      Also, I believe it only mentions Raul and Fidel specificly, so if one of Fidel's sons took power, it would end.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    53. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by compro01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fidel isn't, but Raul Castro is, and he's also mentioned by name in the Helms-Burton act.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    54. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WHEN is this country going to f*king LEARN!!!???? You DO NOT successfully, peacefully advance rogue countries by ostracising them. Even just recently, Cuba signed on to Human Rights covenants/laws now that Fidel Castro turned power over to his brother.

      There are "Americans" who have suffering relatives IN Cuba, (I believe there are permissions with limits on how much US citizens can send annually to Cuba), and it ought to be criminal to expect people to put on a uniform to potentially go and kill or threaten to kill relatives in OR outside the country.

      I think the US government and some wealthy are just royally pissed that Fidel, like Kim Jong-Il, didn't just 'vanish' or 'die". Castro outlived MULTIPLE US presidents... must be an embarrassment to the USA...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    55. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that were the case, we wouldn't be trading with China either. It's about American political ego being used against a country where it doesn't hurt the US economy to do so. When it comes to trading with abusive countries with large economies or something else to offer, the US government conveniently looks the other way. We trade with other countries that are far more abusive than Cuba.

      Try again later with the "doing what's right" herring.

    56. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, but the reality is the Cuban embargo has nothing to do with politics, but has everything to do with Americans and American companies recovering the assets that they lost when the assets were nationalised. So the embargo will remain until the American organised crime families can get back the casinos that the Cubans people nationalised.

      So Cuban will not be accepted as a democracy by the US until, they turn themselves back into the working poor for American corporations. Of course whether the Cubans actually elect a leader or a military coup takes place establishing an autocracies, makes absolutely not the slightest bit of difference to the end of the embargo.

      All this does is highlight why other countries do not trust the current US administration with the central domain register, because as far as the current US administration is concerned, US corporate law is international law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    57. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Give one example of an embargo working. You can't - they only end up hurting innocent people and isolating countries so change is slower.

      The South African Apartheid regime collapsed due to pressure from sanctions. But the reasons were psychological, not economic. The regime saw itself as an unacknowledged part of the West, the rejection had real and visible effect. Once it became clear that the US was also on the brink of rejecting it, the regime crumbled.

      The Cuban situation is exactly the reverse, the only thing keeping Castro in power was the fact that he had successfully stood up to the US when it had acted as a big bully.

      The human rights issue is not likely to be very effective when the US is running the best known gulag and torture house on the island.

      This is a case where trade can have a positive effect and every policy maker in DC knows it, even the Republicans. The only reason that the embargo is kept in place is to pander to the Cuban vote in Florida.

      Thats the way ethnic politics are played in the US. While mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani would attack terrorism over lunch in Brooklyn, then head off for dinner to give a 'humanitarian award' to the leader of the terrorist group that has caused by far the most deaths in Europe. Different constituencies, different positions. I don't think he was pro-Israel or pro-IRA, he just wanted the votes and would do anything it took to get them.

      The people the politicians pander to are your usual expatriate irredentists, they can afford to refuse all compromise, they don't live with the consequences.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    58. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      If only they hadn't been given that trillion dollar bill...

    59. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by davidsyes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I'm going to chime in on Corea/Korea, since it's been brought up...

      The US is just in a near-conniption fit that the North has not collapsed, imploded, or exploded. It's a major embarrassment that multiple US administrations just ineptly cannot figure out how to have state-to-state talks with the North and get out of the way of confederation leading to reunification. Don't like MY perception? Read...on

      Check out "Korean Endgame" by Selig S. Harrison...

      The first two chapters show how ignorant the US can be when it comes to taking sides and coercing what it thinks are its client states (and is instead manipulated by the South, as was Russia by the North), yet (the US) ends up delaying reunification because if later finds it NEEDS and DESIRES a 'clear and present danger' of sorts in order to justify $42B a year in deployed US military assets around Asia, and $2B a year going directly to the South.

      The South recently offered citizenship to people of the North. The YOUTH of the South probably care less about politics, but wealthy in the loop with military and economic assets at risk don't want to be besieged nor bothered by a massive influx of poor Northerners. In general, though, many if not most Koreans (North and South are torn by the division instigated by by Kim Song Il, after duping Stalin and getting assent from China.

      The US *claims* it wants to aid Korea Unify, but so far it mostly has obstructed or ineptly carried out talks, bullied the North, and placated the South, enable the South to experience as little pain as possible in the march toward confederation. The North expected (rightfully) confederation and a formal declaration of cessation of hostilities, but the US botched things imposing its OWN view on BOTH Koreas. However, Seoul, for its part, never signed the armistice...

      Now, what is going on is the Russians no longer sell much of anything military to the North, but is instead selling to the South and to others. The upshot is that the NK "regime"/government/Workers' Party isn't likely to go out with a bang. It'll just muddle along, and reunification (50% thanks to the US) will happen DECADES later than it could have or should have.

      For what it's worth, i feel sorry for BOTH halves of Korea and i hope history takes in hand all those who did their bit to undermine and humiliate a great people, and wrought them great humiliation.

      i hope the Coreas reunify SOON (less than 10 years). I hope they shift to indigenous local partners of the regional defense, and I hope they PROVE to Japan that a unified Corea purged of US occupation is NOT a threat to the Japanese peoples. i don't think there will be any wars unless puppeteers from afar instigate things.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    60. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The bill actually names Fidel and Raul Castro, but it isn't actually that significant as it is arguably unconstitutional and there is little that a Democratic Congress is likely to do to complain about lack of enforcement of a bill they tried to filibuster. In addition the President can sign a waiver which Clinton did.

      Given the current state of the GOP it is hard to see them managing to pose a serious obstacle. Their main objective in November is going to be to deny the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

      Take a look at the turnout in the Democratic primaries versus the GOP ones. The Democrats were getting twice the turnout in deep red states when both races were still competitive. It has since increased substantially. It looks like the post-Bush political realignment may be even greater than the post-Nixon realignment. Bush has smashed up the Republican party.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    61. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is clear to me Castro has had all those recent health problems due to the embargo.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    62. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      The embargo won't end anytime soon - the Helms-Burton act [wikipedia.org] specifies that as long as a Castro remains in power, the embargo will remain enforced.

      Didn't Castro just hand over power to his brother?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    63. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jbr439 · · Score: 1

      Two words: Tiananmen Square

      Demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Cuban embargo in all its glory.

    64. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Yep, seems the only people who hate Cuba are in the U.S. White House.

      Canadians vacation in Cuba all the time, though their neighbors the Dominican Republic are usually more affordable.

      The longer the U.S. Gov't holds on to these old grudges with Cuba, Iraq and whoever else they dislike, the more the rest of the world will route around U.S. goods and services to avoid all this bullshit.

      Seriously, I have nothing to do with Cuba, at all. I've never been there, I don't know anyone in there or from there, and as far as I know none of them have visited any of my web sites. Nevertheless, after reading about this registrar nonsense, I'm very tempted to transfer all my domain names to a dutch registrar "just in case". Eventually nobody will want to do business with the Americans because it becomes too big a liability.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    65. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course it is a swing state:

      I is shaped like a penis...

    66. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      But it still attempts to tell the world how we should follow [i]their[/i] example. No thanks, I actually like my freedoms.

      But its example is good for lining ITS coffers. Jeez.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    67. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by MicktheMech · · Score: 1

      No, you're the only ones caving to an influencial special interest group in Florida.

    68. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I am "American". You are essentially correct. Pretty soon (if not already), we will no longer be able to re-enter our own country without a passport. If and when Real ID takes effect, no one will be able to fly or enter federal buildings without carrying "federally approved identification" (Real ID). I read recently that domestic authorities will soon have the power to use American spy satellites on our own citizens during the course of an investigation.

      Freedom, heh.

      You seem smug in yours. We made that mistake.

    69. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Sorry the only reason there is an embargo is because Castro nationalized a number of American assets and took away an American gambling paradise. Welcome to America, land of those who think they know better than everyone else. Time for a reality check.

    70. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Calm down, "land of the free", doesn't mean you can evade the law.


      In most cases where that's asserted, "land of the free" means the law shouldn't exist in the first place.

    71. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      Cuba trades with CHINA, not Cuba.

      What? Now Cuba has a trade embargo against Cuba? 8-)

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    72. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...tourism, cheap gas, and free technology.

      And floating Buicks

      --
      What?
    73. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... are breaking the law if they go there?

      What matters is their going there, regardless of what they may think of Cuba, its people or its government.
      On the other hand there are laws against Americans attempting to boycott Israeli products.

      *gets out his eraser and starts removing that "Land Of The Free" line from all the songbooks...*

      You could change it to "land of the jailed" that would be more accurate!

    74. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      You seem smug in yours. We made that mistake.

      Assuming the grandparent is European as I am: No, we aren't. We have some, ehm, nasty history and all is not rosy either. However, he probably just *imitated* the smugness we had to suffer from Americans from the last ~60 years. Actually, when we talk to foreigners we never boast our freedom, we just talk about cultural differences. Freedom usually never comes up, unless talking with Americans, for some odd reason....

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    75. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 1

      They are supposed to hurt the country, which in turn makes the population unhappy with their leader, and the leader changes his/her ways or the leader gets changed.

      As opposed to giving the country an obvious enemy. Ensuring the leader can blame them for anything which goes wrong, especially any economic problems (even more so if that other country would otherwise be a major trading partner).

    76. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard.
      This might have been a valid argument when the USSR was still going (and even then there's ample evidence that Castro has turned to the USSR only because of initial ill-will from US). But it's pointless for the last, what, 15 years?
    77. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What if the majority of people vote to strip everyone who don't like communism of their vote?

    78. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I think the US government and some wealthy are just royally pissed that Fidel, like Kim Jong-Il, didn't just 'vanish' or 'die".

      Don't forget all the, failed, US Goverment's attempts to "deal with" Fidel Castro. Also I'm not convinced you can compare Cuba and North Korea, for one thing few "Westerners" would want to go to North Korea. If no Americans wanted to travel to Cuba there would be no need for a law stopping them. (With the rather obvious "hole" of US Citizens being able to enter and leave the US without showing a passport.)

    79. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yep, seems the only people who hate Cuba are in the U.S. White House.

      Some of them are in Florida too.

      Canadians vacation in Cuba all the time, though their neighbors the Dominican Republic are usually more affordable.

      Wonder how many US customers Air Tansat has...

      Nevertheless, after reading about this registrar nonsense, I'm very tempted to transfer all my domain names to a dutch registrar "just in case".

      Make sure you include enough personal information in your domain registration that your "Dutch registrar" can't ship the information out of the EU without breaking the law. Even if they were to be taken over by a US company.

      Eventually nobody will want to do business with the Americans because it becomes too big a liability.

      Especially if that doing business would require travelling to the US...

    80. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Also, I believe it only mentions Raul and Fidel specificly, so if one of Fidel's sons took power, it would end.

      Or they could just change their name...

    81. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US government is afraid Americans who go there would turn communist.. This is all about Communism, that's why you're not allowed to go there, because you might be re-educated.

      Most likely the fear isn't that Americans would turn Communist, but that seeing Cuba as it actually is would undo over half a century of US propaganda about Communism. They might even start questioning other things the US Government claims. Which would be very bad news indeed for past and present members of Congress, the White House, the CIA, NSA, etc, etc.

    82. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Calm down, "land of the free", doesn't mean you can evade the law. I can't wait until we start arresting losers that leave from NY, go to Jamaica, then to Cuba.

      Probably better for them to instead drive drive to Toronto. Then they can use their "Real ID" to get back into the US without any risk of anyone seeing what stamps they have in their passport.

    83. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that embargo working out so far? Castro took over from the corrupt American puppet Batista in, let's see. Jan 1, 1959? And he's still in power: the man's lasted almost as long as Queen Elizabeth, and he actually got to run the country personally for almost 50 years!

      Mind you, the direct attempt to take over failed miserably (Bay of Pigs). After that, Castro wouldn't cooperate with the USA even if we elected Hillary Clinton and sent her over to be his "intern".

    84. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And our gulag is in Cuba, too! Right across the no-man's land at Guantanamo Bay! That's an amazingly good example for the Cubans of how seriously we take human rights and due process.

    85. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't forget Pakistan: in return for actually selling nuclear technologies worldwide, we've given themm our eternal friendship by letting them protect foreign combatatants and money and letting them sneak into Iraq to continue the combat there.

      Yes, it's really effective to embargo the countries like Iraq and Cuba that don't have (or no longer have, and have never successfully produced) nuclear weapons, and open our arms to the ones that actually deal in them.

    86. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm afraid you're too young to remember. Cuba could have gone either way, to US support (as its nearest and wealthiest neighbor) or Soviet support (as the other world superpower, and only other possible counter). But Castro successfully led a revolution against Batista (a US supported and amaziingly corrupt dictator, as bad as the Shah of Iran or Manuel Noriega, who both also had been close friends to the USA).

      Cuba could have been an ally after that revolution, but Castro nationalized the major factories and plantations. With cause: the Americans running them had been very involved in Batista's corruption, and the many poor in Cuba were starving and under threats from the corrupt government every day. They needed the money, and they needed control over their own economy. And then that amazingly incompetent Bay of Pigs assault was tried, and it was clear to many, not just Castro, that he had no chance of cooperation with the USA. So he cooperated with the Soviets, who helped provide foreign currency and trade as a showpiece of Communism in the Western hemisphere, and as a critical military base.

      So, historically, the US priority is hardly one of "no threat". It's one of "Castro out" and "we want control back" as well.

    87. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USA has *never* been the most free country in the world. Never. From our acceptance of slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence, to our Civil War and unconstititional subjugation of the southern states when they legally attempted to secede, to our legalized segregation of blacks, to our imprisonment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II, to our drug wars on alcohol and marijuana, to our re-activated use of secret prisons and wiretaping without warrants and torture without trial, we have *never* been the most free.

      We do keep trying, and we're a big step up from most of the world. But we're not there yet, and this administration has certainly hurt us.

    88. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      It's called an embargo, not censorship.

      It's an embargo, and one of the side effects is censorship.

    89. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one wants a communist bastille in our backyard.
      Yet you trade with California...

      Serious answer: so why aren't you embargoing Venezuela, then?
    90. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      You don't, it would be too silly

      And then you post as "Extrans (html tags to text)".

    91. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Um, what? I must have missed the part where either Korea was occupied by the US. Japan, yes. America, don't think so (unless you're stretching the definition of "occupation" as far as I think you are- in that case we might as well call Japan and a quarter of Europe "US-occupied" too).

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    92. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it's what's necessary and just to put pressure on Cuba to stop being a vicious dictatorship and actually respect its citizens' human rights. I'm not being sarcastic.

      Errrmmm... There's one place that human rights are not respected on Cuba. It's called 'Guantanamo Bay'.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    93. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those that beckon to strengthen the Cuban economy are perceived by the US as ignorant dupes, serving to undermine the security of the United States. And it has been perceived that way for the last 40 years (so people don't think this is a Bush-ism). By in large, those that are in a hurry to open trade with Cuba are usually completely lost as to what it means to national security.

      Does the strenght of Cuban economy actually matter ? There is no way Cuba is going to launch a succesfull invasion on the US on its own, no matter how strong its economy; and if it is used as a stronghold by another power, it again doesn't matter.

      If anything, having ties of trade to the US would make Cuba less likely to allow another country to attack its trading partner through it...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    94. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      It's called an embargo, not censorship. And it's what's necessary and just to put pressure on Cuba to stop being a vicious dictatorship and actually respect its citizens' human rights. I'm not being sarcastic.

      It's what's necessary (justice has no place here) to whore to the ex-Batistaists in Florida, purely for electoral advantage.

      Get a clue, Brian - there is precisely zero moral or ethical reasoning behind the embargo, and engagement with the Nationalists in Cuba would have resulted in a far more democratic and just regime rather than pushing them into the arms of the Soviets.

      It's a historical mistake, just like the Balfour declaration, but slightly more limited in extent - kill the embargo, engage Cuba in trade, and see the situation improve.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    95. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. US citizens are free to visit Cuba so long as they don't spend any money there. The US has a trade embargo on Cuba which makes it illegal for US nationals to engage in trade with Cuba. That makes it impossible for most people, but it is possible if someone else pays your expenses. In addition, it is possible in limited circumstances to get a license from the Treasury Department allowing you to spend money in Cuba.

    96. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Builder · · Score: 1

      Uh, he said give one example of it WORKING. South Africa is turning into every other African banana republic as we speak.

    97. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read, idiot.

    98. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Yes - and he's also a Castro.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    99. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by WNight · · Score: 1

      The real reason NK is still where they are? They didn't assassinate their tyrant. Live and learn.

    100. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mikegre · · Score: 1

      You're asking us to prove a negative.

    101. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Degreeless · · Score: 0

      Nah, hollowed out volcano is evil genius, twiddly moustache and monacle is 1930's melodrama villan!

    102. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by stiggle · · Score: 1

      710 reasons...
      oops - thats upside down.

    103. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Wow. Your arrogance is breath-taking. I see it now! Nelson Mandela and the rest of the ANC et. al. had nothing to do with it all. Clearly, South Africa's regime change had everything to do with America.

      Dude, we worked to get sanctions at the express request of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it was their campaign from start to finish. It was when it became clear that Thatcher and Reagan's support for Apartheid was running strongly against opinion in both their countries that the Whites realized that South Africa's isolation was going to be permanent so long as Apartheid was in force.

      The alternative would have been a civil war like the one that broke out in Rhodesia. As Ghandi observed, revolutions tend to bring certain types of leader to power.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    104. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of the death penalty. But, how does that have to do with civil rights? The right to not be killed if you killed someone else? I didn't know that one existed. The right to stay on the streets if you commit a crime? hmm...missed that one too. Now, maybe we need to refine how we prosecute and incarcerate our drug offenders. Some would even say to legalize all drugs(ignorant at best), and then we would reduce the prison population. Or maybe people could actually NOT break the law and take responsibility for their lives? I think we need to stop giving so much credit to the whining criminals. They broke the law, if they don't like the law they can either run for office or move to a country that is more of their liking. I think our civil rights are pretty good. I can't go to Cuba without permission but that isn't a civil rights issue, that's foreign policy. And you hired these guys in office to look after our foreign policy. So if it was that big of an issue to the people of this country we would actually elect people who would change that.

    105. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Does the strenght of Cuban economy actually matter ?

      Strong economy means strong military and ideaologically strengthens the notion of communism in this hemisphere. A strong military opens the Pandora's box for nuclear opens, much like you see taking placing in the middle east.

      If anything, having ties of trade to the US would make Cuba less likely to allow another country to attack its trading partner through it...

      That makes sense only as long as the existing governing body is not in place. This is why the US has stated many times, with a change of government, it's very likely relations will normalize.

    106. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      I think you can define the death penalty as a human rights issue when you consider the fact that some innocent people will inevitably be put to death. Miscarriages of justice happen, even with the extensive appeals system that I understand the US operates.

      I agree with you on prison population per head of population though - that can be used as an indicator of social problems, but it would only be a human rights issue if clearly disproportionate sentences were imposed.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    107. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Ya, because the embargo is working SO well, Castro will be stepping down because of it anyday now. And the people that are living in poverty because of it will be able to throw rocks at the Communist army. Yes, very solid reasoning.

    108. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jay-za · · Score: 3, Informative

      Claims that the South African Apartheid regime collapsed due to pressure from sanctions are a whole bunch of popycock.

      As a white South African (emphasis needed only for this article), I can ensure you that for most of my Apartheid South African life I was completely unaffected by sanctions. I kept a journal, so I can say with certainty that I was 15 before I even realised that there was such a thing as apartheid. As for sanctions, they didn't affect me.

      The problem with things like sanctions is that they hurt the people they are trying to help. Sanctions caused price increases in most items - increases that barely affected my family, but hurt the poorer (mostly black) population. My parents, and other adults of the time (myself included) complained about high prices on all sorts of items, but we had access to them and bought them in any case. Most of us didn't really know any better. About the only thing that I can remember happening that actually hurt us was the move away from the gold standard. There was a time when the South African Rand was one of the strongest currencies in the world due to the vast number of gold mines in the country.

      What would have been a better strategy would be to flood the market with products that exposed more people to the fact that there were differences between whites and blacks. More of an effort to help people to recognise that they COULD do something would also have been useful.

      A lot of people outside of the country don't realise that for most of their lives during the Apartheid regime, white South Africans could choose to vote either for the Conservative Party (who were for taking away more black rights) or the National Party (the "liberal" party, and the party that was eventually responsible for the process that ended Apartheid). Through my entire childhood, the National Party was in power. The people I spoke to were scared of blacks coming to power (the ANC was a terrorist organisation that regularly bombed civilian targets*), but were against the current situation. We didn't see how the situation could change.

      What ended Apartheid was the then president of the country (FW de Klerk - who won a Nobel Piece Prize for it) giving the country a choice - vote yes to end Apartheid, vote No to keep Apartheid. It was my first election, and I voted to end apartheid, with the majority of the country. Because the majority of South African's didn't believe it was a good system, and we finally had a choice with a plan that seemed viable. We were still scared, and with good cause, but we did it. The very fact that we were so scared and yet did it in any case should indicate that this was a decision that was motivated by a belief in what was right and not simple economics. People don't trade safety for money. You give up safety for ideals.

      The only argument that can counter this is that we actually had nothing to fear. The easiest way I know to discount that is to point to this website. It's a website dedicated to Jacob Zuma, president of the ANC, and most likely the next president of South Africa. These are his supporters, and more of a concern, the comments are moderated. I.E. This is what he is comfortable with pepole seeing his supporters as.

      There is another problem. If you're interested check out what I've started saying about these things.

      Jason

      (* Yes, they did. I was there. In fact, many of the dustbins and other container type items found in the streets in major cities were specially designed to turn to powder instead of shrapnel when they exploded - necessary because bombs were regularly placed inside container type items around popular civilian attractions - shopping centers, movie theaters, etc...)

    109. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cuba could have gone either way

      Your statement doesn't make any sense to me. Before Castro, relations with the US were very strong. Cuba was a high end result for many US stars and powerful players before Castro came into power. Castro came in with a very anti-American position. In fact, many of the people that were executed when Castro came into power were executed under the assumption they were either CIA, a rat for the CIA, or someone who had strong ties to the US, and as such, posed a significant subversive risk to the new regime. Needless to say, saying, "Cuba could have gone either way", is a revisionist position. You seem to forget that Castro took power by mass murdering all that had ties to either the US or the old government (they were intrinsically tied). The second Castro took power, US relations were destroyed.

      So we had a mass murdering thug with a fear of the US and socialist inclinations, in a position of extreme strategic value to the US. That most certainly does not position Castro to become a strong US ally. In fact, it made such a relationship all but impossible.

      Cuba could have been an ally after that revolution,

      I don't see how considering they executed some Americans, some CIA agents, and most every CIA plant/mole we had there. It is extremely unlikely since Castro also had socialist stance in how it approached things and actively worried about American subversion, and rightfully so. The Russians saw what was obvious and attempted to exploit it. Might things have been different? Sure? But unlikely.

      So, historically, the US priority is hardly one of "no threat". It's one of "Castro out" and "we want control back" as well.

      Yes, because we all know the Cuban Missile Crisis never happened. It's only been in the last decade, plus or minus a couple of years, where a "no threat" position can seriously be placed on the table. Considering one President after and another continues to see Cuba as a threat, it is unlikely that threat has entirely gone away.

    110. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1
      Why are Americans so obsessed with their governments politics and lies. Cuba is communist, ok. It is another form of government. But really, if that government did not provide free medicine and education, and some form of free commerce, no army in the world would keep it in power. The real problem with Cuba is Americans intolerance to free education and healthcare.

      If there was no embargos against that regime, Cubans would never leave or want to leave.

      So, they have a tobacco vice, but not a severe hard drug problem as do their neighbours.

      America, remove the embargo and watch a country flourish.

      Yours

      Another point of view.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    111. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Urkki · · Score: 1

      That's always a risk in a democracy. You can't have a democracy without a possiblity that the people democratically decide to give up that democracy (usually in a slow process, step by step, with final steps being non-democratic, but all allowed by original democracy nonetheless). I mean, isn't that just what's happening in the US right now? I just hope Western Europe doesn't follow suit...

    112. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by M-RES · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and the interesting thing about Guantanamo is that the 'agreement' between the Cuban and US governments over the US occupation of part of sovereign Cuban territory states that the US only have to leave when 'both parties want it'. So what's the chance of that ever happening? I mean, the US was paranoid beyond belief at the thought of soviet nukes based on Cuba (despite the fact that the US is now encircling Russia in the former soviet Eastern European states with anti missile systems potentially leading to a new arms race and cold war - no, there's no hypocrisy here!). But imagine how paranoid the US would have been if the boot was on the other foot and Cuba occupied part of the US mainland indefinitely? Let's also not forget that the US companies who lost assets in Cuba didn't strictly have any rights to those assets. They were part of agreements between the former US-supported dictatorship and those companies affected and I think Castro did the right thing. He threw out all previous corrupt agreements, took back what rightfully belonged to the Cuban people FOR the Cuban people and started with a clean slate. Perhaps it should be a lesson to companies that it doesn't always pay to invest in corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Also note that most people who support the embargo against Cuba are the same ones who cite Cuba's harsh financial situation as being a reason to oppose Castro. They don't seem to see any kind of link between a 4 decade trade and financial blockade of a tiny nation and it's inability to develop much fiscally. I mean, it's not rocket science is it? Anyone who truly has the interests of the Cuban people at heart (and aren't just 'commie-haters' for the sake of it... most of those guys haven't a clue what the ideals of Communism are anyway and constantly confuse them with fascism, not helped by fascists of Stalin or Pol Pot's ilk) would surely welcome a change of policy as the current one obviously doesn't work. Why not try lifting the embargo - see how that affects the financial situation in Cuba, then see how that affects the aspirations and future direction the population decides to take... whatever they decide, that's democracy in action.

    113. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, yes they are. And that "land of the free" crap was always hyperbole. The line was written when slavery was still legal and widespread here, for Christ's sake!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    114. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed, but disproportionate sentences occur in all countries I'm sure. Each country has its own set of problems, thus different countries will have a lot of people in jail for specific things. There has been some talk in recent weeks about the governments unjustifiable difference in sentencing requirements when it comes to crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. Crack has a mandatory 5 year sentence while powder does not. A lot of people attribute this to a belief that crack is a poor or even "black" (insert your favorite minority) drug while powder is more expensive and thus a rich man's or "white"(insert your favorite target) drug. Whether the sentencing differences are race, economic or otherwise motivated is irrelevant. Is wrong. For its own merits. The drugs have no fundamental difference...treat them the same. I think the sentencing for crack is far to severe by the way. I think we should work on drug rehabilitation for addicts instead of imprisoning for long periods of time (because they can get it on the inside).

    115. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by kabloom · · Score: 1

      es, it's quite obvious we're the only ones doing what's right. That evidence is echoed worldwide, why look what good we're doing in the Middle East. As evidenced by the moderation scores on that comment, sarcasm does not work on the net.
    116. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by patiodragon · · Score: 1

      "It's called an embargo, not censorship. And it's what's necessary and just to put pressure on Cuba to stop being a vicious dictatorship and actually respect its citizens' human rights. I'm not being sarcastic."

      Oh, you mean just like the way we embargo the vicious dictatorship in China???

    117. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      You're asking us to prove a negative. In what way is finding one example of an embargo working proving a negative? It isn't. First, I didn't ask for proof that embargoes work; I asked for one example. Second, "embargoes work" is a positive claim, not a negative one. I asked for neither a proof nor a negative.
      In fact, several posters said "South Africa" in response to the post, so they understood that I wasn't asking proof for a negative statement (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to comply. It is debatable whether South Africa is really a good example, but it is worth discussion.
    118. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Cuba a strategic threat to the U.S.? Dude, Cuba was a threat to the US for about 10 minutes. Did you know that countries can now launch missles form within their own borders an hit the U.S.?

    119. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      That's not actually true because you are also restricted from spending money on transportation TO Cuba, and are not legally allowed to accept travel arrangements or expenses gratis contrary to what you are saying. It's pretty airtight, I would suggest reading for yourself the rules on the US Department of State website. The idea that you can travel legally to Cuba extragovernmentally is a fiction put forth by businesses that offer travel to Cuba for Americans. regarding the treasury department license, the number one reason this has been issued in the past has been for educational purposes. But this has been abused to offer essentially mini-vacations, and many of the ones I have seen have propaganda "history" courses on Communism and the history of the USA re. Cuba. Not that there isn't a legitimate argument to be made from the Cuban side, but the classes are still propaganda. The government has correspondingly drastically reduced the issuance of these licenses, to the despaired wailing of, primarily, people who were abusing them.

    120. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by LithiumX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Give one example of an embargo working. You can't - they only end up hurting innocent people and isolating countries so change is slower. The Confederate States of America.

      The Union embargo (at times backed up by a low-key blockade) was extremely effective at pressuring other countries into not cutting deals with them. Unable to sell cotton and other local goods, the CSA was more or less broke after a while.
      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    121. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1
      Ha, I hadn't thought of that! You're right, but it was combined embargo and military action (and a period of occupation afterwards) that was really required to meet the North's goals. I'm not sure an embargo by itself would have convinced the South to rejoin the union.

      Thanks for the example!

    122. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the reality is the Cuban embargo has nothing to do with politics

      You're forgetting about the Cubans in Florida. They want the embargo to punish Castro and since they get to pick the president in most elections, they get what they want.

    123. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom usually never comes up, unless talking with Americans, for some odd reason

      We are more or less conditioned at a very young age to believe that we are the saviors of the world, the standard to which everyone else should be compared (but not ourselves, because we are above that).

      If you think it's bad when we come visit you, try living in city filled with us. Hell, you might see me apartment shopping in your neighborhood one of these days, because I'm a little sick of it myself.

    124. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real reason NK is still where they are? They didn't assassinate their tyrant. Live and learn.

      Killing Kim Jong-il would change nothing. It's not like he single handedly runs the country. I don't understand why so many otherwise smart people fall for the trap of blaming the leader of a country for everything that happens. It takes a large group of people to run a country and any single person is easily replaced, even the figure head. Think of the whitehouse. It was Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield and Rove who really messed things up. Even if Bush was going, the other three would have done the same stuff.

    125. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... are breaking the law if they go there?

      Yes. This is well known, has been exhaustively covered by other Cuban-related topics in previous months, and your post is HARDLY worth a +5 Insightful tag.

    126. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      Yes...but, with the proper resolve, they do eventually remove the evil dictator when used in combination with 50+ years of the natural aging process.

    127. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mikegre · · Score: 1

      So tell us which countries have not followed Cuba's example?

    128. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      I love you now.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    129. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by dwye · · Score: 1

      You DO NOT successfully, peacefully advance rogue countries by ostracising them. Even just recently, Cuba signed on to Human Rights covenants/laws

      Since we haven't ended or even relaxed the Embargo, recently, it looks like it might be working, then.

      now that Fidel Castro turned power over to his brother.

      Like Bill Gates has turned the "power" over to Steve Ballmer.

      it ought to be criminal to expect people to put on a uniform to potentially go and kill or threaten to kill relatives in OR outside the country.

      Why? It wasn't criminal when my grandfather was expected to put on his uniform to kill his cousins in Germany during WWI, nor if my father had been just a few years older, for him during WWII.

      BTW, who is threatening to kill Cubans?

    130. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      So tell us which countries have not followed Cuba's example? Please be more specific. In what respect? Are you implying that Cuba has been a success story for embargoes?
    131. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by mikegre · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I don't see how I can be more specific. And, specifically, what do you mean by "In what respect?"

    132. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by dwye · · Score: 1

      And then that amazingly incompetent Bay of Pigs assault was tried, and it was clear to many, not just Castro, that he had no chance of cooperation with the USA. So he cooperated with the Soviets, who helped provide foreign currency and trade as a showpiece of Communism in the Western hemisphere, and as a critical military base.

      And the fact that Raul Castro and Che Guevara had been Communists for years before the Revolution, or that Castro had pointedly never said that he was not one himself had nothing to do with supposing that he really was one? The Bay of Pigs assault was planned because it was patently obvious that Castro was and had been a Communist, or at least was willing to be one to enhance his personal power.

      Seriously, "Cuba could have gone either way" is about as realistic as supposing that Mao could have gone either way.

    133. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

      "... are breaking the law if they go there?"

      No.

      Kind of makes your "land of the free" remark seem pretty stupid now doesn't it?

    134. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But imagine how paranoid the US would have been if the boot was on the other foot and Cuba occupied part of the US mainland indefinitely?

      They have. It's called Miami.

    135. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1
      Here is what you asked:

      So tell us which countries have not followed Cuba's example? What do you mean by "followed Cuba's example?" Histories and interactions between countries are complicated things; they can be similar or dissimilar nearly infinite ways. What dissimilarities are important to you when you ask about "not follow[ing]" Cuba's example?
    136. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > *gets out his eraser and starts removing that "Land Of The Free" line from all the songbooks...*

      "Land of the free" does not include the right to aid oppressive regimes that the US government, and, more specifically, the elected Congress of the United States and the President, consider should be embargoed.

      If you do not like it, your proper course of action is political dialog and running for office to change that policy. Which you can do here. Unlike Cuba.

      "But we support repression in oil countries" -- What part of "you are free to engage in political dialog and run for office if you don't like it" aren't you understanding?

      "But we trade with China" -- " " "?

      Deciding which should be dealt with in what ways is what we hire politicians to do. The People deliberately authorized the government, in the Constitution, to have the power to deal with other nations as they see fit. In the mix are short and long term goals, short and long term prospects of change, and overall benefit to the United States, which may include having repressive regimes "on our side" rather than "on their side", which was a much bigger concern during the cold war. Note we did with Cuba what people say we should do -- refuse to deal with the dictator. And we quickly learned he'd just align with the Soviets. So if the locals are gonna be repressed, better to have us trading with them then the Bad Guys.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    137. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This was Ronald Reagan's argument for continuing trade with South Africa. Then South African opposition leaders convinced him embargos should happen, and much of that was even done prior to any official actions, via public shaming of those companies and individuals ("I ain't gonna play Sun City...") who operated there.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    138. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There are still tens of thousands of Cuban exiles in Florida who had their property seized by Castro, and they want their property back, or compensation for it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    139. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by jay-za · · Score: 1

      I just like you. Invite me to dinner first, and we can talk. Oh, and my wife comes with on all dates.

    140. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GungaDan · · Score: 0, Troll

      You spelled "hysterical" wrong.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    141. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      If only they hadn't been given that trillion dollar bill... What bill?
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    142. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which unless Diebold stops it, will be later this year when we elected Obama or Hillary. :)

    143. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      that IS true, but if Florida was not a swing state, the Embargo, which is much more of a politcal thing than anything meaningful at this point would be over.

      That said, I always thought the way to bring DOWN the Castro Govt was TO trade with them. Let them see what they were missing. A lot of the DESIRE for the fall of the Warsau Pack was that places like Poland and East Germany could SEE what they were missing.

      So, I'm NOT argueing the GOAL of the embargo, but the practical "there is a better way"

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    144. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      News Flash: Castro HAS ALREADY stepped down and his brother has taken his place.

    145. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Cuba a strategic threat to the U.S.? Dude, Cuba was a threat to the US for about 10 minutes. Did you know that countries can now launch missles form within their own borders an hit the U.S.?

      LOL. You are exactly the reason they continue to cry humanitarian rather than strategic threat. Cuba is close enough to strike the US via cruise missile. And ICBMs travel so fast, the duration from detection, validation, and reaction is so narrow, essentially the US would be boned. IIRC, from launch to impact from Cuba, by means of ICBM is less than 15 minutes. Detection and validation protocols requires 2-8 minutes. That's not a lot of time left once you finish your subtraction.

      Clearly, even today, especially as missile tech improves, getting smaller and faster, Cuba continues to be of significant strategic importance. Even if Cuba were a staunch alley today, it would not change the strategic value of Cuba.

    146. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Wow, pretty scary when historically supported fact is rated, "troll." /. has really gone down hill. It used to be mods actually moderated topics they either understood or could at least follow. These days, they mod troll when they disagree, despite the fact that topic is both accurate and not a troll.

      If you are going to moderate, please learn what "troll" means. Troll does not mean, "I disagree." Please learn to critically read and perform your moderation duties responsibly.

    147. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Sabokat · · Score: 1

      So we're not allowed to travel to the PRC or Saudi Arabia?

    148. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Ahh, youngsters. Right wing youngsters at that. Cuba was not hte friend of the US. Batista and his wealthy cronies were the friend of the USA. The poor in Cuba, from whom Castro drew his support, led a successful revolution against a corrupt government given to tortuer and human rights violations far worse than Cuba since then: it's how Castro got his support from the poor and some of the middle class.

      And executing the Americans at that point was good sense: there were serious mistakes, but they went after Batista's supporters, who certainly included plenty of Americans. They also kicked out the Mafia: give them credit for that. If the rest of America had been willing to cooperate with a somewhat leftist revolution that arose because of so much corruption and US support at the top, if America had been willing to discard Batista the way they discarded Manuel Noriega decades later, Cuba would have happily accepted US support and become a new kind of ally. It would have been much cheaper, and safer, than allowing them to become a Soviet stronghold in the western hemisphere.

      The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco: if you attempt to invade a country, and worse if you do it so badly, they will look for new allies. Notice that we don't actually invade countries that have nuclear weapons, only those without them. I'm old enough to remember the insanity then: Castro succeeded in scaring the absolute piss out of the USA and especially hte right wing elements that were frothing to invade Cuba, in a way that Kim Il Chung could only dream about.

    149. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Well, Castro is smarter than Mao was. He's also practical: if he had any possibility of trusting the USA, he'd have done so rather than condemning Cuba to the embargo and trade problems. Those have lasted decades longer than anyone believed possible when they started, but between theh Bay of Pigs and the revealed assassination attempts by the CIA and the screaming anti-Castro rhetoric coming out of Miami, Castro and the rest of the leadership of Cuba had good reason to take Soviet money and support instead.

      Things have changed since the collapse of the Soviet empire: but the poor of Cuba are still noticeably better off than those in many USA sponsored nations, andn remain a big source of Castro's support. The upper middle class and wealthy, well, they're in Miami.

    150. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      I am quite familiar with the regulations. First, what I wrote was unequivocally true until the regulations were changed in 2004. The regulations actually discussed "fully hosted" travel to Cuba and conceded that it was legal, although they also asserted a rebuttable presumption that travelers to Cuba have engaged in prohibited transactions.

      In 2004 the regulations were changed. On the one hand, the assertion of a presumption was deleted. On the other hand, OFAC now asserts that even receiving goods and services free constitutes engaging in a prohibited transaction, thus eliminating the fully hosted travel exception. Thus, you are sort of right as of 2004. However, the picture is not so simple.

      For one thing, the crucial change is merely OFAC's interpretation. It is not the law. OFAC has engaged in other extremely dubious interpretations of the law, such as its claim that American scientific journals violated the regulations by publishing papers from authors in countries subject to boycott. This latter interpretations contradicts explicit statements of legislative intent and is widely regarded as wrong. OFAC's current claim that receipt of free goods and services constitutes a prohibited transaction is also quite dubious.

      A second factor is that since OFAC's new interpretation would effectively prohibit unlicensed travel to Cuba, a country with which the US is not at war, there is a colorable argument that it is unconstitutional.

      Finally, in practice, it is not easy for OFAC to enforce its interpretation. To begin with, they've got to be able to prove that you have been to Cuba. Depending on how you go, that may not be so easy. In any case, suppose they know you've been to Cuba and you do not have a license. What happens? They send you a letter demanding information about your trip, or, if they are more aggressive, they send you a notice threatening to impose a fine. In the latter case, you demand a hearing, which they must grant you before taking any further action. The last I knew, they have never proceeded to a hearing. In the former case, you are not obligated to answer their questions, which violate your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.

      So, the fact of the matter is that there is no outright prohibition on travel to Cuba. Rather, there are restrictions on financial transactions, which have the effect of prohibiting travel to Cuba unless either (a) one obtains a license, which is possible in some circumstances, or (b) you go "fully hosted". Since 2004 OFAC has tried to eliminate the latter option, but its attempt is of dubious legality, and in practice it is difficult for OFAC to enforce its interpretation.

      What you may be thinking of with regard to the travel agencies has to do with "all expense paid tours". The idea was that all of the expenses that one would normally have in Cuba would be paid by a travel agency operating out of a third country not subject to US jurisdiction. The traveler would thus in theory not have to spend any money in Cuba and so would fall under the "fully hosted" exception. As noted above, since 2004 OFAC has attempted to eliminate the "fully hosted" exception, but in any case, OFAC is no doubt correct that merely passing the funds via a third party does not constitute "fully hosted" travel, so these tours were in fact illegal even prior to the 2004 changes.

    151. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by phizman · · Score: 1

      What about the assets in all the countries that the US has invaded? Destroy cities, give "rebuilding" contracts to US companies, then now you have a new US assets! You think they are given back for free? Cuba saying get out was a far nicer approach then the US carries on elsewhere.

    152. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on the point that they are asserting this rather than via force of law. I personally know an individual who was busted (yes, he's an idiot,) but this was actually prior to 2004. I have not heard of any individuals being fined since then, so I concede the point that there COULD be legal means of travel there. With them actually tightening regulations, I would not want to test that right now though.

      I personally would love to travel there but the educational licenses really were being used for vacations, so I don't blame them for cracking down on it. And I don't want to go there to learn pottery or be indoctrinated, I want to go there because it's a cool place.

    153. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of missle carrying subs? Stupidity like yours is exactly the reason this country is so f**ked up.

    154. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Now you have to look at all my other posts because you can't make your point in the traffic story discussion?

      News flash: He's not stepping down because of the embargo . Read the GPP.

    155. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      I never said he was. Any more buttons I can push? I made my point perfectly clear, you just don't want to understand it. That is very sad.

    156. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You really don't get it do you? The GPP said we should keep the embargo to force Castro to step down; my post was meant to say that it didn't work. Your post proved the exact point I was making, that he was stepping down because he's old and sick, not because of anything the embargo did.

      You're not pushing any buttons; its pretty funny that I say you're acting childish, and what do you do? Go around acting like a bigger child. People have marked me as foe before, never has anyone felt the need to "follow" me on /. Guess I can't expect much from someone that obviously still lives in his parents basement. Have a nice life. Try to get some fresh air.

    157. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      I'd go outside of my 2-story studio apartment and get some air but it is raining. BTW, why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Do you always have to have the last word?

    158. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Ya, because I'm going to believe that after your other inconsistencies. You should look at who is marking who a foe adn then following them around on /. If you never responded again, that would be the end of it. Of course, this will be the end of it too, because you'll never admit you or your parents are wrong, or that you're an arrogant ass that looks down at people, believing yourself above others. So I see no point in continuing. I'm fine with knowing I'm right, and you're full of shit.

    159. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Look who is arrogant now. It would really help if you didn't call me arrogant and then say you know you are right, especially when you are actually wrong.

    160. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of missle carrying subs? Stupidity like yours is exactly the reason this country is so f**ked up.

      LOL. With reasoning like yours, it is clear conventional weaponry will never be used again...after all, we have nukes (subs). Shesh. You clearly live in your own world. Is there much light there? Do you have a room with a view? LOL.

    161. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I think you replied to the wrong person because you are repeating much of what I said.

    162. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a mass murder and a rushed purge: yes, a number of innocent civilians died. But they were innocent civilians taking advantage of the wonderful island paradise run by a murdering, torturing thug far worse than Castro has *ever* been. And frankly, given US behavior at the time, there *were* a lot of CIA staff in Cuba interfering with Castro's revolution.

      I'm not looking at what you say with a revisionist light: I'm old enough to remember the events, and some of the preceding events. Some early cooperation with Castro, in getting US citizens out unharmed rather than screaming about getting the factories back to USA control might have been productive. So would helping convict Batista's supporters of their campaigns of corruption and torture and homicide. But much as we now support Pakistan for "fighting terrorism" even through they're still selling nuclear technologies worldwide, we were too busy fighting our "mortal enemy" to deal with the nasty one we were keeping in power.

      A policy of "step back, get US citizens out, wait for it to calm down, then pick up the pieces" could have been effective.

    163. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A popular uprising killing Kim Jong-Il would probably make his successor think twice about tyranny.

      A popuar uprising killing Kim Jong-Il's successor for being a tyrant would make the successor's successor think thrice about tyranny.

      And so forth.

      any single person is easily replaced, even the figure head


      Replacement costs are non-zero. The costs increase with the risk of assassination.

      In central Europe 19 years ago there were popular uprisings that were very successful at ending tyrannical governments.

      Where's Ceausescu now? And wasn't he supported by both superpowers?

      Romania is now a member of the European Union, and a vigorous democracy, which has managed two peaceful handovers of presidential power despite photo finish election victories (the current president won with 51% of the vote in the third round of voting in 2004...).

    164. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEWS FLASH: Castro's brother is also Castro!

      Castro's brother, Castro, is not stepping down.

      That is, Raul Castro is not stepping down.

      Next?

      Fidel Castro has stepped down, but guess what, it's not because of the U.S. embargo!

      Is Raul Castro going to step down because of the U.S. embargo, do you think?

    165. Re:So Americans Who Sympathize With Cuba... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As long as there's anyone at the top he can be removed. If he's a figure-head, those who control him are the real 'top'. Eventually, people willing to be the head of a tyranny will dwindle, if only because a billion bodies are heaped at the bottom of the stairs.

      However, if we *ever* let a displaced tyrant live, the jig is up. It's too bad that Pinochet got to live out his days, for example.

  2. And yet... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many here would decry the Chinese and assorted third world countries for censorship of the internet, and yet, here we (in the US) act no differently. It makes me wonder how many things we just don't see, because the DNS entry doesn't even show up.

    Are we truly free? Or is that just an illusion?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:And yet... by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, I have no favoritism--I 'decry' censorship when we do it, too.

      I even write to my representative in congress when I notice that it's being done, so y'can't say I'm not doing anything about it.

      You're only as free as you want to take the effort to be.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:And yet... by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      "Are we truly free? Or is that just an illusion?"

      no and no
      it's not even an illusion

    3. Re:And yet... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many here would decry the Chinese and assorted third world countries for censorship of the internet, and yet, here we (in the US) act no differently. It makes me wonder how many things we just don't see, because the DNS entry doesn't even show up.

      In China, if you criticize the leaders of your country, you wind up either dead or in jail.

      In the USA, if you criticize the leaders of your country, you wind up rich.

      In China, there are no Koses, no Limbaughs, no Gores, no Moores, no one that criticizes the regime or calls for political change. In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish.

      So yeah, there are differences....

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:And yet... by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with censorship. If he had registered his domain in Europe, there'd be no problem. Nobody would be trying to prevent people in America from viewing his site. Personally, I think it was stupid to embargo the domain, but let's not use the straw man of censorship to show our disapproval.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are we truly free?

      Move self from chair. Jump up. Set self on chair. Gravity says "no".

      PS: In case gravity said "yes", don't worry, lack of atmospheric pressure will say "no".

    6. Re:And yet... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well not exactly. The US has had an Embargo on trade with Cuba since... 1961 I think. That Embargo goes as far as to punish ANY company that business with Cuba. This is so not new or even unexpected. If you want to blame anybody blame JFK.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish.

      In fact, Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. While I don't doubt that the Jewish population in Iran face substantial discrimination, I don't think you help anyone by hyperbole.
    8. Re:And yet... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      > In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish.

      Beg your pardon?

      http://www.google.com/search?q=iranian+jews

    9. Re:And yet... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1
      In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish.

      Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. -- wikipedia


      Even in the US we don't offer Jews their own representative seat.
      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    10. Re:And yet... by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      Are we truly free? Or is that just an illusion?


      ctually, one in every hundred of us are currently incarcerated. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, since the companies running the prisons are turning a nice profit. The Soviet Union's "communist" experiment was a massive failure, and I suspect the history books will record the United States' quest to become the ultimate capitalist society as equally flawed. For better or worse, the explosive industrialization that made the US such an economic and social powerhouse throughout the 20th Century is in the past.


      I once had a conversation about the USSR with several people who had grown up behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s and 1980s. One remarked, "I honestly believed we lived in the most magnificent nation on Earth, and I couldn't imagine why anyone could possibly hate the people I loved so much."

    11. Re:And yet... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      So yeah, there are differences....
      Doesn't mean we can't do better, though. Just sayin'.
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    12. Re:And yet... by dbolger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In China, there are no Koses, no Limbaughs, no Gores, no Moores, no one that criticizes the regime or calls for political change. In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish

      A country should be judged on the basis of how much freedom its people have, not by the fact that there are people elsewhere who have it worse off.

    13. Re:And yet... by GeorgeS · · Score: 1

      We should all start using a more open DNS system like this one http://www.cesidianroot.com/
      It's free of US government interference and actually has more than the basic TLD's ICANN forces on us all.

      --
      "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
    14. Re:And yet... by cait56 · · Score: 1

      OK, the embargo on Cuba may indeed rank as the apex of American political stupidity, but let's no go overboard on equating this "censorship" with what they have in China. The restriction here is that a Commercial entity, engaged in business, using an American domain name is being expected to conduct business according to American Laws.

      If they were doing business under a European domain name there would be no blocking of access to their site.

      If they were politically discussing the stupidity of the Cuban embargo their web site would not be blocked.

      And while this particular embargo is about as stupid as they come (and by what logic is Cuba more of a threat than China?) I'm not willing to sign up for the premise that a foreign business can do business with a .COM domain name and not be subject to American law. If I'm doing business with someone I'd like to know which Police I need to contact if I need to throw the book at them.

    15. Re:And yet... by Swift+Kick · · Score: 1

      Yah, but that one seat comes with a few strings attached:

      The Jews also have a representative in parliament who is obligated by law to support Iranian foreign policy and its Anti-Zionist position.

      Also, you should mention that one seat out of a total of 290 is little more than a a sham.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    16. Re:And yet... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This has nothing to do with censorship. If he had registered his domain in Europe, there'd be no problem. Nobody would be trying to prevent people in America from viewing his site. Personally, I think it was stupid to embargo the domain, but let's not use the straw man of censorship to show our disapproval.

      This is why TLDs that don't contain country names should not be in the hands of any one government, but that is just wishful thinking. Maybe we will see .edu.us and .gov.us, but I reckon pigs will fly before then.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    17. Re:And yet... by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you want to blame anybody blame JFK.

      JFK was personally involved with Cuba, bullets were fired and missiles were moved back and forth. I can understand his actions, they were related to contemporary events. However JFK is dead for quite some time, as well as some of Presidents who followed him. Mistreating Cuba for half a century is no more reasonable as whipping your dog daily, for 20 years, for him chewing your shoe when he was a puppy.

    18. Re:And yet... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Because of course, The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise wouldn't have a particular POV to push, would it? I think the phrase used in Wikipedia is "notable for its strong pro-Israel views". I'm yet to see someone provide any actual evidence for that statement. But hey.

    19. Re:And yet... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Even in the US we don't offer Jews their own representative seat

      But you do kow-tow to Israeli interests at the expense of American interests, and the Jewish representation in Congress far exceeds the proportion of Jews in the population, not to mention the disproportionate number of Jews among the neocons currently raping America.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    20. Re:And yet... by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      My sig says it all.

    21. Re:And yet... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It has more to do with Israeli policy is far more like US policy than any other country in the middle east. If you've only got one ally in a region you're going to focus all your efforts on them.

      That and Christians never liked Muslims, and the US government being more Christian-controlled than European governments you end up with a far more anti-Muslim stance. Although I think in this rare case they have accidentally selected the right position and Europe has picked the wrong position.

      There are plenty of liberal jews too in the US. That's actually the norm. Try talking to a Jewish professor at any US university and see what he thinks of US foreign policy, you'll find an answer far different than what you'd get out of a "neocon".

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    22. Re:And yet... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      The restriction here is that a Commercial entity, engaged in business, using an American domain name is being expected to conduct business according to American Laws.

      The company was doing business using a .com which is international and by definition not a U.S. domain. Think of it as the virtual equivalent of international waters. As much as Americans like to think of .com as U.S.-only the fact is the only true U.S. domains end in .us.

      This incident is a perfect example of why ICANN needs to be removed from any one country's control.

      I'm not willing to sign up for the premise that a foreign business can do business with a .COM domain name and not be subject to American law. If I'm doing business with someone I'd like to know which Police I need to contact if I need to throw the book at them.

      In case you haven't heard of it there is this thing called The Real World(tm). Regardless of where their domain is registered the only police that will be able to help you are those in the country where the company is registered. If I operate a business in Norway and register my domain in Kenya then contacting the Kenyan police won't help you much will it.
      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    23. Re:And yet... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      A country should be judged on the basis of how much freedom its people have, not by the fact that there are people elsewhere who have it worse off.

      That's fair, but when making those judgements, don't go and say that the USA is like China or Iran when it comes to political freedom, when it isn't. Americans and Europeans that go and say silly things like "oh, Bush is a Nazi turning the USA into like Nazi Germany, or he's no different from Iran", really have no idea what they are saying. It's propaganda that sounds good, but it simply isn't true.

      Now, does that mean that I like the war on terror? No, I don't. I don't like the PATRIOT Act. I don't like the idea of a Dept of Homeland Security. But... at the same time, I think we can simply say that we don't like these institutions at all, rather than say that they are "like China". Because, they aren't.

      --
      This is my sig.
    24. Re:And yet... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I nominate the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the apex of American political stupidity. I know it's off topic but I had to say it.

    25. Re:And yet... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    26. Re:And yet... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. For some reason that I can not figure out people think Kennedy was a great president. History shows that he massively increased nuclear weapons, backed a failed invasion of Cuba, and massively increased the US involvement in Viet Nam. Then you had secret attempts on Castro's life that he and his brother supported... In Civil rights he basically followed Eisenhower's lead. His only accomplishments that I can think of was starting the Apollo program and getting the Democrats interested in Civil Rights.
      That being said for the longest time if you supported communication with Cuba you would be spitting on JFK,s grave. The republicans will not support better relations with Cuba because for the longest time they could count on the Cuban vote in Florida because they hated Kennedy with a passion because of what he did during the Bay of Pigs so they where hard core GOP supporters.
      Then you have the final reason. It had no benefit for the US.
      If the US allowed free trade with Cuba it would run US Sugar out of business. A good thing for the Everglades but pretty bad for the people that work there. Lots of US money would flow into Cuba helping Cuba but probably hurting the Bahamas at least a little. Finally what benefit would it have for the US? The policy has been in effect for 40+ years and hasn't hurt the US at all while putting a burden on the old USSR and Russia to prop up Cuba.
      Heck I am not saying that it is the best plan but the root cause of it does fall back on JFK and what he did as president. His actions made it the SOP for the last 40 years so put the blame where it belongs. It is valid to say that it may be time to soften the policy or even past time but the root cause has Kennedy written all over it. The one person that I think could change it is Ted Kennedy. If he would stand up and support then maybe the rest of the mindless church of JFK would follow.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. Get a .eu by Marcion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are mostly free too because no one has bought them. But perhaps useful in this case,

  4. Looks like there's some merit by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to the EU's argument that censorship restricts free trade. This looks to be a fairly clear example where censorship caused direct economic difficulties.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:Looks like there's some merit by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful
      With all due respect, it's not censorship, it's a freezing of assets to help an embargo. From dictionary.com, a censor is:

      A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable Censorship being what a censor does. Notice they didn't do anything to his actual site; they seized the domain that he was using which is purchased and maintained in the US. It's a reasonable assertion to say that a domain name is property (maybe rented property) that can be seized by a government official.

      Anyone doing business with Cuba knows about the embargo; it's possible he didn't realize that his registrar was an american company and that his domain could be seized, but that's not going to keep the law from going into effect.
    2. Re:Looks like there's some merit by ubernostrum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, EU nations are also known to have laws censoring things their governments are uneasy about; see, for example, prosecutions of online auction sites by France and Germany, on grounds that those sites did not comply with laws banning the sale of Nazi memorabilia.

    3. Re:Looks like there's some merit by jujuchef · · Score: 1
      Sorry not to be a flamebait and off-topic, but this is the same EU that allows its member countries to censor facts of World War II based on what? There are many reputed 'facts' that are of a political boilerplate in Europe. I just want to stress that the EU is not nearly the model of freedom of speech that America is. After all, America is the only western country with an explicit constitution stating such.

      A yank living in Europe

      --
      Truth is realized, not told...
    4. Re:Looks like there's some merit by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Oh the irony, The US seizing properties from people for bypassing an embargo put in place by America as a result of Cuba seizing properties from America.... its like one big circle of hate.

      --
      Bye!
    5. Re:Looks like there's some merit by doshell · · Score: 1

      I just want to stress that the EU is not nearly the model of freedom of speech that America is. After all, America is the only western country with an explicit constitution stating such.

      Either you're trolling about the whole EU constitution affair (which, by the way, is now in the process of being ratified by the member states), or you are totally unaware that the constitutions of several EU member states protect freedom of speech --- despite the fact that you live in Europe, and perhaps in a country belonging to the EU.

      I vote for the first option.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    6. Re:Looks like there's some merit by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right, it doesn't go by the definition of censorship, even though it has the same practical results.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    7. Re:Looks like there's some merit by Foppel · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the sale of nazi memorabilia it is not exactly illegal (at least in Germany) but highly regulated. The buyer has to prove to the seller that he has only academic interest in the item.

      Yahoo banned the sale because a group in france appealed to the french goverment, and ebay is aware that it can't yield to the regulations in Europe, especially in Germany, one of ebay's biggest markets after the USA.

    8. Re:Looks like there's some merit by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      boilerplate in Europe. I just want to stress that the EU is not nearly the model of freedom of speech that America is. After all, America is the only western country with an explicit constitution stating such.

      Artikel 5 in the German "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland".

      Article 40.6.1 in the "Constitution of Ireland" (i.e. of the Republic of Ireland). Ok, this one's a stinker, but still it's there.

      100 in "Kongeriget Norges Grundlov", Norway. Prohibits any form of censorship or other preventive measures against free speech, exept for a silly "think of the children" blurp limited to motion pictures.

      77 in "Danmarks Riges Grundlov", Denmark. Prohibits any form of censorship or other preventive measures against free speech. No exceptions.

      Warning! As you know from back home, there's a difference between what we write in our constitutions, and what "they" manage to get away with.

  5. Bullshit by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Of course it's bullshit. But what is eNom to do? They are in the same spot as any other American company. What we should be doing electing politicians that have the sanity to ignore the screeching Cuban expats in Miami, and scrap the embargo, which if anything only keeps the Castro Brothers in power.

    But, this travel company has learned another lesson: Don't buy domains from eNom, they suck in so many ways....

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Bullshit by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "screeching Cuban expats" are American VOTERS. Democracy works this way.

      Want a different policy? Organize like-minded people to VOTE appropriately.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Bullshit by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The only reason for the Castro brothers to outlive the fall of the iron curtain is the embargo. If the USA lifted the embargo in 1990 Cuba would have been a democracy by now. It would have taken a few million pounds transfers to "opposition" to make that happen like in Eastern Europe, but there would have been a result none the less. The embargo is the main reason why this has never happened and may never happen.

      IMO, we have missed the boat there. With people like Chavez waving suitcases of cash placing a few millions here and there is no longer effective. He can simply outbid the "West" and keep the Castro regime alive for a very long time.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:Bullshit by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. The only reason for the Castro brothers to outlive the fall of the iron curtain is the embargo.
      Maybe. An interesting thing I picked up traveling the Caribbean and talking to a lot of natives is how they want Cuba to stay on the embargo list. The last thing, say, Aruba wants is a huge island paradise thats almost within walking distance of Miami. Especially with airline fuel costing what it does. If Cuba were open again, tourism throughout the rest of the islands, and Mexico and Central America would take a huge hit. And that loss of income is politically destabilizing as well. There's more at work here than sheer stupidity.
    4. Re:Bullshit by dissy · · Score: 1

      Want a different policy? Organize like-minded people to VOTE appropriately. Fry: (to Clinton) Hey, I remember you. I was gonna vote for you one time. But voting isn't cool so I stayed home alone and got trashed on Listerine.

      Ford: Frankly, I've never felt voting to be all that essential to the process.

      Nixon: No kidding, Ford.
    5. Re:Bullshit by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Cuba's already got a gigantic tourist economy, its just from Europe, Canada, Americans on non-connecting out-of-country flights, etc..

      --
      Bye!
    6. Re:Bullshit by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "screeching Cuban expats" are American VOTERS. Democracy works this way.
      A very small minority. Vocal, but a minority non-the-less.
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Bullshit by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "A very small minority. Vocal, but a minority non-the-less."

      Voters interested in Cuba at all are a minority. The anti-Castro voters are a larger minority than the pro-normalization voters. There being no compelling reason for most Americans to care about normalizing relations, those who care about their issue will make the difference.

      Minorities matter. I'm an NRA member because they are a highly effective minority that supports my freedom.
      Want results? Work with other people to get them.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Bullshit by servognome · · Score: 1

      A very small minority. Vocal, but a minority non-the-less.
      The apathy of the majority leads to rule by the minority.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amazed to find right-wing flacks here at /.

    10. Re:Bullshit by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Right but at the moment USians (who are the largest group of rich people in the area) who want to visit cuba have take a detour via a third country and risk getting in legal trouble if the US government finds out they have been there. That must make a lot of people pick one of the other locations arround that area instead.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    11. Re:Bullshit by pitchpipe · · Score: 0

      It would have taken a few million pounds transfers to "opposition"

      Only because this made them alot heavier. 8^)

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    12. Re:Bullshit by el+americano · · Score: 1

      The only reason for the Castro brothers to outlive the fall of the iron curtain is the embargo.

      I see this said a lot without any justification other than the fact that the embargo did not remove them from power. Maybe Castro is a smart enough dictator to have stayed in power anyway. Forgive me if I don't take unsupported speculation as fact.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    13. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not every gun-rights supporter is right-wing, cunt.

    14. Re:Bullshit by Ranzear · · Score: 0

      Welcome to our 'Democratic Republic'. Look it up.

      --
      Slashdot: Where opinions are just opinions until you have mod points.
    15. Re:Bullshit by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Cuba's already got a gigantic tourist economy
      Depends on what you mean by 'huge'. Pardon my figures below because I dont care enough to research them properly so its just the low hanging fruit from the CIA Factbook and Wikipedia but I think it gets the idea across:

      Cuba - 1.6 million tourists, $1.9 billion revenue (300k from Germany)

      For comparison:

      Antigua - $375 million
      Bahamas - $3.6 billion
      Barbados - $383 million
      USVI - $1.3 billion
      Puerto Rico $1.8 billion

      So Cuba's numbers arent bad, but not great compared to other islands, and they are terrible for either tourism income per square mile (its a big island), per shoreline mile (its big with a nice meandering shoreline), or tourism dollar per capita. Also, 80% of the other islands income are Americans.

      So I dont know what your point is... what I said was if you add up all the other vacation destinations of Americans you get maybe $20 billion dollars, much of which would go to Cuba if it were opened. Considering a 10% drop in income would be devastating to an island like St Kitts or Trinidad, its in just about everyone's best interest to maintain the status quo. And if you've seen the way American teens treat locals in Cancun, the Cuban people themselves are probably better off without us.

    16. Re:Bullshit by arivanov · · Score: 1

      And if you've seen the way American teens treat locals in Cancun, the Cuban people themselves are probably better off without us.

      You have not seen British teenagers treeting Eastern Europeans. American are very tame civilised and cultured by comparison.

      As far as the "status quo", tourism is an industry that tends to stretch to fit any size of demand. As long as the economy is good, rest does not matter. People said the same about Eastern Europe that it will eat from Spain and France and we can clearly see that it did not.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    17. Re:Bullshit by ghyd · · Score: 1

      I heard the Cuban exiles had one of the most powerful lobby in the US. But when was the last vote you had against the embargo ?

    18. Re:Bullshit by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Bollocks.

      The vast majority of his people are behind him.

      I think what you meant to say was that 'not too many of the middle classes are happy...', which is true, but unfortunately for you, Venezuela is a democracy and poor people can vote too, and will continue to vote for Chavez so long as he delivers the improvements they desire.

      It's a shame that he has to act against American economic interests, but don't believe everything you see on Fox.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    19. Re:Bullshit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Eastern Europe did 'eat' tourism from Britain though (i.e. British people are less likely to visit somewhere else in Britain now).

      Sorry about the teenagers :-(

    20. Re:Bullshit by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      You have not seen British teenagers treeting Eastern Europeans. American are very tame civilised and cultured by comparison.
      Ha ha! Glad to know we're not the worlds most obnoxious in at least one category!

      Interesting data point about Eastern Europe and would probably apply to Cuba to some degree. But, strictly speaking, the original point was that the business people in the Caribbean and Central America didnt want the competition and Im just pointing out the political and monetary pressure they put on the US. Personally I'd love to sail Havana, but if I owned a few billion dollars of Hilton stock I'd probably play it as safe as possible with my investment. I bet if Cuba allowed a few major resort chains to build resorts, you'd see US policy markedly relaxed.

      One note in Wikipedia's article on Cuba''s economy mentions that the increase in tourism dollars has the effect of widening the gap between poverty and prosperous. Possibly the Castro's believe that if that gap grows through significantly expanded tourism that it would become unmanageable. But Im slipping way into conjecture here. :-)

      Thanks for the points on Eastern Europe and Id mod your reply up, but having posted on this topic I cant do both! (Anyone else got a mod point for Arivanov?)

    21. Re:Bullshit by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      "There's more at work here than sheer stupidity."

      Not to say that there isn't a bunch of it in the mix.

    22. Re:Bullshit by couchslug · · Score: 1

      There isn't enough interest in changing things to bring it to a vote. It's a dead issue because no great number of people care, and because Floridas electoral votes are more valuable than annoying the people who live there.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:Bullshit by arivanov · · Score: 1

      One note in Wikipedia's article on Cuba''s economy mentions that the increase in tourism dollars has the effect of widening the gap between poverty and prosperous. Possibly the Castro's believe that if that gap grows through significantly expanded tourism that it would become unmanageable. But Im slipping way into conjecture here. :-)

      You are not. But you should ask yourself the question of how exactly could have Castro keep control if the embargo was over. After all, tourism would have brought the current "growing gap" to the size of an abyss in less than a year.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    24. Re:Bullshit by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand. I agree with you that ending the embargo would have probably ended Castro, and Im not suggesting it should be continued. Im trying to think why *other* people would like to see the embargo continue, and between what Ive heard and what I found poking around I cant find anybody with a vested interest in anything that would benefit from ending the embargo. Well, except the people of Cuba :-)

  6. A generator of resources that the Cuban regime... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...uses to oppress its people?

    You mean things like providing a never ending stream of very real examples of how America wants to meddle in internal Cuban affairs, thereby providing an instant excuse to play the nationalist "they want to topple your government from Washington! Ignore the abuses you know about and rally together as a nation to resist them as a people!" card?

  7. This is very disturbing by spleen_blender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, this has me chilled to the bone. Ignoring the ridiculousness that in a "free" country we have "travel restrictions", the fact that they can legally perform such blocking with little or no recourse alone has me shaking.

    I fear we are too trustworthy in the robustness of the internet and I'm even more afraid of the day if the powers at large decide the bring the hammer down. I don't think net neutrality legislation would be effective against a determined oppressor, it only takes a few dragging anchors for them to tear through a few laws.

    1. Re:This is very disturbing by spleen_blender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Alt: Thank goodness the economy can't survive without the internet anymore or else I would be hiding under my sheets. So at least for economic interests, some manner where worldwide instant communication will always be available. Thank goodness even moreso for encryption and darknets.

    2. Re:This is very disturbing by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      Now you understand what we supporters of the second amendment have being saying all along. It is right and indeed patriotic for the citizens to question and even to mistrust the government, our founders certainly did. In an age where elections can be stolen and the constitution is ignored we are falling ever farther away from the principles upon which this nation was founded. Hopefully we will find a way to slow and reverse our descent into tyranny, but I tell you that there are times when the situation appears grim.

    3. Re:This is very disturbing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well I hate to have to tell you this but this restriction is no less than 40 years old. As I have said before if you want to blame somebody it can be dropped right in the lab of the Kennedy's JFK and his brother. Of course that isn't a popular thing to say but it is the truth.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:This is very disturbing by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      It was originally designed to keep Soviet medium-range missiles away from a launch pad only 90 miles from the Florida coast. The missiles were pulled out after JFK and Kruschev agreed that the Americans would also pull their nuclear missiles from Turkey.

      But they don't teach you that in school...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:This is very disturbing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually yes the do. That was a total embargo that ended after the missiles where removed.
      The Jupiter sites removed from Turkey was nothing more than a token. The US had Thor sites in the UK, Polaris subs in the Med, B-52s everywhere, and the Atlas on line so the loss of the Jupiter sites in Turkey was frankly a big yawn. The Jupiter was already being fazed out in favor of the Thor and Polaris. At that time Russia had no long range bombers that where a real threat, the Soviet ICBM program was a total mess, and the Soviet SLBM where far behind the US Polaris system. The only real threat to the US where the IRBMs in Cuba while the US could pretty much hit the USSR at will.

      Of course they didn't teach you in school that the US had other IRBM sites in Europe that they did keep or that the Jupiter was an Army missile that the Air Force had forced on them after the Army was limited to short ranged missiles or that the Thor made the Jupiter redundant or that Kennedy had ordered the removal of the Jupiter missiles long before the Cuban missile crisis.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:This is very disturbing by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      So now we have to rely on personal firearms ownership to guarantee our freedom to see Web sites about Cuba?

      So where should we point all the guns that are supposed to defend our freedom?

      And where are all the gun-owners rallying to the cause of freedom?

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    7. Re:This is very disturbing by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Ignoring the ridiculousness that in a "free" country we have "travel restrictions",

      Lol. As a well-traveled world citizen I was amazed to discover first-hand just how much the USA is one of the least free countries I've ever visited, with respect to (the total lack of) true freedom of speech, the vast amount of paranoid fear of just about everything, tons of radical religious intolerance, and a long history of how oppressively the police and government behave to their own citizens. Yet bizarrely most Americans still completely believe the US is the very definition of the Land Of The Free(tm) and that everywhere else in the world is totally oppressed by comparison.

      I wonder just how bad it has to get before they start to question their own propaganda.

    8. Re:This is very disturbing by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness even moreso for encryption Hmm, encryption is only really needed to protect credit card numbers and business website credentials. Current best practice should be to block all other forms of encryption. The next step should be to develop protocols that protect credit card numbers and business website credentials, but can't be used for other forms of communication. Now, I don't agree with what I wrote above. However, I recently had a conversation with a network manager on why encryption, with the exception of port 443, was blocked. His reply was that encryption is a liability. He can't track encrypted traffic. Considering his network is part of a corporation's infrastructure, not a public ISP, he is liable if that encrypted traffic ends up being porn. I wonder, will the line between corporate and public network ever blur to the point that my first statement is seriously considered on public networks?
      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    9. Re:This is very disturbing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Wow I really suggest you read some history books about that time. I will give you a good starting point. Try looking up the Hungarian revolt.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Pay Attention by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All those who happily denounce the (despicable) proposed actions of Iran in censoring the 'net during their elections take note- The world takes its lead from the US, and the US is not currently living up to this responsibility (though many of its citizens kick ass in many ways).

    Please Americans, I love lots of what you stand for, now kill off the right-wing cancer that eats at your nation's heart.

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    1. Re:Pay Attention by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Please Americans, I love lots of what you stand for, now kill off the right-wing cancer that eats at your nation's heart.


      Read your subject again, and then go do it.

      When you've finished you can figure out what's wrong with your post. Hint: "right-wing" and "cuban embargo" are not really things that can be associated. It was started under one of our farthest left leaning administrations, and the most recent law upholding the embargo was signed into law by the previous democratic president, not the current administration. It is widely supported by politicians on both sides which want to pander to particular constituencies.
    2. Re:Pay Attention by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That which passes for 'left wing' in the US is to the far right by the rest of humanity's standards. Try again, this time with perspective.

      --
      "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
    3. Re:Pay Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To get an idea of just how true that is, guess which of the main-stream US Presidential candidates does not belong to an evangelical religion. (And by "main-stream" I mean Clinton, McCain, and Obama.)

      The correct answer is "none of them".

    4. Re:Pay Attention by gobbo · · Score: 1

      You're right. Most people in the world don't have the ability to own the land their house sits on, and their governments don't think they should be able to. [sarcasm deleted]

      Most people in the USA don't own the land their house is on (in practical terms), a bank or landlord does.

      Believing that it's okay for 5% of the population to own about 50% of the country's assets, and the bottom 40% are just shiftless scum, well yeah, that is right wing. Sorry if that bothers you.

    5. Re:Pay Attention by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Yet the self professed left wing of urban Europe (and the farthest left portions of the US) think we should all be living in cities, thus forcing upon us exactly the situation you describe even before you take debt into account? Spare me the holier-than-thou. The rest of the world isn't to the left of the US. They're just bigger hypocrites than us.

    6. Re:Pay Attention by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Ownership of vast swathes of land by single, often absentee individuals, with the right to sell the land from underneath their tenants... that's a pretty right wing idea. We had one instance recently where a whole village came close to being evicted as the land they lived on was put up on the open market. Fortunately it never came to that, due to local government intervention. The stranglehold these individuals have over the land is beginning to be broken with a combination of legislation and community buy-outs.

      You can't just say that belief in ownership is a right-wing idea. It depends on who's doing the owning.

    7. Re:Pay Attention by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Most people in the world don't have the ability to own the land their house sits on
      Not any more or less so than in the USA. It may be called what it is - "compulsory purchase" or "expropriation" - elsewhere, and veiled under the vague term "eminent domain" in the US. But the principle is the same - your land is only yours only until the government decides that it isn't.
  9. irony by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was 'a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people.'
    I don't think they fully appreciate the irony of that statement. trying to stop funds from tourism being used to oppress cuba by restricting the travel of americans and censoring anyone remotely connected to the USA.
    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  10. easy enough to fix by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just go with a non-american ISP/domain name reistrar. It's not as if the US rules the planet, there are plenty of ways to continue working without their say-so or approval. Just move to a free locationa and continue with your legitimate business.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:easy enough to fix by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not as if the US rules the planet, there are plenty of ways to continue working without their say-so or approval. Just move to a free locationa and continue with your legitimate business.


      Bush and congress are trying to fix that. Welcome to Amerika; lets us make a copy of the data on your laptop, show us your papers, and watch what you say outside of a free-speech zone.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:easy enough to fix by woot · · Score: 1

      To quote the article, "[either] way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall's sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain names to him." He's unable to use another registrar for the affected domains as, for some reason, eNom have placed a lock on them.

      Perhaps he can re-register them when they expire? The article doesn't specify if the lock is to be permanently kept on the domain names.

    3. Re:easy enough to fix by WolfTheWerewolf · · Score: 1

      ...and watch what you say outside of a free-speech zone. Shhhhh! Don't let them know we still have free-speech zones!
    4. Re:easy enough to fix by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Shhhhh! Don't let them know we still have free-speech zones!

      Its ironic the people in the country north of the USA have more free speech. In the USA the following will get you frowned upon:
          - talking about communism
          - talking about terrorism
          - questioning whether the definition of patriotism is right
          - being sympathetic to Cuba

      You can't have a healthy democracy if you can't talk about the issues that matter. EU countries don't have it right either, since questioning the Holocaust is considered a hate crime!?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  11. Use a european registrar by sjwest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No issues then, any european who trades with an american firm is asking for problems.

    1. Re:Use a european registrar by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      can't the american courts just go the the registry directly and cut out the registrar.

      It seems to me if you want a .com/.net/.org domain the US government has the power to take it away.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Use a european registrar by sjwest · · Score: 1

      Yes they might, but that might raise a few eyebrows. A european registrar needs some international legal footwork. But it makes things harder and its not the case of phoning an american up and accusing them of being a terrorist to get your job done.

  12. Where are all the good men? by overbaud · · Score: 1

    This is not the internet that Al Gore had in mind when he invented it!

    --
    Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    1. Re:Where are all the good men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gore would invented it, but Bush owns it now.

  13. Wikileaks, now eNom... by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many here would decry the Chinese and assorted third world countries for censorship of the internet, and yet, here we (in the US) act no differently.

    It sounds as thought the great firewall of America will be installed sooner or later. Apparently all it would take is a judge and software that has already been developed, tested, and deployed by American companies in China. Not that it's anything new... we've been censoring the internet for more than a decade now in the name of copyright with the 1997 NET Act. It appears the nationalist crowd has modded you flamebait early... maybe some sane meta-mods will take care of that.

    1. Re:Wikileaks, now eNom... by invader_vim · · Score: 1

      [...] software that has already been developed, tested, and deployed by American companies in China.

      You mean developed by American companies outsourcing the labour to China (and then deployed in China).

  14. wake up by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are we truly free? Or is that just an illusion? the matrix has you
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:wake up by russotto · · Score: 1

      You can't take the sky from me..
      "This court sentences you, Malcolm Reynolds, to life imprisonment in an underground cell. You are never to be brought within view of the sky again".
  15. With great power.. by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Undoubtably I'll be modded down to flamebait, but as a non-US citizen I get pretty tired of the US trying to be the 'policeman of the world' and at the same time pull these underhanded tricks.

    Another example I came upon today is how the White House was planning to overthrow the democratically chosen Hamas party, because it didn't stroke with their plans.

    What happened with "With great power comes great responsibility"? The US is just acting as the schoolyard bully.

    Note that I understand that "The US" != "all US citizens", but please, you're the only ones that can do something about this. So please do so.

    1. Re:With great power.. by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      Undoubtably I'll be modded down to flamebait, but as a non-US citizen I get pretty tired of the US trying to be the 'policeman of the world' and at the same time pull these underhanded tricks.

      I am 100% American, and I also agree with you 100%. I'm mod you up if I had any mod points.

      Another example I came upon today is how the White House was planning to overthrow the democratically chosen Hamas party, because it didn't stroke with their plans.

      Well, of course they have to -- after all, that Allende guy is a communist. (Oh, wait....wrong coup...my error...)

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    2. Re:With great power.. by Deadbolt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They're not "terrorists" anymore if they're the legitimately chosen democratic government of a body of people. They're a government that we don't happen to like very much, similar to North Korea or Iran.

      Now instead of childishly insisting that they're Terrorists and therefore not worth acknowledging, it might be smart to admit their legitimacy in the eyes of their own people and find some way to coexist without killing each other. Of course, that would make you look weak to the ignorant rednecks you gin up for your elections, so can't have that.

      --
      "Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
    3. Re:With great power.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from where i'm standing, the USA are the terrorists.. I do love the US democracy anyways

      The presidential list goes as follows

      (REAGAN) BUSH BUSH CLINTON CLINTON BUSH BUSH (CLINTON?)

      If anybody should be overthrown, its bush.

    4. Re:With great power.. by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about policemen (at least in free and democratic societies) is that they have some form of authority above them. There are rules and regulations, police chiefs, politicians and court systems that tell them what they can or cannot do.

      However, the US has consistently refused to be accountable to anyone but itself. That's fine for a nation, but it's not okay for a policeman.

    5. Re:With great power.. by dissy · · Score: 1

      Note that I understand that "The US" != "all US citizens", but please, you're the only ones that can do something about this. So please do so. While i agree with everything you said, right up to the part i quoted.
      What would you suggest?

      It has been said:
        "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty. In order, those boxes are: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo."

      We have all complained, had walks and protests, and decried our leaders for their actions. Soap, check.

      Ever since the voting machines have full ability to take our input, and provide whatever a corporate CEO desires as output. Ballot, check.

      Since our current leaders have changed the laws in ways so a jury can not change them back, or throw them out of power, and as things stand the embargo is legal, imprisoning the majority of the population for harmless things (Like having a plant), torture is legal, etc... Jury, check.

      We are at #4, but unfortunately our government has more guns, more powerful ones, and more people brainwashed to use them on their side.

      While it could be argued that at least trying is still the best idea, after all one cant rule over a country of corpses... But not enough people are willing to die for it. And while I would gladly die for the end result, I have serious doubts if our small minority that agrees would have any effect in the short or long term in doing so. :{
    6. Re:With great power.. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not sure it is fine for a nation. I believe firmly that for accountability to work, all must be accountable. That includes Presidents, Governments, etc. Now, I also believe firmly that accountability can only work when those with the authority are educated enough to apply that authority sensibly. This makes it difficult, but it's workable.

      My suggestion would be to have a third house, selected at random from the entire pool of individuals in the United States with demonstrably high IQs and/or EQs and/or education. They don't have to be registered to vote, born in any particular country, they just have to be US citizens at the time and eligible for jury duty. This jury, however, is rather unusual. Aside from being randomly selected from a tiny subset of the jury pool, and not being in a criminal or civil case, that is. It would be supervised and moderated by a senior judge, since the house activity is cast in the form of a trial.

      This jury would have the power to try and "convict" (ie: veto) any one single bill that is submitted at the time the jury is in session. Just the one. The bill must be submitted for trial by national referendum. After they reach a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt or innocent (by a majority no less than 9 of the 12), the jury is disbanded.

      They would also have the power to try any one individual in Government on a charge of "no confidence", including the President, but again that trial would be their sole action. They couldn't do anything else if they did that. Again, who they tried, if anyone, would be decided by national referendum, not by the jury, but because it's a much more significant action, I'd argue that it would require a 2/3rds majority of votes cast to put a member of the executive on trial in this way. The verdict must again be beyond all reasonable doubt, but also must be unanimous. A verdict of guilty authorizes a national vote on whether to recall that individual. Again, because impeachment is supposed to be extremely hard and this circumvents most of the existing system, I'd argue this would need a very substantial majority. 3/4 of all votes cast or 2/3 of all voters (whether they voted or not) would seem reasonable.

      Since this would be essentially a para-justice system, appeals would be through the Federal court system, but those appeals would be heard under the legal code established for this system, rather than for civil or criminal law. The interesting problem would be a Supreme Court appeal on the recall of a Supreme Court judge. Would you need the judge to recuse themselves, or since the full court would presumably be needed, would they by definition be amongst those hearing the case?

      This would put the powers of veto and impeachment in the hands of the citizenry, but in a way that is very tightly controlled. The idea is to slow angry and resentful people to the point where they can see if their anger or resentment is even real, have that checked over impartially, and if it's valid, then give the reasoning and feeling that is expressed by the general populace as anger and resentment power to hold the Government responsible. Not during election season, when politicians play nice and bribe their voters, but at any time.

      The idea is to also prevent such power from ever being controlled by outside sources (hence the jury pool mechanism) amd to prevent mood-of-the-week attitudes from having that power directly.

      Of course, there are a million and one reasons why this won't work, but if the circle is to be truly complete and democracy is to be functional, then the current election system is inadequate for a feedback loop and has become far too severely corrupted. There needs to be an uncorruptable feedback loop, even if the requirement to keep it uncorruptable makes it slow, careful, limited and itself subject to higher authorities.

      I propose this, not on the chance anyone'll give a damn, but because I think the current system lacks any kind of idiot-proof feedback system and that won't happen if nobody considers the possibility that there might actually be an idiot-proof system.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:With great power.. by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      Yep. You're right that a government needs to be accountable - in the least case to its own citizens.

      I was thinking along the lines of international accountability.

      For example, Australia is a sovereign nation. What we do within our borders is our own business. The US or any other nation for example doesn't have the right to force us to comply to it's wishes. The US government, I'm sure, feels the same way about its own sovereignty, and has said so.

      But if Australia started to interfere, police, or otherwise meddle in the affairs of other nations, then we should be accountable to some other body. It's not enough in this case to be accountable solely to our own citizens since parochialism often trumps common sense and rational thought. There needs to be an authority than can police the police - otherwise we have a police state.

    8. Re:With great power.. by servognome · · Score: 1

      What happened with "With great power comes great responsibility"? The US is just acting as the schoolyard bully.
      Yes the powers in Europe never think of doing such things (Ivory Coast), not to mention meddling in the Balkans.
      That said, the US was looked upon during the Cold War as the policeman of the world, however times have changed... unfortunately the same old people from that era still rule the country.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:With great power.. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      isnt that what the media is supposed to do, o wait looks at fox! o shit looks back at the UK and sees the daily mail & the sun!
      The biggest threat to democracy is media induced stupidity (see bill oreily).
      While i cant pretend that the liberal media is not biased, they do (in this country at least) tend to have some sort of valid story (they just pick convenient stories and angles. But the Murdoch empire is at best bullshit, yet in both the UK & the US they have the largest market share!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    10. Re:With great power.. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      So they're democratically elected terrorists. How many rockets did they launch at Israeli civilians today? If Mexico was doing that to the United States, Mexico City would soon be glowing in the dark.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:With great power.. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now instead of childishly insisting that they're Terrorists and therefore not worth acknowledging, it might be smart to admit their legitimacy in the eyes of their own people and find some way to coexist without killing each other.

      Loath as I am to point this out, there was another fringe political party not unlike Hamas that won parliamentary elections in Germany a few decades back, and instead of finding a way to peacefully coexist with them we defeated them in war and tried the leaders for their war crimes. Democratically elected government or not, launching rockets into residential neighborhoods to kill people is terrorism, and the people who commit terrorism are terrorists.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    12. Re:With great power.. by jdcope · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, every time something goes wrong on this planet, everyone EXPECTS the US to be the 'policeman of the world'. Because we are the only country that can do some of this crap. People get mad if the US helps, they get mad if the US doesnt help. You cant have it both ways, folks.

    13. Re:With great power.. by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Democratically elected government or not, dropping cluster bombs into residential neighbourhoods to kill people is terrorism, and the people who commit terrorism are terrorists.

      Agree?

    14. Re:With great power.. by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      I have to jump in here... Hamas may be democratically chosen but that in itself doesn't make it legitimate in any way. Both Saddam and Hitler were also democratically chosen... in sham-elections but still. As long as Hamas shoots deadly rockets into Israel every day, hitting more or less randomly, and send in suicide bombers to kill specifically women and children, then they're terrorists by every definition of the word. They need to make peace with Israel and get their own state, not run around thinking they can 'exterminate' Israel in any way. Israel is there to stay so they better find a way to live with that fact. The people from Fatah has done so.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    15. Re:With great power.. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but heaven help you if you criticize their president or ask them to change their politics.

      Then you're just a meddling foreigner who doesn't have the right to criticize the US without coming to live there first.

      (Of course, those who do live in the US are also not entitled to criticize - like it or leave it!)

      Hypocrisy FTW!

    16. Re:With great power.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loath as I am to point this out, you didn't defeat them. The Russians defeated them, and you just showed up towards the end to take credit.

    17. Re:With great power.. by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Well, Hamas is actively engaged in trying to avert war crimes - settlements in occupied territory are in fact a war crime, and the war criminals in this case are the Israelis.

      Your point was what, exactly?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    18. Re:With great power.. by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      How many rockets did they launch at Israeli civilians today?

      Not enough, and none with serious warheads.

      The rockets are a nuisance - sure, they kill the odd unlucky Israeli, but compared to the death toll from Israeli attacks on Gaza, it's minimal.

      Fact is, Israel should never have been recognised as a state - it was founded on terrorism against the British Mandate, and has been a terrorist state ever since.

      The sooner the world wakes up and imposes some serious sanctions against the Zionists the better.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    19. Re:With great power.. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Ivory Coast?

      What, you mean propping up the corrupt Gbagbo regime?

      Or lending succour to the evil rebels?

      'cos the poor old froggies get blamed for both those things.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    20. Re:With great power.. by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      Napalm bombs on Japan killed even more civilians than atomic weapons in Japan.
      From globalsecurity.org:

      "On 21 March 2000, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea issued a memorandum detailing records of "criminal acts against humanity" committed by United States troops during the three-year Korean War (1950-1953). The DPRK report stated that the United States killed peaceful citizens by indiscriminate bombing and naval bombardment against urban and rural areas in the North. According to the DPRK, from 11 July to 20 August 1951, more than 10,000 United States planes had conducted over 250 air raids on Pyongyang, dropping as many as 4,000 bombs, killing 4,000 civilians and wounding 2,500 more. From 11 to 12 July 1952, 400 United States planes dropped more than 6,000 napalm bombs and time-bombs, killing 8,000 civilians, including women and children. "Town and country were reduced to ashes and several million peaceable inhabitants killed", the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Li Hyong Chol, said. According to the DPRK report, Napalm and other bombs dropped by United States war planes totaled more than 600,000 tons, which was 3.7 times the 161,425 tons dropped over Japan during the Pacific War."

      Also

      "A single firebomb dropped from an airplane at low-altitude was capable of producing damage to a 2500-yd2 area. In targeted Japanese cities, napalm bombs burned out 40% of the land area. In a Japanese residential neighborhoods with wood and paper houses, there was no way to fight the fires. On March 9 and 10, 1945, US forces dropped more than 1,500 tons of napalm bombs, all produced at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, on Tokyo. The resulting firestorm destroyed enormous sections of the city."

      See also http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm where it states:

      "Estimates of the number killed range between 80,000 and 200,000, a higher death toll than that produced by the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki six months later."

      It took not one but two atomic bombs to convince the Japanese to surrender, and this was AFTER the horrendous firebombing.

      Firebombing cities accomplished its purpose. From http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfirestorm.htm :
      "A wave of terror radiated from the suffering city and spread through Germany. Appalling details of the great fire was recounted. A stream of haggard, terrified refugees flowed into the neighbouring provinces. In every large town people said: "What happened to Hamburg yesterday can happen to us tomorrow". After Hamburg in the wide circle of the political and the military command could be heard the words: "The war is lost"."

      So I ask, who are the terrorists?

      The expansionistic prisoner of war torturing invaders, the ones dropping the napalm bombs on the invaders' civilian population, the ones ordering the dropping of napalm bombs, or the ones that voted into power the people that ordered the dropping of napalm bombs?

      At some point citizens ARE responsible for the actions of their leaders. And yes, War is Hell.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    21. Re:With great power.. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I don't really disagree with you, although none of this exonerates (or is even relevant to) Hamas.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  16. You have to love our freedoms by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We can trade out the ass with Red China, and cozy up to Uzbekistan, but Cuba, no es posible. Why? Because Cubans who fled Cuba after the revolution because they wanted their comfort and money more than they wanted to stay and fight, now control a lot more political power in America than they should. We can ask if Cuba really has it that bad. Its major export is educated people. Doctors, mostly. Can we acknowledge that maybe individual greed doesn't steer everything in the right direction all the time? Sure Cuba has poor folks. Do we care about poor folks in Cuba more than we care about the Americans that were left stranded in New Orleans after Katrina for political reasons? Not this year. The US has more people in prison than any other country in the world. Yes, and that is not by percentage. Cut the bullshit, we need to get over our sense of exceptionalism.

    1. Re:You have to love our freedoms by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? Because the Castro government confiscated (read "stole") all property in Cuba that was owned by US private citizens and corporations and has not to this day compensated them for their losses. When the Cuban government wants to talk about compensation, we can also talk about normalization of relations. The situation with Cuba has more to do with that than it does with the disproportionate political power of Cuban-Americans in Florida.

      Cf. the number of Vietnamese living in the United States and their level of affluence and growing political influence (a community with which I am very familiar; my wife, as well as most of our friends and relatives, are Vietnamese), yet we have full diplomatic relations with Viet Nam. The difference? Viet Nam has not only returned confiscated property (the former US Embassy in Saigon is now the US Consulate General building there), but has been very helpful in locating the remains of US military personnel lost during the war and not recovered at the time. Cuba has done nothing to try to improve relations with the United States, and in fact has resorted to things such as dumping the Marielitos on us. The Cuban government has completely brought its situation vis-a-vis the United States on itself, period.

      When the Cubans want to come to the table and talk, starting with compensation issues, I'm sure they'll be welcomed, the Cuban-American lobby notwithstanding. When will they be ready to? Not until sometime after Fidel's grave - and probably his brother's as well - has grown quite cold. They have too much baggage for it to happen before that.

    2. Re:You have to love our freedoms by damista · · Score: 1

      The big difference is: Cuba doesn't have nukes. Do you think the US would snuggle up to China if they wouldn't have nukes? The US know they can't really apply any real pressure on China. They could have in the 60s through to the late 80s but that time they were too busy with the USSR and by now, thanks to globalisation, they're economically dependent on China, so economic or political pressure doesn't work and thanks to the nukes, there's no chance for military pressure either. As the saying goes: If you can't beat them, join them. Uzbekistan has "inherited" some nukes from the USSR and as a fairly "unstable" nation, it's best to make friends with them. Especially because of the country's muslim population it is important to befriend them to avoind nukes falling into the hands of fanatics.

      Cuba has no means of defending itself against any step the US take. That makes them the ideal target. But nobody expected Castro's stamina in that matter. He's conviced that his way is the right one and nothing can change his mind. Not even a US embargo. Besides that, if the US were really interested in the oppressed cuban people, they wouldn't have the embargo to start with. The embargo doesn't really make things better for the people does it?

    3. Re:You have to love our freedoms by Deadbolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another difference that you fail to mention is that we (the US) have been meddling in Cuba's affairs for damn near 100 years, including dozens of documented attempts to assassinate their head of state. For some reason, Cubans find this behavior objectionable, and the idea of seized assets dating before most of them were born being the justification for this conduct is laughable.

      God knows I'm not saying the Castros are happy little fuzzy angels who never did no wrong, but it's indisputable that they're a damn sight better than some of the thugs we happily deal with in the rest of the world. It's ridiculous and childish to blame everything on them, but it plays well in certain areas of south Florida which hold disproportionate power come election time.

      --
      "Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
    4. Re:You have to love our freedoms by nuzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Do you think the US would snuggle up to China if they wouldn't have nukes?

      Absolutely. The amount of U.S. debt they hold is a gun pointed at our head that could wipe out our power as effectively as any nuke.

      Mind you, we'd take them and the rest of the world down in the process. When you owe the bank ten million dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank ten trillion dollars, the bank has a problem.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    5. Re:You have to love our freedoms by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The major difference is that is Cuba returned the confiscated property they wouldn't have much of Cuba left. Looking at a bit of history from the Spanish-American war on would be enlightening, as would reading things on US organised crime and their very extensive operations in Cuba. At the time of Bay of Pigs there was a lot of organised crime connections with the US intelligence community but not with the military and the incument government - hence the amataur operation instead of a military one.

    6. Re:You have to love our freedoms by tftp · · Score: 1
      Uzbekistan has "inherited" some nukes from the USSR and as a fairly "unstable" nation, it's best to make friends with them.

      It is not so. Russia collected all the nukes, mainly because other republics had neither need nor capabilities to deal with them.

      Also, Uzbekistan is the most stable Muslim nation on Earth because its President, Islam Karimov, maintains a strict discipline and forgives nothing. He learned much from Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein, and then added his own innovative methods. Unfortunately, very few people lived to tell more.

    7. Re:You have to love our freedoms by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because the Castro government confiscated (read "stole") all property in Cuba that was owned by US private citizens and corporations and has not to this day compensated them for their losses.
      Whereas said US citizens have installed and supported a dictatorship in Cuba. I think confiscating the property counts as a compensation for that, so you should be all clear.
    8. Re:You have to love our freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I noticed having traveled in Cuba and the US is that Cuba has a lot of poorer people who are living in low quality accommodation but they do have a roof and they do have enough to eat and access to medical aid. The US has homeless people starving on the street.

  17. There's a lesson in here somewhere by toby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Don't have anything to do with the USA.

    Non-Americans already have to do ridiculous things like obtain visas to just to make a flight connection in the US. Soon we're not even allowed to overfly the US. That's fun if, like me, you live in Canada.

    To hell with them.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:There's a lesson in here somewhere by jmv · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's great for the Canadian economy, and a reason why Vancouver airport has attracted a lot more passengers recently. Haven't seen any numbers on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of highly skilled people coming to Canada (instead of the US) had also increased recently.

    2. Re:There's a lesson in here somewhere by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Of course there is, that's why Microsoft opened their token Richmond development branch, because it would take imported labor a lot longer to be approved for US entry, so they have the Canadian (gov. more laissez faire on immigration) branch to put them somewhere until they're finally allowed to work in the states legally.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:There's a lesson in here somewhere by Rampantbaboon · · Score: 1

      Somehow the US logic is that limiting H1-B visas (the visa for highly educated work) keeps out legions of undereducated terrorists. I'm doing all I can to make it to the EU (Ireland is my goal) as soon as I finish my education.

      (at least the US university system is still damn good)

    4. Re:There's a lesson in here somewhere by jmv · · Score: 1

      at least the US university system is still damn good

      I beg to differ. There are some very good universities, but on average I've never been impressed (when comparing to other developed western countries).

  18. stupid and useless by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    any US citizen that wanted to vacation in Cuba could easily go to Mexico (maybe Canada too) and i am sure there are travel agencies that could get you to Cuba cheaper than flying to the EU...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:stupid and useless by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      stupid and useless doesn't stop them from trying to enforce this anyway. it's probably more important to make it appear that any and all attempts to circumvent this embargo will not be tolerated, never mind if it fails miserably, it's all theater anyway.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:stupid and useless by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      You still can be prosecuted by the US government upon your return from your vacation if you're caught.

    3. Re:stupid and useless by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      You still can be prosecuted by the US government upon your return from your vacation if you're caught.

      Unless you have a second nationality that stamp in your passport isn't going to help things.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  19. Sheesh, it's almost like... by religious+freak · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's almost like we're kind of pissed at the Castro family for encouraging the Soviet Union to launch those nuclear missiles he had on his island. And maybe we'll even encourage friends and allies for being pissed at them too. And maybe, just maybe the companies that do business with Cuba are not welcome on our DNS servers.

    You know, because of that whole trying to murder tens of millions of us and all.

    Yes, -1 Not conforming with majority opinion

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Sheesh, it's almost like... by Spasemunki · · Score: 1

      Castro sucks and all, but still being miffed over the Cuban missile crisis is a pretty terrible reason for maintaining a particular foreign policy. The embargo continually pushes Cuba closer to US enemies (USSR, Hugo Chavez), while substantially reducing the quality of life for the average Cuban much more than it punishes the creeps at the top. Meanwhile, economic disengagement has removed any leverage that the United States might be able to exert on Cuba in order to encourage better behavior by the government. The question with the embargo is: who exactly is this helping? From what I can tell, the big beneficiaries have been the USSR and Venezuela. In exchange for slipping the Cubans just enough money and resources to keep their economy from grinding to a halt, they get (in Russia's case) a strategic foothold in the Western hemisphere, and a PR victory for propping up a regime that is an ongoing embarrassment for the United States.

    2. Re:Sheesh, it's almost like... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's almost like we're kind of pissed at the Castro family for encouraging the Soviet Union to launch those nuclear missiles he had on his island.

      Yes, its almost like we're immature children who spitefully cling to their hatred long after the conflict is over and everyone else has grown up and gotten over it.

      Hell, we've even made peace with the country that actually designed, built, and deployed the missles to cuba. You know, the country that actually owned them and put them their with the express purpose of creating a threat? The country that the 'cold war' was actually with? We made peace with them. But apparently our rage for a dying old man whose island they were on... for him... our hatred is boundless.

      Grow up aready.

      Yes, -1 Not conforming with majority opinion

      No. -1 for being an immature and childish country.

      You know, because of that whole trying to murder tens of millions of us and all.

      You might want to check your history. The Soviets put missiles in Cuba in response to the fact that the USA put missiles in Turkey. Not that it stops their of course, the cold war was a series of moves and responses, but the point remains... Castro was a PAWN in a much bigger game of chess [er... global thermonuclear war] and his role and personal relevance was laughably minor.

    3. Re:Sheesh, it's almost like... by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      I can't disagree with most of your post, but we didn't exactly make peace with Russia. It more collapsed under it's own weight and we made peace with what was left.

    4. Re:Sheesh, it's almost like... by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      'Course the Soviet attempt to place missiles with reach of US cities didn't have anything to do with the fact that we had ALREADY put nuclear-armed missiles in Turkey, within easy range of Moscow and most of the Russian heartland. Having been invaded by the Germans, the Soviets weren't looking forward to an attack by the US, with no means to deter/retaliate. Before you (stupidly) say we would not have done it, remember that US troops fought on the side of the Czar during the revolution, and that senior members of the military and politics had publicly advocated a first strike on the Soviet Union before they could attain anything close to parity.

    5. Re:Sheesh, it's almost like... by religious+freak · · Score: 1
      I do know my history, pretty well in fact. And it is a well known fact that Castro actively encouraged the launching of those nuclear missiles directly down our throats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Crisis_continues

      And you are right, it was certainly a tit for tat atmosphere, and as long as Castro is alive, it will remain that way.

      No. -1 for being an immature and childish country.
      Oh PUUUUUUUUUUUULEASE, would you want to make nice with a man that threatened to kill your entire family (and he had the means to do it), even if it were 50 years later? Well, neither does the US government. We didn't deal with China until Mao was gone, we didn't like Stalin (though we were forced to deal with him during WWII out of necessity), and we don't like Castro.

      In the case of Castro I don't think it's unreasonable to carry a grudge against someone who tried to destroy our nation.
      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  20. What domain name provider do we use now? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    So what domain name provider do we use now? eNom is the provider used by my current reseller, NameCheap.com.

    1. Re:What domain name provider do we use now? by rubah · · Score: 1

      Why, godaddy of course!

  21. hypocrisy by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    Why dick around touring Cuba when you could go to China? Everythings bigger and badder there. China is positively booming with US trade, so it should be more fun to visit - especially if you have a lot of money like Bill Gates. Shoot, what's Cuba got? Biomed, underperforming sugar cane and orchards, fishing and PBS backed artists? China's got toxic PC production and "recycling", every good geek's dream vacation. If you look up WHO health statistics, you will see that Cuba has edged the US out of several categories and China is at the bottom where statistics can be collected. Healthy is the opposite of fun, so you have the obvious ranking China, US, Cuba. Why go to such a boring old place?

    What's more, you have to have respect for China. They have got nukes out the yin-yang and submarines that can deliver them when they don't sink. They are all into African and Mid East oil and are becoming a real economic and military force. Cuba? Ha! It's been thirty years since they could field a good army in Angola. The Soviets were never very good to them and now that sugar daddy is gone. Poor old Raul would have a hard time fighting his way out of a paper bag.

    Given all of that, who would you rather give your money to? That's what I thought any good American would say.

    It's a good thing the US Treasury department is helping US Citizens do the right thing. Thanks George, don't let that pesky first amendment get in the way of your fight against real tyranny. Every dollar spent by bleeding liberals in Cuba is one dollar less that won't be able to make its way through Walmart to China.

    1. Re:hypocrisy by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      PJ O'Rourke - is that you?

      Wicked irony - keep it up!

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  22. Before everyone starts going crazy... by Swift+Kick · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... do you realize that these restrictions have been in place since 1962 because the Cuban government expropriated the property of U.S. citizens and corporations in Cuba?

    Do you also realize that it was made law in 1992 under the title of Cuban Democracy Act by U.S. Congressman Robert Torricelli (D)?

    Once again, those who seem historically ignorant are quick to condemn the current administration for something that has (arguably) been in place for over 40 years...

    --
    "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    1. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by pla · · Score: 1

      do you realize that these restrictions have been in place since 1962

      Do you realize (and the FP even says as much) that this involves a NON-AMERICAN company denied access to its own name because of a dick-waving contest that Kennedy lost (by default) almost 40 years ago?


      Once again, those who seem historically ignorant

      ...As opposed to the geographically ignorant (unless we've "brought democracy" to Spain in the past few hours and I missed the announcement...)?

    2. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah but saying Bush and Right-Wingers are fascists is a lot easier to do than check facts and find the origin of the embargo was done by Liberal Democrats.

      Just ignore all of the Liberal Fascism and blame the Neocons.

      Please raise those "Impeach Bush" signs high, flood all of the Digg, Reddit, DailyKOS, Kuro5hin, Slashdot, and any other social networking or discussion board site you can.

      Just tell us all about how the Conservative Fascists are manipulating us with fear of Radical Islamic Terrorists, and please do ignore the fact that Liberal Fascists are manipulating us with fear that the Conservatives are taking away our freedom, fear of global warming to force us to give Liberals our money via carbon credits, fear of peak oil and high gas prices, fear of the RIAA and MPAA suing us for using BitTorrent, fear of our employers firing us for reading Slashdot, fear that Police can read text messages on some stoner's cell phone after pulling him over for speeding and see he contacted a drug dealer, fear that "The New World Order" controls everything so we have to vote in Liberals to keep the NWO out (and hope we don't notice that Liberal Politicians are part of a NWO if it exists in the first place), fear that "Big Brother" is watching us over the Internet and listening to our phone calls.

      When you compare Conservative Fascists to Liberal Fascists, you'll find that Liberal Fascists use fear more often to manipulate and control most of us than the Conservative Fascists do. You'd have to ignore that FDR put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps and arrested anyone who was against WWII and put them in jail without a warrant or habeas corpus, you'll have to ignore that Harry S. Truman dropped nukes on Japan and started a war in Korea, you'll have to ignore the LBJ started the Vietnam war and helped bring about the embargo with Cuba in the first place, you'll have to ignore that Jimmy Carter supported Israel and helped out the Shah of Iran to get cancer treatment and it lead to a big Islamic Uprising in the Middle-East that lead to Radical Islamic Terrorism and 9/11, you'll have to ignore that Bill Clinton had military actions against Iraq and Afghanistan and was the first one to say Iraq had WMDs and ties to Bin Laden and tried to get Bin Laden since 1993 when OBL had his men do a failed truck bomb on the WTC in 1993. You can even ignore that Bill Clinton and Al Gore rejected the Koyoto treaty and were in favor of the foreign trade agreements with India, China, Mexico, etc that cost the USA a lot of jobs, and Hillary Clinton supported it and also worked for Wal-Mart and told them to offshore the manufacturing to Asia and when Wal-mart employees vote to unionize just close down the Wal-mart store and fire all the employees and open up a new store somewhere else in town.

      I mean yeah, if you ignore the history of Liberal Fascism, you could say that Conservative Fascism is the worst form of fascism, but then isn't any form of fascism supposed to be bad?

      Also in the former ex-Communist states, the word progressive and progress stood for Communism and the KGB, Stalin, Mao, and other Communist leaders told everyone they stood for progress. So did Hitler and Mussolini also claim to be progressives and stood for progress. So if a person calls themselves a progressive, that is a bad thing.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize that USA government expropriates the property of EU citizens and corporations that operate outside USA and have never broken USA law because they have never stepped on USA soil?

    4. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by trawg · · Score: 1

      ... do you realize that these restrictions have been in place since 1962 [wikipedia.org] because the Cuban government expropriated the property of U.S. citizens and corporations in Cuba? I don't know enough about it (where "it" is international trading, politics and business), but - isn't this sort of thing just a risk of doing business anywhere in the world?

      A quick example - if I start a business in Iraq, I shouldn't be surprised if its destroyed by "insurgents" (or bombed by friendly forces). It's just a risk of business.

      Starting up a business in some small non-stable country (I have no idea if Cuba was 'stable' back when these events transpired, but I'm guessing not after reading your Wiki link which seems to imply it was a military dictatorship) seems like its risky at best - while the capitalist spirit should be applauded, I dunno if I'd appreciate my country stepping in if a lot of people here decided to go and start crazy businesses overseas.
    5. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by wexsessa · · Score: 1

      Not quite expropriation... AFAIK the property owners were compensated, based on the declared value of their property, as listed in the property tax rolls.

    6. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Swift+Kick · · Score: 1

      Do you realize (and the FP even says as much) that this involves a NON-AMERICAN company denied access to its own name because of a dick-waving contest that Kennedy lost (by default) almost 40 years ago?

      A "NON-AMERICAN" company which happens to have its domain names registered with an American company based in Bellevue, Washington. This means that (just like any other foreign company with offices in the US) the non-american company falls under the restrictions just like any other american-based business. Not too hard to understand, right?

      ...As opposed to the geographically ignorant (unless we've "brought democracy" to Spain in the past few hours and I missed the announcement...)?

      Reading comprehension might serve you better in the future. I suggest you re-read the actual article, rather than just spew uninformed comments for no reason.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    7. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Mex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, half a century ago. Mexico expropiated the oil from foreign countries in the 40's, and there was never a retaliation like the one against Cuba.

    8. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by watzinaneihm · · Score: 1

      This means that (just like any other foreign company with offices in the US) the non-american company falls under the restrictions just like any other american-based business. Not too hard to understand, right?
      Well thats the irony of it. Cuba confiscates property registered in Cuba but owned by Americans. America embargoes Cuba for 40+ years. Now US confiscates property of Europeans but which happened to be registered in USA ??
      There is clearly a difference in the size of property confiscated, but you do realize that it is commonly accepted that a country can almost always do what they want to do to property registered in that country right? Usually investors call this sovereign risk (term made famous when Russia refused to pay back their debt in the 90s)...

      --
      .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
    9. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, they took their country back with the usual zeal you have in a war where the people defeated have been handing stuff out to cronies for years. War costs money and hurts business. The current administration gets blame because they are still administering this policy. Bizzare unintended consequences ae things like fat kids from corn syrup instead of importing cheap sugar (which still produces fat kids but not as easily).

    10. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure that I read that the current administration is being singled out for blame. If it's in here, I must have ignored it.

      Perhaps your post got through before eveyone went crazy and stopped that from happening. Thanks.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    11. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Swift+Kick · · Score: 1

      Now US confiscates property of Europeans but which happened to be registered in USA ??

      You're talking apples and oranges. The Fidel regime confiscated all the property belonging to U.S. citizens as part of the pissing contest he was engaging with Washington shortly after his revolution. There were no warnings, no buybacks, nothing. You were paid a visit by someone from the government, who told you something along the lines of "This is now property of the Cuban people, GTFO", and that was it. Much like what happened to the white farmers in Zimbabwe a few years ago when Mugabe decided to appropriate their lands.

      In this particular case, there is an actual law in place that explainsin no uncertain terms that if you do business with Cuba, you're subject to penalties, depending on what you do. Ignorance of the law is not exactly an excuse to break it.

      There is no irony in it, and 'sovereign risk' has nothing to do with this specific case.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    12. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been a stupid embargo all the time, and this administration is not doing anything about it, nor has the earlier ones done. I think it is fit to condemn this administration and the earlier ones. President Bush could easily have removed it, since he is not running in the elections. I think he like the embargo.

    13. Re:Before everyone starts going crazy... by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure that I read that the current administration is being singled out for blame."

      Read it now. You'll find you're wrong.

  23. Re: "Land Of The Free" by quenda · · Score: 1

    Didn't you get the memo?

    Its now "Land of the Incarcerated" .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

  24. To view the blacklisted sites in the US by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 1

    Most of you can figure this out yourselves, I'm sure, but just in case, here's one way:

    $ whois cuba-hemingway.com
    [...]
    Name Servers:
          ns1.digitalpanorama.net
          ns2.digitalpanorama.net
    [...]
    $ nslookup www.cuba-hemingway.com ns1.digitalpanorama.net
    Server: ns1.digitalpanorama.net
    Address: 24.244.141.113#53

    www.cuba-hemingway.com canonical name = cuba-hemingway.com.
    Name: cuba-hemingway.com
    Address: 24.244.141.117

    $ sudo sh -c "echo 24.244.141.117 www.cuba-hemingway.com >> /etc/hosts"

    Repeat for each domain.

  25. How about blocking Saudi travel firms by MrSteveSD · · Score: 5, Informative
    The article says...

    ...a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people

    Well what about the billions in military aid given to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world?. Cuba is Disney Land compared to Saudi Arabia. What about all that money going towards oppressing the Saudi people? Imagine some big democracy movement started in Saudi Arabia and tried to overthrow the dictatorship. The Saudi government would no doubt use all the weapons we have been selling them against their own people.

    US policy toward Cuba is not about the dictatorship. The US has supported and created many dictatorships in that part of the world. The US policy towards Cuba is based on anger over losing control of the country. It's like Britain banning citizens from travelling to the US because the US had the cheek to declare independence.

    The fact there is a US base in an 'enemy' country is a little clue as to how Cuba has been treated in the past. Don't expect the mainstream media to talk about it though. The US occupied Cuba after independence from Spain and refused to leave unless the Cubans agreed to a list of items (the Platt Amendment). Among that rather imperialistic list of requirements was a permanent military base at Guantanamo bay.

    Of course if Castro had been a business friendly right-wing dictator, it could have been a smooth transition from Batista's rule. You wouldn't be hearing the US making big noises about the lack of democracy at all.
    1. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Well what about the billions in military aid given to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world? I would be surprised if the USA gave any military aid to the Saudis.
      Sold them equipment at exorbitant prices, yes, gave them aid, no.
    2. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saudis are not significant voting block in an important state in Presidential elections, as Cubans are...

    3. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      35% of the value of the contracts go into "offset deals" which benefit the Saudi economy to the tune of billions. There are other tricks to.

    4. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well what about the billions in military aid given to Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world?. Cuba is Disney Land compared to Saudi Arabia. What about all that money going towards oppressing the Saudi people? Imagine some big democracy movement started in Saudi Arabia and tried to overthrow the dictatorship. The Saudi government would no doubt use all the weapons we have been selling them against their own people.

      You kidding me? If the Saudis ever had a popular revolution start up, the US would send everything we got to keep them propped up and in place.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      You kidding me? If the Saudis ever had a popular revolution start up, the US would send everything we got to keep them propped up and in place.

      Yes, I should imagine they would. It would be tricky to explain to the US public why the US was opposing democracy though. I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to say that Al Qaeda are behind the revolution, so it has to be stopped.
    6. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The US policy towards Cuba is based on anger over losing control of the country.

      I don't know who was madder. The government, or Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You might recall a name of one revolutionary against the Saudi Arabia government. It's Osama bin Laden.

    8. Re:How about blocking Saudi travel firms by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      35% of the value of the contracts go into "offset deals" which benefit the Saudi economy to the tune of billions. There are other tricks to. So, 35% of what the saudis spend on way overpriced equipment comes back to them -- still don't see anything remotely aid-like about that. Still 0% of the money coming from the US government.
  26. So why compare yourselves with China? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You'd hope USA would compare itself with the top end of the freedom scale, and not the bottom.

    http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=389&year=2007 USA 16th

    But do you really expect people to think freely if they've been spouting the pledge of allegence since they were 5?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:So why compare yourselves with China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd hope USA would compare itself with the top end of the freedom scale, and not the bottom.

      http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=389&year=2007 USA 16th

      But do you really expect people to think freely if they've been spouting the pledge of allegence since they were 5?

      The same thought strikes me too. People in the US think they're free and that people in China are not free. People in China also think they're free and that people in the US are not free.

      For example, some people in China are convinced that no one in their right mind would vote for Bush and so either he was placed there, or there are few people 'in their right mind'.
  27. eNom is the REAL provider, others only re-sell. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I suggest that everyone check to see from whom your domain name provider buys your domains. eNom.com is the real provider for NameCheap, one of many who buy from eNom.com.

    eNom has been competing with its re-sellers with eNomCentral.com. Note that eNom is doing what GoDaddy does. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to get more money by confusing people who have little technical knowledge.

    I moved all my domains away from GoDaddy for many reasons, not just those reasons given in a Slashdot story, to NameCheap.

    I don't know any domain name reseller that is inexpensive, reliable, and honest.

    1. Re:eNom is the REAL provider, others only re-sell. by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use gandi.net. They're fairly cheap ($15/yr), been around a good while (since 2000), not located in the US (France), and (most importantly), their agreement specifically notes that ownership of the domain is yours, not theirs. Their website is good and handles all the normal stuff you might need to do with a domain. I can't speak to their support, as I have not had instance to make us of it.

    2. Re:eNom is the REAL provider, others only re-sell. by kk49 · · Score: 1

      It was even cheaper before the dollar went to crap.

      I've been registering my offensive domains there since 2001, and I have no complaints.

      --
      You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
    3. Re:eNom is the REAL provider, others only re-sell. by simpleguy · · Score: 1

      Three cheers for gandi.net.

      I had a problem with one of my domains a few months ago and sent them an email. The domain was incorrectly being put in some kind of spam blacklist. A tech support guy actually fixed the problem and TELEPHONED me (overseas call) to let me know they were working on it and I should expect it to be resolved in the next few minutes. How's *THAT* for support?

  28. Agreed by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hopefully, today, Obama will win the Dem's vote. But to be honest, I do not think that McCain or even Clinton will be that bad. None of them are neo-cons. The odd thing is that all talk about our diminished reputation in the world while also speaking about our deficits. All 3 have experience beyond our shores. I think that all 3 will work to rebuild our relationships while solving some major issues (in particular, china).

    The interesting issue is all 3's money handling. I noted that after Super Tuesday, McCain and Clinton had run out of money and really had no plans in place. OTH, Obama had a great deal less money than either of these, and he was not only not out of money, but had a plan for afterwards. It says a lot about the man vs. the other 2.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Agreed by dwater · · Score: 1

      OTH, Obama had a great deal less money than either of these, and he was not only not out of money, but had a plan for afterwards. It says a lot about the man vs. the other 2. Not sure what you're saying. His plan is to borrow some from someone else - China perhaps?

      ...or is your point something to do with his plans being divorced from his budget?
      ...or he never gives up?
      ...or he thinks ahead?
      ...or he's optimistic (money will come from somewhere)?

      I'm assuming his plan was something other than 'stop'.
      --
      Max.
  29. Re: "Land Of The Free" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prisons? Aren't those a French invention?

    I thought we were calling them "Freedom Houses" now.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  30. What do you expect from ENOM by dindi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Enom are the people who took over registerfly's expired domains (expired because you had no means renewing them), and then tried to get a $200 extortion fee for your domain to give it back to you.

    So what do you expect from companies like that? I would personally open an international lawsuit against them, and there is absolutely no way Enom can win that.

    1. Re:What do you expect from ENOM by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Coincidently I noticed today that, an old domain I recently let expire a couple months ago from GoDaddy is now registered through Enom. (I checked cause I was thinkin' of reupping on it now.)

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:What do you expect from ENOM by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Aside all politics, and just from a completely practical point of view: I am from Europe and, despite the low registrar prices in the US, I thought it to be smarter to register in the country I live in, just because it will be easier to resolve any problems in the case they might occur. Then I just thought about technical issues, but I could've guessed the implications concerning my personal freedom and rights are there and are real. Then again, with the current "copy-america's paranoid politics" way of thinking here in German politics, it might not help me much in that respect.

      I am also wondering, how much time to these people have on their hands that they track a company, operating in another country and happening to do 'business' with Cuba, just because it bought a domain name? There a bazillion registered domain names and you only need to give the name of the company and address for that. Do they check all of these? That really is a lot of work!

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    3. Re:What do you expect from ENOM by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Aside all politics, and just from a completely practical point of view:...Aside all politics this is a non-story. Mostly just the sound and the fury to drive page views and ad revenue. Newsflash registering a domain name to do something that would be illegal in a coutry is a bad idea. So don't register your pr0n domains in Indonesia, don't register naziartifacts4sale.com in France, etc.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    4. Re:What do you expect from ENOM by dindi · · Score: 1

      Tack?

      0. I know that it takes a lawyer written text to take anyone's site down from mayor providers. A client of mine got his site shut down over a lawyer's mail. "XY website name is similar to my client's registered trademark, shut it down or we sue your ass".

      My client lost a whole database, because when they shut the site down they deleted everything. All this over a name. No trial, no court.

      I pretty much imagine, that some competitor wrote them a mail saying that you are serving people who send people to Cuba, and that was enough.

      Here is the thing: there are a lot of registrars who allow ANYTHING. SPAM, PRON, GAMBLING, PHARMACY. Just go with those and you are safe.

    5. Re:What do you expect from ENOM by dindi · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you said, many gambling sites (if not most of all) are registered in the US. I know that where I live it is illegal to register or host Porn (Costa Rica), but gambling is 100 legal (casinos or betting). No one registers casino domains here though .....

      BTW a good safe registrar outside the us is Joker.com (not affiliated, just using them as they are rock solid and only cost 2-3$ extra over the us).

  31. what's the problem? by superwiz · · Score: 0

    If the company operates exclusively in Europe, why is it using a .com extension? Isn't the idea that they are supposed to be using .eu? I am actually not clear on whether .com was meant for the us only commercial interests or for commercial interests that were international. But I am pretty sure that any interest that are limited to a specific territory that has a designated extension are supposed to be using that extension. Which, of course, begs the question, how the hell can allmp3.ru be breaking US law?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:what's the problem? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that .com is the name brand for the internet.

      So? That doesn't address the issue at all. The fact that something is convenient doesn't mean that it is how it is supposed to be according to the requirements. However, http://www.internic.net/faqs/domain-names.html does say that "The .com, .info, .name, .net, and .org TLDs are open and unrestricted."

      And yet, in a case such as described by the article, it would seem that the more appropriate course of action would be to operate under the .eu TLD. It would certainly emphasize the fact that the intended customers are residents of the designated territory. I am not sure the case qualifies as censorship here for the very reason that having a .com TLD invites US business. And certainly US federal government has the responsibility to enforce US laws. It didn't charge the owners of the site with any crimes. It just made it more difficult for the US citizens to go around the embargo. By the way, let's not turn this into an argument about the appropriateness (vs inappropriateness) of the embargo itself. That's an entirely different issue. The issue at hand is whether the US should be enforcing the US law as applied to the US citizens. Any sovereign nation should.

      But I am pretty sure that any interest that are limited to a specific territory that has a designated extension are supposed to be using that extension. Absolutely not. If you want to get a .ca, the rules require you have a Canadian presence (live there or do business there). I see. So the requirements go in the other direction. You don't have to get .ca if you live in Canada, but you have to live in Canada if you want .ca. Interesting. I am not sure why you got modded down. Certainly, you get my "interesting" vote.

      Well, they are selling copyright music without permission to people located in the US. Pretty open & shut, but extraditing them to the US might be difficult.

      Don't you mean that the US Citizens buy that music without permission. allmp3.ru are located within a sovereign territory operating under its laws and using the domain designated for that territory. The fact that some foreigners use advanced means of communication to buy things from them is hardly their responsibility. I mean, what's the difference between this and someone phoning them (from the US) and purchasing a CD that is to be delivered to an address inside of Russia... or even just phoning them and being put on hold while a piece of music (copyrighted in the US) is played while they hold? If the Russian law does not require them to identify the territoriality of their customers, why should they?

      Let's take this example further. Utah has passed laws which prohibit many kinds of pornography. Maybe even all kinds -- I am really not certain. Does that mean all owners of Dutch brothels that advertise their establishments under .nl TLD should be charged in Utah? They are after all ignoring the fact that Utah residents can access their websites contrary to the Utah law.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  32. The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This problem, like many others, can be fixed by one simple thing. FORCING OUR DAMN GOVERNMENT TO ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION.

    Our Constitution is quite possibly the greatest piece of law ever written in the history of mankind. Unfortunately, the politicians (both democrats and republicans) have decided it can be ignored at will. We need to change this. We need to force every aspect of the government to operate under the full strength of our Constitution.

    No more seizing property without due process.
    No more stifling free speech just because it might offend somebody.
    No more wiretaps of citizens and legal residents to fight terrorists without a court order signed by a REAL judge.
    No more government agencies that aren't sanctioned by the Constitution (list to long to put here).

    I am sicked by any politician who doesn't consider the Constitution the most sacred document in existence. Which means I'm sicked by ALL politicians.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:The underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh oh... A Ron Paul-bot.

    2. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that you dismiss someone as a "bot" for stating what should be the mainstream view explains how the politicians are able to violate are most sacred laws with impunity. You have been convinced by your political masters that a strong belief in our Constitution is only for the "fringe".

      I used to think there was hope for this country. I now realize this country was lost a long time ago. Thanks for giving it the interest groups, asshole.

      FYI, I can't stand Ron Paul.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    3. Re:The underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for being a part of the problem. Now go fuck yourself, we're tired of you fucking us.

    4. Re:The underlying problem by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nobody gives a shit about the Constitution. All anyone cares about is American Idol or the basketball/football/baseball/hockey/etc. game. Politicians piss all over the Constitution on a regular basis with the overwhelming blessing of the "people." As long as people have their cable and cell phones and broadband everything is hunky dory. I watched Ron Paul give 'em hell about it at every debate but basically 95 percent of the voters are looking for the same old crap. They WANT lying ass politicians....honest ones wouldn't give them the pork they crave. Another Presidential race and both mafias went out and found the sorriest of the sorry to run for President. Ugh....Hillary or Obama vs. Keating 5 McCain. Jeeeeez! Thanks for the choice fuckers. A plague on both your houses.

      I can't remember who it was but one political pundit described America as a big Sow with millions of little piglets suckling at her.

      He was right on.

      Sorry....I'm in a bad mood today.

    5. Re:The underlying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sicked

      Why'd ya have to go and wreck a perfectly good post by revealing your ignorance of the English language. That post sounded fantastic but now instead of picturing an educated decent human being I'm picturing a guy waving a confederate flag.

      The word is sickened.

    6. Re:The underlying problem by shermozle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our Constitution is quite possibly the greatest piece of law ever written in the history of mankind. Oh FFS get over yourselves America. Your constitution isn't some kind of sacred document. It's a law, and should be changed when it's necessary.

      If it's such a great piece of law, how come so much of it can be interpreted so many different ways? Like that bit about guns.
    7. Re:The underlying problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It seems like you have a flawed interpretation of the constitution.

      One, court orders for wiretaps can pass the reasonable test and not be in violation fo the consitution. They would still be in violation of a law though.

      Two, well there is no two except maybe the government agencies in which they do have a little leeway with some. I asume you weren't talking about those though. But outside that one, I totally agree with you.

    8. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      The difference between our Constitution and the constitutions of other countries is we BELIEVE in it (at least we used to). In every other country, their constitution is just a bunch of laws that can be tossed out at any time. Here the Constitution is the very foundation of the country. The two are inseparable.

      You just don't get it, The Constitution IS a sacred document.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    9. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, if the feds passed a law forbidding wiretaps under any circumstance, then even a situation that passed the "reasonable" test would be illegal even though it was Constitutional. I don't see that happening any time soon, though.

      What I would like to see is for all wiretaps to have to go through that reasonableness test. The Feds are getting to fast and loose with privacy for my taste. They seem to think they can spy on anyone at any time by invoking the magic words "terror suspect". I'm all for catching terrorists, but not if it means we toss out the Constitution.

      If the government can violate the Constitution, then the terrorists have already won (I love twisting the words of politicians).

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    10. Re:The underlying problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you, just not to the same extent. That magic words is enough reason-ability for me when the calls are going out of the country. And I really don't think the constitution should protect terrorists. I know that is coming awfully close to letting the government label anyone a terrorist in order to not be bound by restrictions but I'm not convinced it has abused it yet or that it will in the future.

    11. Re:The underlying problem by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Interesting point:
      "No more seizing property without due process.
      No more stifling free speech just because it might offend somebody.
      No more wiretaps of citizens and legal residents to fight terrorists without a court order signed by a REAL judge.
      No more government agencies that aren't sanctioned by the Constitution (list to long to put here)."

      Aside from your last point (which doesn't really apply) all of those things are utterly forbidden in Cuba. And for #2, somebody = Fidel. In fact, the embargo was emplaced BECAUSE of Fidel's seizure of private property after the revolution.

      Irony, anyone?

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      I was referring to domestic wiretaps. International phone calls are an entirely different matter if it does not include an American citizen.

      If a "terrorist" is an American citizen, then yes, the Constitution does protect them as much as it protects you and me. We can not start picking and choosing who gets the benefits of our laws, especially the Constitution. Today we exclude suspected terrorists. Tomorrow we exclude suspected pedophiles. Next week we exclude suspected drug dealers, then the casual pot smoker, the litter bug, and the kid who was speeding in mom's Saturn. Allowing exceptions because they are "evil dudes" gives the government a loophole that is just too damn big to be comfortable.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    13. Re:The underlying problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I figured you mean the domestic wiretapping controversies which do only detail international calls. That is the only reason FISA is involved in it. If your thinking of something else, then I guess I could agree more.

      If a "terrorist" is an American citizen, then yes, the Constitution does protect them as much as it protects you and me. We can not start picking and choosing who gets the benefits of our laws, especially the Constitution. Today we exclude suspected terrorists. Tomorrow we exclude suspected pedophiles. Next week we exclude suspected drug dealers, then the casual pot smoker, the litter bug, and the kid who was speeding in mom's Saturn. Allowing exceptions because they are "evil dudes" gives the government a loophole that is just too damn big to be comfortable.
      I know it is a slippery slope. I have faith that it won't come to that downside though. But as a citizen, there are several ways to become a non-citizen. I am of the personal believe that an act of terrorism or going to war with the US is just one of those ways of renouncing your citizenship. So no, I don't really think a terrorist whihc might have been a US citizen and commits and act of terrorism against the US, should be considered a citizen any more nor should they be entitled to the protections the constitution offered.

      However, you have forced me to consider a citizen who is a terrorist who only commits acts of terrorism against other countries. I wold have to say that they should be protected or afforded the protections constitution offers in the same manner as any other citizen. So yea, my broad statement isn't really as broad as it seems.
    14. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      The problem is the Feds have started using anti-terror laws against citizens for crimes that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. You might trust the government to not go down that slippery slope. I believe they have only paused long enough to put their racing skis on.

      BTW, Good discussion. When do we start calling each other nazis?

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    15. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      And you go and prove you are an asshole by saying a typo proves I don't understand the English language. FYI, I was in the honors program for English in college.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    16. Re:The underlying problem by rossz · · Score: 1

      That's a fallacy. Most European countries either don't have a constitution or have one that is only a few decades old - much like most European countries. You're lands may have been inhabited for a thousand years or so, but your existence as a "country" is very short. The U.S. is an older country than all the countries in Europe with only a couple of exceptions (UK and I think Denmark). The UK doesn't have a written constitution. They used to brag about that. They don't now that the nanny state treats them like property.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    17. Re:The underlying problem by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I have noticed they have used anti terrorism laws for non terrorism related activities too. Except I really don't think the laws were getting around the constitution as much as being used in ways they weren't promoted for when attempting to get them passed. I have seen where the patriot act was used to prosecute drug dealers and manufacturers and so on but on the same note, they have done the same thing over the years with the RICO laws.

      Expecting law enforcement to not use the laws available to them is sort of like telling your boss that you need a specific wrench to work on a specific machine and never and then never using it for anything but that machine. I would think that might be acceptable but, we shouldn't get into trouble if using it on another machine seems appropriate too. Of course this way of thinking would go out the window if I knew about a serious abuse of something. But so far, from what I can tell, it literally appears like they are using a wrench made for another machine in a more universal way. It violates our trust when they speak of the necessity of the laws and the needs to get them passed into laws but at the same time it gets the job done.

      BTW, Good discussion. When do we start calling each other nazis?
      LOL.. I think we both have a good enough grasp on reality that we probably don't need to resort to that. It would appear that my position might be the closest to a nazis because of the strong ground I stand on with respect to a citizen not remaining one when he declares war on his own country and all. I don't think it would come down to it though, after all, we started out in agreement with most of what was originally stated. We probably have too much in common to allow it to progress to a Nazi flame fest.
  33. Michael Moore by ruinevil · · Score: 1

    It's all a plan by the Right to keep Michael Moore out of Cuba. Or at least people looking for cheap healthcare, or researching Cuba's health system. The health insurance lobbyists are very powerful in Washington. Even if we national health insurance, health insurance companies will probably administer the system, as they do now with Medicare, for large sums of money.

    Anyways, I know but eNom probably means eName in some Romance language, but NOM NOM NOM NOM. Basically what happened to that guy's site.

  34. Messing with DNS is the best you can do? by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In light of this and the wikileaks thing, I think it's interesting that the best we can do to censor foreign websites, is mess with their DNS registrar. Long term, that is just not going to be a viable tactic. It's like wack-a-mole, except that after the first mole, the remaining moles are out of reach.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  35. Slashdot stories about Godaddy: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Slashdot stories about Godaddy: by dasmoo · · Score: 1

      That $80 charge is a verisign charge actually. It's called the redemption period and all registrars have to pay it to take the domain out of redemption.

  36. Censorship? by themacks · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand censoring. Censoring is if the domain was managed and hosted in Cuba and access was blocked to the site. They just won't let the domain be managed/hosted in the States, not the same as censoring, maybe not right, but not censoring.

    --
    i read about it in a blog once
  37. doh by ezwip · · Score: 0

    We need to back off Cuba and start being friends. Give them back Guantanamo Bay and get out of there. Start trading with them. I know it sounds crazy.

    --
    "I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
  38. Censorship by lars_boegild_thomsen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, in other words, the only difference between United States and countries like - say China, Iran and North Korea - is that the technology used to censor the Internet in United States is significantly weaker and easier to bypass.

    It's pathetic! I fart in your general direction.

  39. Tried That... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Too bad I was on the caging list and had my vote thrown away. Gotta love Florida. Gotta love being black!

  40. Wasn't that list for terrorism? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that list for stopping companies that transit money and support for terrorist organizations? Is Cuba a terrorist country now? I thought they were merely oppressive to their own people and mildly annoying.

    This is all getting really out of hand. The no fly list, which doesn't have any actual terrorists on the list because the CIA doesn't want to tip them off they're being watched. Real ID, passports to travel to nearby countries, Iraqistan, Homeland Security...it's all just nuts. We got burned because we were arrogant and weren't paying attention. In response we've stomped all over the liberties that made this country great and squandered billions, put ourselves on the brink of bankruptcy, all to create the world's most expensive false sense of security.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  41. Not Everyone, Just by SRA8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I highly doubt we are speaking about mass internet outages. Likely, the blockages will affect vocal civil rights organizations (ACLU-types), hated minorities (Arabs, Muslims, etc.) and others disliked by the current ruling party. Doubt me? My management consulting career essentially ended as 1hr flights started taking upwards of 3hours just to print boarding passes. You cant fly from city to city if you are spend 3hours trying to print your boarding pass (in the worst case, it was 5hours + 12hours waiting for the next flight.) Laptops are confiscated never to be returned. The careers of dozens of law abiding minorities suddenly ended in 2003 and 2004 as these policies were instated. But being a white, you wouldn't know anything has changed. I'm sure it will be the same thing with websites.

  42. Country level TLDs only by illegalcortex · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yet another reason why .com/.net/.org (and the stupid newer ones) should be abolished and all domains should end in their country codes. There is no such thing as not being under the control of SOME countries laws.

    1. Re:Country level TLDs only by doshell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yet another reason why .com/.net/.org (and the stupid newer ones) should be abolished and all domains should end in their country codes. There is no such thing as not being under the control of SOME countries laws.

      I agree that, for the sake of clarity, the .com/.org/etc TLDs should be reserved to "international" organizations (whatever that can possibly mean in legal terms), and all American domains should have been placed into .us. But that's not going to happen simply because no one would go through the hassle of converting all the existing American domains over to .us and forcing everyone to update their bookmarks and finger memory.

      (And now witness a horde of American slashdotters coming along proclaiming the supremacy of the US over the Internet ("because we invented it!"), and in particular their inalienable right to shorter domain names ;)

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
  43. Embargo America by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why? Because the Castro government confiscated (read "stole") all property in Cuba that was owned by US private citizens and corporations and has not to this day compensated them for their losses. Why? Because the US government confiscated (read "stole") EU domain names in the US that was owned by EU private citizens and corporations and has not to this day compensated them for their losses.
    1. Re:Embargo America by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Good idea, embargo America. Maybe then linux will have a chance at sharing more than a few percent of the desktop market.

      Of course since the US is a major economic player, and the world economy would take a serious hit in the process, and most of the major internet pipes flow through the US you probably won't have much reason to run it until the rest of the pipes around the world are bumped up some to deal with the new traffic flows. But, really, great idea.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Embargo America by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      *Woosh!*

    3. Re:Embargo America by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      That is so utterly untrue that I can do nothing but state publicly that you are a liar. It's not a distortion, a mis-statement, or an exaggeration. It is just a lie.

    4. Re:Embargo America by LingNoi · · Score: 1
      Which part is a lie?

      The part where the US government took, cuba-hemingway.com, cuba-havanacity.com, ciaocuba.com and bonjourcuba.com? or the part where the US government or eNom didn't return Mr Marshall's Money or transfer his domain names to an EU registrar for free?

      From the article you obviously didn't read..

      Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said the Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall's case.

      "The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. citizens in Cuba," Mr. Sims said, "but it doesn't properly have any jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and which are lawful under foreign law."
      ...

      But Mr. Marshall's case does not appear to be one of mistaken identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with his business.
      The fact that you ignore evidence pushed right in front of your face makes me sick.
  44. The real reason by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    the US government don't want their citizens going to Cuba is because they might see a national health system that works and is 10 times cheaper to run. Yes Im being sarcastic..

  45. Illegal in the EU. by J2000_ca · · Score: 2, Informative

    IANAL, but the operator may be able to sue for damages in the EU.[1][2] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act [2]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996R2271:EN:HTML

  46. Whee Fun!! Social Data mining Time... by refactored · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Now download The List and have fun with it like we had with the AOL buggerup. What curiousities can you find? So far...

    eg. Several pages of it are fuzzy variants of...

    LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Grigorievich (a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Ryhoravich); DOB 30 Aug 1954; POB Kopys, Vitebsk oblast, Belarus; President (individual) [BELARUS]

    Some bloke "Hassan the Old" (Sort of like George Sr.)

    And oh yes, for the US's latest bestest allies Columbia, there are 784 entries.

  47. i find the america bashing ironic by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to all of the americans here trashing their own government:

    if you as a cuban tried this in cuba, it is in the law of the land to arrest and jail you

    if you doubt that, i'm not going to be your google monkey: go to the massively neocon sources of amnesty international and human rights watch and tell me what they say about the law in cuba about saying bad things about the government

    so please, by all means, bash the us government: it's your right, you are respected as an american to bash your own government. just try to understand exactly what the real enemy is here. some people have a colossal lack of scale and perspective

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i find the america bashing ironic by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      No, its not ironic.
      Counterexample:
      If you were just a woman trying to meet a male friend in a bar, you could be jailed in one of americas "best friends" countries.
      In another one, they want to enfore the sharia more strictly (because the current one isnt enough).

      No problems with anybody there...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:i find the america bashing ironic by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Mind you, you can't bash the gov't outside of Free Speech Zones if one has been established. The president is in town? Great, go protest in the small fenced in area blocks away - have at it. Historically the US has had the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to speak badly against the US or its officials. Although hey, the US has currently suspended habeas corpus so what other 'rights' will be going out the door? If only a tinfoil hat would make me feel better. Lately the best protests I've seen have been done by billboard liberation which is good in one way, sad in another.

    3. Re:i find the america bashing ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mind you, you can't bash the gov't outside of Free Speech Zones [wikipedia.org] if one has been established."

      Wow, you lied openly to prove your point. Am I supposed to be impressed that you'd lie and obfuscate to further what you consider an important agenda?

      Because I'm not. I'm disgusted that your kind of rhetoric is the norm these days, that is, spouting nonsensical lies without supporting facts.

      So, once a free speech zone is established in, say DC, I can't bash the government in Florida?

      Oh right, I can and you're a liar. Think about that the next time someone dismisses your ignorant political agenda, it may not be them, it might be that you lied and they know it.

  48. Here's an odd one! Social Data mining Time... by refactored · · Score: 1
  49. Gandi.net is not an eNom.com reseller? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Is it certain that Gandi.net is not an eNom.com reseller, at least when they sell U.S. domain names?

  50. Yeah well by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    That's war for ya

    --
    What?
  51. No it isn't. by akintayo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ability to own other people.
    The lack of universal suffrage.
    The electoral college and variegated citizenship.
    The concept of equality and fairness.

    It is folly to assume a document written in the 1700's would be a very good fit for the 2000's.

    --
    Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    1. Re:No it isn't. by rossz · · Score: 1

      The ability to own other people.

      A horrible wrong that was corrected over 100 years ago. The issue of slavery was a hot topic from before we became a nation and the subject almost prevented the country from being formed at all. The Civil War wasn't something that "just happened". Civil War over the issue of slavery had been narrowly averted at least two other times. And for those southern folks who say the Civil War wasn't about slavery: bullshit. I'm a student of history. Your argument about "State's Rights" holds no water when you are arguing for a State to keep a human as property.

      The lack of universal suffrage.

      This has also been corrected. Back when this country was formed, exactly how many nations had universal suffrage?

      The electoral college and variegated citizenship.

      There are good arguments both for and against the electoral college. Personally, I believe it was necessary before modern communication, but it's usefulness is long gone.

      As for "veriegated citizenship", WTF are you talking about? You want to become a citizen, you meet the requirements. There are no rules about your race or religion. Yes, for immigration we do have quotas to that we don't get overwhelmed by any single country, but that is only loosely related to citizenship. My (ex)wife was not born here, but she did get her citizenship and the Constitution as something to be stepped around or violated outright.

      The concept of equality and fairness.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      I said the Constitution was possibly the greatest piece of law ever written. I did not say it was perfect. The basic ideas set down in the Constitution are as relevant today as they were over two hundred years ago. That is, very limited national government with powers in only very specific areas, all other powers are FORBIDDEN! The power of the government is derived through the People. It's these two key concepts that are asshole politicians have forgotten about. They see The People as a heard of sheep to be driven in the direction they desire and to be controlled by the "benevolent leaders".

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:No it isn't. by rossz · · Score: 1

      The 10 commandments didn't touch on the concept of personal rights, while our Constitution made it very clear that the government wasn't allowed to mess with our Rights. A few thousand years ago, personal rights weren't exactly a hot topic.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    3. Re:No it isn't. by akintayo · · Score: 1

      That is my point, any constitution written in the last hundred years is likely to include universal suffrage and prohibition of slavery. These are rights that most sane people consider more important than the respect for private property or the nebulous concept of limited government ... which in reality is a limited federal government. In short a constitution that does not prohibit slavery is flawed, we have learned from our experiences.

      Variegated citizenship ... I refer to the decision to limit or restrict the votes of certain citizens based on location etc.

      --
      Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
  52. South Africa? Nah! by refactored · · Score: 1
    Embargo simply didn't hurt.

    It created lots of jobs in the local arms industry... guys who are now scrabbling to compete in the global arms market.

    America is by several orders of magnitude a larger player in that market (indeed, by way far the largest arms dealer on the planet)....

    Thus odds the main permanent effect of the embargo was the creation of an industry selling weapons to countries America won't.

    ie. I bet American troops are saying, "Gee thanks for that embargo folks! That was a really well designed bit of munitions that blew my leg off."

    1. Re:South Africa? Nah! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Gee, how does creating a tiny arms industry have anything to do with the effectiveness of the embargo?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:South Africa? Nah! by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      All the South Africans I've asked about that have told me that no matter what was going to happen, the change was innevitable. The people [i]wanted[/i] it, and it was , at least nominally , a democracy of sorts. What they did say however is the embargo really pissed people off and made many people feel that losing apartheid was something that was being forced on them. Its been sugested the embargo hindered rather than helped the change, and that without the embargo it would of came many years earlier.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:South Africa? Nah! by refactored · · Score: 1
      What does it have to do with the effectiveness of the embargo?

      Quite simply it was and is the one and only effect of the embargo!

      Nothing else changed because of the embargo. Nobody gave a shit. (Least of all any Americans selling stuff to South Africa.) (The development of the arms industry probably had more to do with local pride (coupled with paranoia) than the actual effectiveness of the trade restrictions!)

      Interestingly enough, the largest effect of American Embargoing I saw.... was ZA firms jumping through paper hoops to sell stuff to countries on American black lists. Didn't (and still doesn't) stop 'em for a second... but it adds paper work.

    4. Re:South Africa? Nah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it adds paper work. Paperwork is friction.
    5. Re:South Africa? Nah! by refactored · · Score: 1

      Actually, in that case it was mostly fiction. :-)

  53. ICANN and UN by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The "screeching Cuban expats" are American VOTERS. Democracy works this way.

    This is precisely why an organization like ICANN should be an international organization. Why should American voters have any say whatsoever over a firm operating in Europe, Canada or elsewhere? That is certainly NOT how democracy is supposed to work. It is, quite literally, none of their business, as long as the company does not operate in the US.

    So far these legal attacks/enforcement have been restricted to the registrars so presumably the lesson is never use a US registrar if you don't want to be affected by US law. However ultimate responsibility rests with ICANN so how long will it be before these inane US laws start getting enforced on ICANN itself? This is why ICANN should be an international organization above any single country's law.

  54. Just In Case by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Just in case, here's the IP address of www.cuba-guantanamo.com, another site owned by the same company:
    24.244.141.117

  55. 24.244.141.117 by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    24.244.141.117 is the IP for all the virtual addresses listed. You can add it to your hosts file to see the virtual host. Also many of the host names are not down, for example, the Hemingway one can be seen here:

    http://www.cuba-hemingway.net/

    Again, I don't support US citizens violating the embargo, nor do I necessarily support the embargo itself. But I do support reading whatever you want whenever you want.

  56. Re:A generator of resources that the Cuban regime. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    Wait, i thought that Iran was the using the "America card"? You mean there are two of these cards!!!

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  57. Is anyone else by log0n · · Score: 1

    getting tired of the USA doing it's damnedest to fake the whole 'liberty / freedom' thing?

  58. This democracy thing must be really great by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    This democracy thing must be really great, because there seem to be no rules which one must follow in order to give it to others. Kill them, take away their properly, ban exports to them... just to give them democracy.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  59. So what exactly is the difference by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what exactly is the difference between Cuba and China? Oh, that's right! China makes cheap shit for Walmart. And they support American corporations, which is what you right-wing loonies really mean when you talk about "spreading democracy." That is, spreading corporate influence around the globe. That's Cuba's real crime. They won't let the American corporations back in. Does anybody not understand this?

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:So what exactly is the difference by dwater · · Score: 2, Informative

      China makes cheap shit for Walmart. ...and expensive shit for Apple (among others).

      Just because their cost of living, and thus production, is much lower than in the US doesn't mean they can only make junk.
      --
      Max.
    2. Re:So what exactly is the difference by cfulmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should the US adopt exactly the same policy toward every communist country? Cuba and China do not have a common history, do not share a common culture, have vastly different populations and, despite a few similarities, have vastly different governments. 10% of the population of China does not live in America; 10% of Cuba's does. China is half-way around the world; Cuba is under 100 miles away. China did not send 125,000 Chinese to the US in 1980. China has Of course US Cuba policy differs from its China policy.

    3. Re:So what exactly is the difference by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are two major differences between Cuba and China. The first is that there is a large ex patriot community of Cubans living in the US who have become US citizens and are strongly opposed to the current regime in Cuba. This group of people mostly live in Florida and vote against anyone who is not sufficiently anti-Castro. There is no similar group of Chinese in the US.
      Second, (and the reason the embargo was created in the first place) when Castro took over in Cuba, he appropriated a large amount of property formerly owned by Americans without giving them any compensation. This is the reason the embargo was created in the first place. The first is the reason the embargo has continued. There was no similar US investment in China before the Communists took power.
      As to whether or not Cuba would allow American corporations back in, no one knows. It has been illegal for American companies to do business with Cuba since Castro took over with no evidence that that law will change.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are exactly correct about this. But there are actually 2 reasons why we treat China and Cuba differently. One: China is just too damn big for us to pick on. If we would cut them off they wouldn't care. It wouldn't hurt them enough. They have far too much dirt on us. Two: Our corporations and economy has a very vested interest in China. This comes in two forms. The first is cheap labor and cheap materials. The second is China's foreign investment. If we pick on China, and they stop investing in our government bonds, then how are we going to borrow all the money to keep our war machine going. How are we going to borrow all the money we need to cover our deficit? If you follow the money from our benefit, you'll follow our public policy. If it means $ it means business, America's Business.

    5. Re:So what exactly is the difference by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      One: China is just too damn big for us to pick on. If we would cut them off they wouldn't care. It wouldn't hurt them enough.


      Not true. It would hurt them plenty. But it would also hurt us. Financially, we are in a MAD situation with China. Either of us could blow the other's economy, but at a prohibitive cost.

      OTOH, we can do without good cigars.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:So what exactly is the difference by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is the difference between Cuba and China?

      About 1.31 Billion people. That's the biggest difference right there.

      Plus all the Cuban exiles that *want* us to sanction Cuba, vs. all the Chinese immigrants that *don't* want the US interfering in China's policies. There are Chinese dissidents that do support US sanctions against China, but they are generally in the minority among Chinese-Americans.

      I don't think it's so much that Cuba won't let American corporations back in, it's just if they did come back in, the Cuban government would take all their shit (just like they took everybody's shit when Castro took over). That's pretty much the same policy for *any* corporation. You're not allowed to own assets there, whether you are a corporation or an entrepreneur or what have you. Kind of hard to run a business that way.

      I thought it was kind of interesting how the housing works there now. Everybody has a place to live, but you're not really allowed to move around without some justification, and the waiting lists for changes is years long. So they have these housing "meet-up group" type things, where people that want something different get together and try to hook up with somebody that has what they want. Then they apply to the government to let them swap places. Funny how things like that develop to get around some of the rules. It's almost like they've developed an alternative "market" where they are not supposed to exist (or be needed) at all.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:So what exactly is the difference by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both China and Cuba are communist countries ruled by an oppressive government, they both had or have the firepower and capabilities (direct as in Cuba or with subs, boats or airplanes as China) at some point to reach the US with nuclear weapons.

      Cuba was just a bit more outspoken during the Cold War and the US wet it's panties when their constituents could virtually see the nuclear warheads pointing at them using binoculars. The only reason the embargo is there was to punish the Cubans for their Soviet involvement. There is no reason currently there should be any embargo since opening the people up to the westerner world would lead them to think more freely and force their government to give more freedom, just like is happening now in China. By blocking all access from the US to Cuba, Cuba has to be supplied from elsewhere and they're doing a pretty good job at that. At the same time, their government can say: it's the American's fault that you're poor and they keep them poor that way. Forcing freedom by embargo hasn't worked for the last 40 years, it won't work for the next 40.

      And yes, China did send Chinese over to the US. About a million young Chinese people are currently in the US studying at Universities, I work with one of those guys (Postdoc, has his PhD), they basically get selected and supported by the government to study certain subjects abroad. As soon as they get their PhD's they will go back so they can support their community in whatever they learned.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:So what exactly is the difference by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Both China and Cuba are communist countries ruled by an oppressive government, they both had or have the firepower and capabilities (direct as in Cuba or with subs, boats or airplanes as China) at some point to reach the US with nuclear weapons.

      Cuba had as much capability to reach the US with nuclear weapons as Germany (or Turkey, for that matter) had to reach the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons - none. Any nuclear weapons on these nations territory were not under the control of their respective leaders, but firmly under the control of the superpower that stationed them there. And any attempt at gaining control of these weapons would, quite likely, have led to them being used on that nation.

      Sorry. Superpowers don't hand out nukes to their allies, with maybe, just maybe, one exception (though the country in question has probably developed its own nukes by now. Yes, it's one of those countries that "probably" has nukes. I'll leave it up to you to guess which one it is.)

    9. Re:So what exactly is the difference by fredrated · · Score: 1

      "Why should the US adopt exactly the same policy toward every communist country?"

      For the same reason we should adopt the same policy toward every country: the desire to be even-handed as opposed to being a hypocrite.

    10. Re:So what exactly is the difference by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      I don't think "Hypocrite" means what you think it does.

      Am I a hypocrite because I dated several different people before deciding to marry one of them? By your view, I should have either married them all, or none of them. That would be the fair "even handed" policy. Of course, it would ignore the individual characteristics of each of those people.

      No country in the world has every approached foreign policy in that way. Except, that is, perhaps for a few xenophobic governments that completely avoided all outside contact.

    11. Re:So what exactly is the difference by dwye · · Score: 1

      1) There WAS an embargo against China until the 1970's, when Nixon started opening relations with them. Obviously, it didn't work very well. If the goal was to end an oppressive regime, obviously ending the Chinese embargo hasn't worked well, either. Likewise, I doubt that ending the US embargo will really do much for or to Cuba.

      2) > has a very vested interest in China. This comes in two forms.
      Actually three forms, and the one not in your list was the most important, when we started trading with Red China. They were an untapped market of around a billion people, and everyone involved dreamed of hitting the brass ring in Chinese trade, just as did the USA's first millionaire, back during the British embargo against American goods, right after the Revolution.

      OTOH, we gain nothing from ending the Cuban Embargo but killing the US domestic sugar industry, and some cigars that, if you REALLY want them, you can get by making a day trip to Canada, just as my cousin in Michigan does about once every month or so. Oh, and we get another Puerto Rico at best, if all the glowing tales of Cuba's "real" prosperity are to be believed, except one where no one can invest without a moral certainty that it will be stolen again (i.e., not even to buying a single beachfront cottage).

      Since the Cuban-American community still wants the Embargo, it continues from inertia.

    12. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you really affirm my point...our lack of an embargo has to do with money. The only reason we opened up to China wasn't a change in "strategy" to bring down an oppressive regime. It was because Nixon and his buddies saw dollar signs. The embargo against Cuba is not having much effect on them economically is very true. But politically it gives them someone to blame in their brainwashing of their people. Open up trade with them and when American companies won't do business there because they get their profits taken then the people will know. It won't help either side much economically, but it gives them one less excuse. How exactly will opening up to Cuba kill our domestic sugar industry any more than the other Caribbean nations? Is there sugar that much better? That much bigger volume? Are they going to flood our markets? Give me a break.

    13. Re:So what exactly is the difference by fredrated · · Score: 1

      'I don't think "Hypocrite" means what you think it does.'

      Let's get a third party opinion: from dictionary.com we get

      "hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives"

      I think that applies, the U.S. uses the words 'human rights violators, 'undemocratic' etc. etc. to justify the embargo of Cuba. However, everything we say is wrong with Cuba applies in spades to China. This means that the real motive for the embargo of Cuba has been concealed, and what we profess about Cuba is an opinion we do not actually hold, as in the definition of hypocrite above.

      The rest of your post is somewhat opaque to me, we are not proposing the equivalent of marrage to other countries, but simply treating them without prejudice, evenhandedly.

    14. Re:So what exactly is the difference by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      Right. Why is it hypocritical to have a different foreign policy for, say, Canada than for Iran? You're the one who said that we should treat all countries the same.

      China and Cuba are not equally situated. China didn't release 1/10th of its population adrift in boats so they could reach our shores. Cuba did. China has had a number of leaders in the past 50 years; Cuba has had one. China, as a civilization, has been around for thousands of years. Cuba, a couple of hundred.

      They are two vastly different countries. My marriage point was just about relationships -- a foreign policy defines our side of a relationship with a foreign country. Just like an individual is not a hypocrite for not treating everybody exactly the same, neither are countries.

    15. Re:So what exactly is the difference by dwye · · Score: 1

      > How exactly will opening up to Cuba kill our domestic
      > sugar industry any more than the other Caribbean
      > nations? Is there sugar that much better?

      No, cheaper. Thanks to the Platt Amendments (which give us basing rights at Gitmo until *both* Cuba and the USA want out), the US government is supposed to subsidize the Cuban sugar market, the same way that the Russins did (to reverse the order of things -- they followed the same arrangement as the USA had, first). When the original provisions were put in, this meant cheaper sugar for a USA market without domestic sources. Now, we have a fairly extensive couple of industries (sugar beets is almost totally separate from sugar cane, they do not even produce cooking-compatible products), which will collapse if US Goevernment-subsidized sugar floods the market (which it will; I believe that we would be obligated to buy most if not all of their crop, too).

    16. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      The differences between China and Cuba:

      1) Cuba has a little press freedom. China has none.

      2) Cuba has rigged elections. China has none.

      3) China operates large-scale death camps/work camps. Cuba has none.

      Is anyone going to seriously argue that the Cuban government RIGHT NOW is worse on human rights that the Chinese government RIGHT NOW?

      People have pointed out that 1/10 of Cuba's population fled to the US. So what? Fact: There are more Chinese-Americans than there are Cuban-Americans., despite the fact they had to cross thousands of miles of oceans. Do you think those Chinese left because China was a great place to live? They were fleeing large-scale purges that killed MILLIONS of Chinese. Nothing remotely comparable happened in Cuba.

    17. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      1) There WAS an embargo against China until the 1970's, when Nixon started opening relations with them. Obviously, it didn't work very well. If the goal was to end an oppressive regime, obviously ending the Chinese embargo hasn't worked well, either. Likewise, I doubt that ending the US embargo will really do much for or to Cuba. There was no embargo against China. The United States bought Chinese goods from 1940 though 1972. What changed in 1972 is that Nixon granted China "Most Favored" status which removed all possible tarrifs and give tax incentives to American companies to invest in China.

      There is not one iota of doubt that this change has helped the average Chinese. Despite most of the vast wealth for trading to the US has gone to the elite at the top, some of it HAS "trickled down" to the population in general. Chinese consumers have access to better food, clothing, products, etc. Auto and home ownership are now with the grasp of many Chinese. These are all substantial improvements.

      There is not one iota of doubt that ending the US embargo on Cuba would help the Cuban people in much the same way. For example, The US embargo prevents Cuba from getting new automobiles because the US refuses to let a ship that has docked in Cuba dock in the USA. So auto manufacturers can't drop off new autos in Cuba on the way to the US. They have to make a direct trip from their production facilities (in Asia typically), which is prohibitively expensive. So the Cubans have very few new cars.

      killing the US domestic sugar industry Corn subsidies killed the US sugar industry a long time ago. Corn is the devil and if ending the Cuban embargo will help put US corn farmers out of business than I'm all for it.

    18. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      YES! That's the answer. Put the last few farmers in the US out of business! Why didn't I think of that? I'll tell you why. Because its just plain stupid. That was one of the most ignorant things I've read in a while. The corn farmers killed sugar? How about cheap Caribbean sugar killed US sugar? Besides, you CAN'T kill the corn farmers. We rely so heavily on corn. And we are the world's largest producer. Not only is not possible, its a horrible idea to even attempt. Its not the corn farmer's fault that our Sugar industry is tied to Cuban policy.

      Now, if, part of the agreement to open ourselves up with Cuba is to end the Gitmo contract then we would be free of it, and not obligated to subsidize their sugar. Just make it part of the agreement. They don't have to be separate. We shouldn't have that base in their country anyway.

    19. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      YES! That's the answer. Put the last few farmers in the US out of business! Why didn't I think of that? What evidence do you have that US agricultural production is almost gone? Any? That's because it isn't true. What's happening is that most of the so-called "family farms" have been bought up or driven out by large agribusiness. The same thing has been happening to all kinds of small businesses. As far as I'm concerned "family" farmers can go whine to corner store owners about how screwed they are.

      Cheap Caribbean sugar did not kill C&H, the big US sugar producer. C&H used to receive massive government subsidies to produce sugar in Hawaii, Caribbean producers couldn't compete with the subsidized prices, which is why C&H dominated the US market. Other agribusiness lobbyists in the US convinced Congress to kill the C&H sugar subsidies and instead give massive subsides for corn to ADM, this also helped small corn farmers a little bit so it was marketed as something for "family farms" (never mind the small sugarcane producers) but instead allowed ADM to flood the US market with tons of low-quality HFCS that is making Americans sick and fat.

      Besides, you CAN'T kill the corn farmers. We rely so heavily on corn. Exactly my point. Corn subsides have MADE us rely on corn. Corn is low-quality shit. It's barely suitable as pig food, which is the main way most of the world uses it. Ethanol is an incredible scam and is arguably the worst possible alternative to gasoline out there (biodiesel comes close). We need to get rid of corn and switch back to the far healthier, better tasting, and higher-quality cane sugar.

      BTW, I AM a farmer. I own productive farmland that I lease. Corn, cotton, and tobacco farmers give the rest of us a bad name.

    20. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      Well just so you don't think I'm some city slicker, I too grew up on a farm. My father still raises chickens, beef, and the occasional pig. I know first hand how much trouble the family farm is in. My dad is very lucky to still be in business. I think government subsidies that keep entire industries afloat are an economic magic show. They only hide and disguise what is really going on. They are used to get reelected. Don't blame the farmers for this. Its the politicians' fault. You say that we need to go back to sugar cane, is that going to give animals the quality food they need? I don't know much about sugar cane itself, before being processed. But the amount of land in this country that can grow sugar cane isn't even close to the amount of land that can grow corn, wheat, oats, barley, etc...

      You are looking at this from a strictly southern agricultural view. I don't think mid-west farmers have any option. They have to grow crops that will grow in their geographical region. We've done much of the same thing in farming that we've done in other industries. We outsource the ones that are no longer profitable in the US. If we can import sugar cheaper than we can grow it, then why not put our fields to use growing something that is profitable to us. The problem with economics is also what makes it work. It removes emotion and feelings from the equation. Its about numbers, not about people. And while you can't base all your policy on numbers, they don't lie. And if you keep the human element then there are sacrifices. I'm not for subsidizing big business. The corn industry, the oil industry, and soon (if current trends continue) the automobile industry. If you can't figure out how to do it for a profit, find a new business. Those are the consequences of a free market. Deal with it.

    21. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the farmers for this. Its the politicians' fault. Oh no. I blame the farmers for refusing to support candidates that don't vote for agricultural subsidies.

      The fact is that most family farms SHOULD be going out of business. The "small farmer" model is extremely inefficient and simply can't compete fairly with agribusiness. Why should taxpayers be forced to keep their failed businesses afloat with subsidies?

      You say that we need to go back to sugar cane, is that going to give animals the quality food they need? Corn isn't "quality food". It makes pigs fat quicker than most grains, that's all it has going for it. You can feed pigs plenty of other less destructive crops (basically, almost anything) and they'll get just as fat.

      But the amount of land in this country that can grow sugar cane isn't even close to the amount of land that can grow corn, wheat, oats, barley, etc... That's why all our sugar used to come from Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Americans live there too and deserve to make money as much as midwesterners.

      You are looking at this from a strictly southern agricultural view. I don't think mid-west farmers have any option. They have to grow crops that will grow in their geographical region. My land is in eastern Colorado. As you pointed out, midwesterners can grow wheat, oats, barley, soy, etc. I think they're doing oats right now.

      If we can import sugar cheaper than we can grow it, then why not put our fields to use growing something that is profitable to us. There is not one iota of doubt that we can import sugar far cheaper than we can grow subsidized corn.

    22. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      Look, as I said, I don't think subsidies should exist. My dad is a farmer, no subsidies. He makes a living, but its nothing great. I make more per year as a programmer than he makes farming. I'm 24, he's in his 40's and been doing it his whole life. He likes the small farm and doesn't want a big huge operation so he lives with that. Cattle eat corn, pigs, chickens, and just about every other live stock. We ship a lot over seas as well. If it makes the animals fatter quicker and that is good for business then why not feed it to them? The meat won't be any more nutritious if we feed them sugar cane, or oats, or barley, or what have you. So the fact that it makes animals grow faster would suggest it has more nutritional value for the animal? Farmers represent less than 1% of the population. They themselves cannot keep candidates out of office that would end the subsidies. The people and Puerto Rico and Hawaii can grow sugar if they want to. But we shouldn't subsidize them to do it. Just like we shouldn't subsidize the corn farmers and the dairy farmers and all the other farmers. People will argue that it would put them all out of business, which for some it might, but we would ultimately pay more for our food so that these companies would be able to make money. Instead, everyone gets super cheap food, and our tax dollars go to keep them in business. That is not the job of our tax dollars. Everyone wants a free market until they become an underdog because of it.

    23. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      My dad is a farmer, no subsidies. Does he grow marijuana or heroin organically? If not, he's getting subsidies. His equipment is subsidized. His seed grain is subsidized. His fertilizer is subsidized. His water is subsidized. His gasoline and heating oil are subsidized. I could go on. He gets some of this from just living in farm country.

      Cattle eat corn, pigs, chickens, and just about every other live stock. We ship a lot over seas as well. If it makes the animals fatter quicker and that is good for business then why not feed it to them? We ONLY grow corn because the huge subsidies make it so cheap. It's more expensive to produce that other grains which are perfectly adequate food sources for most animals. Corn only makes PIGS fatter quicker, it's just cheap food for other animals. I would have no problem with corn cultivation if we ended the subsidies and banned HFCS from human consumption. Of course, if we did that corn production would drop to almost nothing in the USA.

      So the fact that it makes animals grow faster would suggest it has more nutritional value for the animal? No, it makes PIGS FATTER. F-A-T. It has LESS nutritional value than most grains because you're basically feeding your pigs bags of sugar. Now, I like pork. And I agree that sugar-fed pork tastes better. And I don't give a damn if it makes the pigs unhealthy, they're up for slaughter.

      However these same qualities make it a TERRIBLE food for human beings.

      Farmers represent less than 1% of the population. They themselves cannot keep candidates out of office that would end the subsidies. You'd be wrong about this. There are these things called "Congressional districts". If you do some digging you'll find that per capita rural Americans (that tend to be farmers and ranchers) have FAR more representation in Congress than urban Americans. 85% of Americans live in major urban cities like NY and LA, but are 85% of Congressmen from big cities? Hell no. It's less than half.

      People will argue that it would put them all out of business Not ALL, but almost all. The US can't compete with labor prices in Central and South America so it's likely that almost all sugar production would move south. I don't think this is a bad thing. It's not like we grow bananas and coffee in the US.

    24. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      "Does he grow marijuana or heroin organically? If not, he's getting subsidies. His equipment is subsidized. His seed grain is subsidized. His fertilizer is subsidized. His water is subsidized. His gasoline and heating oil are subsidized. I could go on. He gets some of this from just living in farm country." By your logic all farmers are subsidized. That means that you are subsidized. His water is well water, no subsidy. No fertilizer, he's not a crop farmer. His grain he buys from my pap, who farms for fun since he is retired (he receives no subsidy), bail's his own hay. His equipment? hmmm...last I checked, all out of pocket. Nope, not subsidized. Not a single damn penny. So before you go making sweeping generalizations maybe you should know the facts. Lets just face it. The government patted a few people on the back for some votes. That's why there are subsidies. Not everyone was in on it. So back to my main point, get rid of the subsidies. For corn, for sugar, for oil, for medicine. Let the free market roll. I agree with you about the farce that is Ethanol. Its a waste of time and a useless technology. Only 10% of our gas is ethanol, and only 10% of gas is responsible for our oil consumption. So the effect of ethanol is nothing. We are just as dependent on foreign oil as ever. Its all just a big PR machine. It may not seem like it amid these posts, but I think you and I are on the same page when you boil this down to the real issues. What the animals are fed is not the issue, we got side tracked.

    25. Re:So what exactly is the difference by rtechie · · Score: 1

      By your logic all farmers are subsidized. Almost all, yeah.

      His water is well water, no subsidy. Possibly. In many areas the government will actually pay you to sink a well and/or pay for the well. While that almost certainly happened in his case, I'll concede the point.

      No fertilizer, he's not a crop farmer. His grain he buys from my pap, who farms for fun since he is retired (he receives no subsidy), bail's his own hay. Ok.

      His equipment? hmmm...last I checked, all out of pocket The manufacturers receive subsidies that he benefits from. If he's getting it all shipped in from Europe I'll concede he's not getting a subsidy here.

      He's also getting steep fuel discounts.

      So before you go making sweeping generalizations maybe you should know the facts. I do know the facts. The agricultural industry is the most heavily subsidized industry in the USA by a wide margin. Virtually every aspect of agriculture is subsidized in some way. This goes all the way down to home gardeners who still benefit from "victory garden" legislation during WW2.

      You might argue that your father isn't getting much, but I didn't get ANYTHING for my computer consulting business or my webhosting business. I could have taken out a small business loan subsidized by the government, but so could your father. And his rates would be a lot better because it's agribusiness.

      The government patted a few people on the back for some votes. That's why there are subsidies. Not everyone was in on it. I've BEEN to town hall meetings in farm states. And candidate who comes out against farm subsidies has absolutely no chance of getting elected in rural areas. Farmers simply do not vote for candidates that oppose farm subsidies. It's been this way for ALMOST 200 YEARS. It's difficult for me to believe there is a few "bad apples" pushing this.

      The problem is Congressional districting. Rural Americans have too much power. This is why they are able to push policies through, like farm subsidies and (most famously) Prohibition, on the vast majority of Americans who disagree with them.

    26. Re:So what exactly is the difference by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      So you think the answer would be to redistrict? I haven't looked into the issues of districting or redistricting, I was under the impression that these were done by population. We had some uproar over redistricting here in PA a couple of years ago. The problem with redistricting is that it never gets done objectively. It is always skewed to one side's agenda. If we could do some sort of independent population study then maybe it could work. I really think that the government should start phasing out subsidies for the big farm corporations. And for all the other corporations for that matter. Instead of us having tariffs to protect our companies from cheap foreign products we use subsidies. We are really no holier in the free market than any other country.

  60. Very Strange Circumstance by VoxMagis · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I tend quite a ways to the Right.

    Castro and his cronies need to go. Sadly, I tend to think that the embargo and such isn't doing anything for that - probably far on it's way to hindering it.

    On the other end - right now, it's US law. It has been for all of my life and a little bit more. That doesn't make it right, but as no one (Democrats or Republicans) are interested in changing it enough to risk the political hit from the Cuban-American community AND OTHERS that seek to maintain the status quo, this is the way it is.

    On the other hand, I noticed that this was a 2004 ruling, but was only acted on now. It makes me wonder if someone in the government is putting out a few reminders as the fake transition of power in Cuba goes on.

    Anyway, back to the program.

    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
  61. dozens of elected govts toppled by US in 20th C by toby · · Score: 1

    Check your history... Many South American nations were pushed into fascism when elected governments were covertly overthrown by the US. Few nations have escaped interference in democratic process (including Australia. 1975 was a big year for the CIA - they did Brazil that year too).

    --
    you had me at #!
  62. eNom are MAJOR scumbags by merc · · Score: 3, Informative

    This may be somewhat OT, but eNom are known well in the anti-spam community for being one of the largest registar choices of spammers. They are almost 100% likely to do nothing to discourage spammers from using them as a spammer-safe haven for registrations.

    This is further supported by taking a glance at data from the URIBL "Realtime URI" feed for Abused/Abusive Registrars. A glance at their website shows they rank second out of 250 registrars for hosting blacklisted domains.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    1. Re:eNom are MAJOR scumbags by whit3 · · Score: 1

      In the current case, they
      (1) violated their agreement to register sites for a fee
                  (i.e. they broke a contract unilaterally)
      (2) made no good-faith effort to keep their customer from
            harm (they didn't release the sitenames for him to arrange
            alternate accommodations, nor did they notify him of the action).

      A good tort lawyer could make a case of this. Public policy
      is to enforce contracts, and only a court order normally can
      override that. A hearing before a real court of law could
      be in the offing...

  63. It is not democracy they are interested Jim by Max_W · · Score: 2, Informative
    The embargoes are part of the repressive regimes.

    They turn a country, a nation into a military camp. What liberties, what democratic process can be in a military camp?

    For example they put the embargo for Zimbabwe and then cry bitterly over the hunger there. They criticize the lack of new democratic ideas in Cuba and at the same time restrict travel of people who could bring and exchange these ideas.

    Why they still do it? Look into a history for an answer. 1953. The leader of Iran, Mossadek, dared to demand from British Petroleum part of the oil revenue - 50%. Looks like a fair deal. But he was chased out for this and replaced by a puppet shah. By the way that is the real reason of the Islamic fundamentalism of today.

    It is not a democracy they are interested in Cuba. They want somehow to overthrow the government and get hold of its country resources, to receive them for free.

    They use for these the systematic approach. Institutions, agencies, think tanks of thousands and thousands specialists in political technologies are busy day and night, analyzing situation, studying local politicians, suggesting actions which could be taken to destabilize the situation, to prevent any improvements in the target country, to prevent the democratic process.

    There are departments for every country which has got any resources worth taking: Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, etc. They just use the words "democracy", "freedom" to disguise the real targets - getting an unrestricted access to resources. This tactic was invented by Napoleon who used the ideals of French revolution as a propaganda disguise to conquer the world.

    1. Re:It is not democracy they are interested Jim by dwye · · Score: 1

      The leader of Iran, Mossadek, dared to demand from British Petroleum part of the oil revenue - 50%. Looks like a fair deal. But he was chased out for this and replaced by a puppet shah. By the way that is the real reason of the Islamic fundamentalism of today.

      Except that Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs hated Mossadek far worse than we or the British did. It may have been a reason for the Iranian Socialists to oppose the Shah, but it certainly didn't cause the Islamists to be anti-US.

    2. Re:It is not democracy they are interested Jim by Max_W · · Score: 1
      It brought the Islamic fundamentalists to existence in the first place. If Mossadek manged to make a fair distribution of the BP revenues with the Iranian society the course of the history would be quite different.

      But the oil would not have been be dirt cheap as it was in the second half of the 20th century.

  64. It's the attitude by number11 · · Score: 1

    They pulled his domains after they discovered the tour operator's name on a US Treasury blacklist.

    Just another reason for people around the world to have second thoughts when they think about doing business with an American company.

  65. cuba-guantanamo.com still online by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    You'd think that'd be a prime candidate for censorship.

    Especially seeing as he's directly competing with them by offering cheap trips to Guantanamo!

  66. Parent modded offtopic? by refactored · · Score: 1
    Weird. Some moderator modded the parent post "offtopic".

    The list _is_ the topic. What? Can't you guys cope with the reality of looking at the original data? Must you only have it fed sanitizing medium like The new York Times?

  67. US Goverment should freeze its own assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Gitmo not in Cuba? Therefore should the assets of whichever department runs it, or even the whole federal government, not be frozen?

  68. In Iran it IS legal to be Jewish by theolein · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Iran, well, its illegal to even be jewish.

    That is plainly false. Iran, for all its faults, legally recognises Jews and has the middle east's largest Jewish community outside of Israel. Some 25000 Jews live there. Iran, while being rabidly anti-Israel, makes a distinction between Jews and Zionism (not that that justifies their policies in any way)

    1. Re:In Iran it IS legal to be Jewish by tjstork · · Score: 1

      hat is plainly false. Iran, for all its faults, legally recognises Jews and has the middle east's largest Jewish community outside of Israel. Some 25000 Jews live there. Iran, while being rabidly anti-Israel, makes a distinction between Jews and Zionism (not that that justifies their policies in any way)

      The Iranian parliament is debating the death penalty for apostasy, or converting from Islam to another religion. That's what I'm talking about.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:In Iran it IS legal to be Jewish by thedletterman · · Score: 1
      Being Jewish I've just got to drop my two-cents in on this one.

      For starters, Iran is the SECOND largest Jewish population in the Middle East. Why? Because of mass conversions and murder in the 19th century forced over a hundred thousand Jews to flee Iran for Israel. Which is what gave legs to the whole Zionist movement. Of course the remaining Jews are represented by a parliamentary who is obligated by law to support Iranian foreign policy and its Anti-Zionist position. Why should that be a problem? The government only has twice in the last 15 years published and distributed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a completely anti-semitic forgery.

      But hey, it's legal to be Jewish! Of course, you're not allowed to celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, a 10,000 year jewish tradition. Nope, the Sabbath for Iranian Jews is on Friday, in accordance with the Qu'ran. I'm sure the Jewish children will be taught the important traditions of Judaism at their Jewish Schools, right? Oops, wrong again. Jewish schools are not allowed to have Jewish Headmasters. They're all run by Muslims.

      Well, at least they still have their Rabbis. Wrong again, there hasn't been a Rabbi in Iran for nearly 20 years. You're right though, they're also "allowed" to be Jewish in Iran, but heavily discriminated against and even have to pay special taxes for making all the muslims too uncomfortable.

      They're also put under intense surveillance, interrogated for suspected connections to "zionists" and "imperalist americans": a charge punishable by death.

      If it's all so bad, then why don't they leave? That's easily, it's pretty much illegal in Iran for an entire Jewish family to leave the country on travel. If you try to emigrate, the government has your family held hostage, and suddenly they're conspiring with zionists. Congratulations, you just killed your father. The End.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
  69. Re: "Land Of The Free" by Liinux · · Score: 1

    Prisons? Aren't those a French invention?

    I thought we were calling them "Freedom Houses" now. That was last week, we are calling them "Free Speech Zones" now.
  70. What a joke reply this is by patiodragon · · Score: 1

    "It's called an embargo, not censorship. And it's what's necessary and just to put pressure on Cuba to stop being a vicious dictatorship and actually respect its citizens' human rights. I'm not being sarcastic."

    Oh, you mean just like the way we embargo the vicious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that has 1/2 the population reduced to sub-human status???

  71. Penalties for following non-US boycotts... by Wdi · · Score: 1

    And do not forget that the US not only penalizes foreign companies, which refuse to follow US boycotts, but also penalizes those which adhere to boycotts not originating from the US:

    http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/default.htm

    (needless to say, I do not support these non-US boycotts, either...)

  72. How's that embargo working? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this has been going on for decades, right? You'd think we'd have some results by now. But Castro stepped down not because of discontent among the people, but because he simply got too old.

  73. You're wrong by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

    "WHEN is this country going to f*king LEARN!!!???? You DO NOT successfully, peacefully advance rogue countries by ostracising them."

    South Africa.

    You're wrong, and there is no rebuttal.

  74. No they didn't, why is this garbage modded up? by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

    "Why? Because the US government..."

    What branch of the US government is eNom?

    So, no, that's not why. It was a nice troll though.

  75. South Africa - The best place on earth by jay-za · · Score: 1

    Uh, he said give one example of it WORKING. South Africa is turning into every other African banana republic as we speak.
    And what do you base that little snippet of information on?

    Sure, we have our problems. Less than the USA at the moment, but we do have problems. However, through our problems we have a system that (so far) has been seen to work. The single most popular (and most powerful) man in the county is being prosecuted for corruption. Nelson Mandela, through immense empathy and obvious love for his country, stopped South Africa from splitting apart. We have a society where the VAST MAJORITY of blacks and whites (ane everything in between) get along a co-operate with each other. We have a strong economy (which is under pressure at the moment - similar to the US economy) that appears to be more than able to ride out the coming recession.

    There are problems. But I wouldn't trade our problems for any other countries. We've got a proven track record of fixing our problems. Sometimes it takes a while, but it does get done.

    Right now, in South Africa, human rights are threatened by black racism against whites. Corruption is still a problem. And xenophobia in the poorer quarters is rife. How does this differ from the US? Or the UK? From what I've seen, though, Cuba has less problems than all of us, even if she does have a few of her own.

    But maybe when you said BANANA republic yuo were talking about our exports? 75% of the world's platinum. Around 75% of her gold too (do you use anything that uses gold?). We produce more than enough food to feed ourselves and our neighbours. Until recently, we were producing enough electricity to supply our neighbours too, and it was some of the cheapest electricity in the world (and even with our current problems, most blackouts are carefully controlled and seldom last more than 4 hours). Our bad hospitals are bad, but our good hospitals (which are available all over the country, despite being a bit procey) are the best in the world bar none. Fre health care to everyone who can't afford to pay for it. My medical cover (and I'm by no means anywhere above middle class) give me free, unlimited hospitiliasion in the best private hospitals available, including medication. My chronic medication is also free. Then there is SAB Miller. The SAB stands for "South African Breweries". But then I don't drink, so we should probably drop that factoid.

    You know, I look at some of our politicians, and on a good day I laugh, on a bad day I shake my head. But there are many who hold public office who actually love their country. How many other countries can say that? Our people, with all their problems, tend to be caring and compassionate. With the exception of extremists (who are statistically irrelevant) we are all against torture of anyone other than Australian rugby players (that part is a joke - we have a sense of humour about many things, including our problems. Actually, we don't joke about rugby, forgot that one). We have great sport teams who compete in the top levels around the world. Our individual sport men and women are amongst the best in the world.

    And, we're hosting what will probably be the biggest sporting event in the history of sporting events - The 2010 Soccer World Cup. We're also friendly with Cuba.
  76. Re:No they didn't, why is this garbage modded up? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    The US Treasury Department is the branch that stole the domains, they ordered eNom to remove them, you can twist it anyway you want. If it wasn't for the US government's interference they'd still be up and he'd still be making the usual amount of money.

    They did it on purpose, would you RTFA already...

  77. RTFA yourself, you're wrong by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 1

    "they ordered eNom to remove them"

    Source?

    "would you RTFA already..."

    I have. What you claim isn't in it.

    This, however, is

    "the company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a blog."

    So, a source that says the Treasury Dept. ordered him to take it down please, or an admission that you don't have one.

    And if you're going to suggest someone RTFA, you might want to do so yourself.

  78. Re: "Land Of The Free" by rewinn · · Score: 1

    Just like we don't have handcuffs anymore ... we have "Freedom Fetters".

  79. UK company domain banned by US embargo by thedletterman · · Score: 1

    I think the Cuba embargo doesn't accomplish anything, and the deletion is pointless. But I've got to ask the obvious question.. if it's a UK based travel agency, then why don't they register a .co.uk instead of .com and put their domain under the UK's authority instead of US authority. I mean I know having invented the fucking internet the US is pretty cool, but living in Germany, I don't see many German websites operating under .com instead of .de

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin