The Facts About Going To Cuba

Ken Tough wrote:
>
> It most certainly will. And for the divers out there, I can vouch
> for the immense mountains of virgin coral off Cuba's south coast,
> which will be utterly destroyed like Cancun's when the fall comes.
>


Most nondivers just don't get it. Black coral harvested for trinkets,
and people still buy it like it fell off a truck. They don't want to
know how it really got on the shelves. Of course, it will be the piers
and developments that will suffocate the reefs. I hope they at the very
least designate it a national marine sanctuary to lessen the impact
somewhat.

On 10 Mar 2005, greatviz <invalid@invalid.invalid> postulated in
news:69ZXd.162996$JF2.118575@tornado.tampabay.rr.c om:

>
>
> Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>> It most certainly will. And for the divers out there, I can vouch
>> for the immense mountains of virgin coral off Cuba's south coast,
>> which will be utterly destroyed like Cancun's when the fall comes.
>>
>
>
> Most nondivers just don't get it. Black coral harvested for
trinkets,
> and people still buy it like it fell off a truck. They don't want
to
> know how it really got on the shelves. Of course, it will be the
piers
> and developments that will suffocate the reefs. I hope they at the
very
> least designate it a national marine sanctuary to lessen the
impact
> somewhat.
>

I disagree. The Cubans are very proud of their southern coast, and
are very much aware of the problems other islands have had with
tourism destroying the coastal ecology.

Cuba's oceanographers, though banished from the US, are respected all
over the Caribbean, and therefore have an understanding of the
situation in Mexico, where too much tourism has destroyed the reef
off the Mayan peninsula, as well as the crisis off the coast of
Haiti, where erosion due to lack of forest management has destroyed
their much of their reef ecology.

I doubt if they will allow development to destroy their reefs whether
or not Fidel still continues to draw breath.

Cubans are not as willing to trade their principles for an American
commercial utopia as some proponents of US-style democracy would
think. Many things will change when Castro is gone, but not all
things will have a price in Cuba, as was the case in the 1950s.

-- ipgrunt

"greatviz" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:2RYXd.133331$qB6.25179@tornado.tampabay.rr.co m...
>
>
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>> "Chrissy Cruiser" <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:17bt68fbse7op.1f8ar0en7dtor.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>
>>>Take or leave my advice as you wish but this is no time for Cuban
>>>visitation by Americans. You have been duly warned.
>>
>>
>> And you have demonstrated your deep concern for others with your
>> sensitivity, empathy, and class for months. I'm attaching the
>> appropriate weight to your advice.
>
> You would do better to consider advice based on facts and logic rather
> than your feelings about the messenger. It is clearly illegal to visit
> Cuba without permission, do you think otherwise? Would you want to
> announce on a global forum that you have done/will do so?
> Didn't think so.

I haven't been to Cuba, but wouldn't be ashamed to say I had. So your
estimation of my intentions is inaccurate. And any travel I make there
would likely be above board in any event: journalistic or artistic visa.
They're harder to get but they aren't completely impossible to acquire; not
as of today anyway.

Besides, even if I did announce it here, any prosecutor fool enough to try
and make a case out of a single posting on Usenet would need a bit more
proof. And AFAIK we still have this little thingy in our constitution that
says the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and can't be forced to
testify against himself. How's that for facts and logic?

Don't you think the credibility of the messenger has any weight? Even if
you don't, I do. Look at Dan Rather and almost anybody on Fox News for an
example. Shoot--look at Chrissy Cruiser's history of posts for an example.
I wouldn't trust her to tell the truth about what she had for breakfast this
morning.

On 10 Mar 2005, "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com>
postulated in news:sH%Xd.6447$cN6.2092
@newsread1.news.pas.**************:

> "greatviz" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2RYXd.133331$qB6.25179@tornado.tampabay.rr.co m...
>>
>>
>> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>>> "Chrissy Cruiser" <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:17bt68fbse7op.1f8ar0en7dtor.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Take or leave my advice as you wish but this is no time for Cuban
>>>>visitation by Americans. You have been duly warned.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you have demonstrated your deep concern for others with your
>>> sensitivity, empathy, and class for months. I'm attaching the
>>> appropriate weight to your advice.
>>
>> You would do better to consider advice based on facts and logic
rather
>> than your feelings about the messenger. It is clearly illegal to
visit
>> Cuba without permission, do you think otherwise? Would you want
to
>> announce on a global forum that you have done/will do so?
>> Didn't think so.
>
> I haven't been to Cuba, but wouldn't be ashamed to say I had. So
your
> estimation of my intentions is inaccurate. And any travel I make
there
> would likely be above board in any event: journalistic or artistic
visa.
> They're harder to get but they aren't completely impossible to
acquire; not
> as of today anyway.
>
> Besides, even if I did announce it here, any prosecutor fool enough
to try
> and make a case out of a single posting on Usenet would need a bit
more
> proof. And AFAIK we still have this little thingy in our
constitution that
> says the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and can't be
forced to
> testify against himself. How's that for facts and logic?
>
> Don't you think the credibility of the messenger has any weight?
Even if
> you don't, I do. Look at Dan Rather and almost anybody on Fox News
for an
> example. Shoot--look at Chrissy Cruiser's history of posts for an
example.
> I wouldn't trust her to tell the truth about what she had for
breakfast this
> morning.
>
>
>

You mean she's not really double breasted?

"IPGrunt" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns961575C0FB01Dswiss127army001wrenc@130.133. 1.4...
> On 10 Mar 2005, "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com>
> postulated in news:sH%Xd.6447$cN6.2092
> @newsread1.news.pas.**************:

>> Don't you think the credibility of the messenger has any weight?
> Even if
>> you don't, I do. Look at Dan Rather and almost anybody on Fox News
> for an
>> example. Shoot--look at Chrissy Cruiser's history of posts for an
> example.
>> I wouldn't trust her to tell the truth about what she had for
> breakfast this
>> morning.
>
> You mean she's not really double breasted?

Let's just say, I wouldn't trust her if she said she was, and I sure
wouldn't check for myself--TMI anyways :)

> Most nondivers just don't get it. Black coral harvested for trinkets, and
> people still buy it like it fell off a truck. They don't want to know how
> it really got on the shelves. Of course, it will be the piers and
> developments that will suffocate the reefs. I hope they at the very least
> designate it a national marine sanctuary to lessen the impact somewhat.
>

I won't tell you how I know this, but there is plenty of black coral for
sale in Cuba. Just check the Artist's Market in Havana....it's carved into
all sorts of trinkets.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:35:31 -0500, while the Captain of the mv
Perfecto was guiding her to her next port, Chrissy Cruiser
<doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>> (Yeah, Canada .... don't let looks deceive you)
>>
>> Stephan <---- off to avoid the black helicopters
>
>LOL

Yup. It's true. Google on "Communication Security Establishment".

Up until a few years ago, the government did not even acknowledge that
such an agency existed. They work very closely with the NSA, and by
most accounts, are *very* good at what they do.

Stephan

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

>
> Besides, even if I did announce it here, any prosecutor fool enough to try
> and make a case out of a single posting on Usenet would need a bit more
> proof.

Sure they would, but original point was that it is quite difficult for
US citizens to get permission to visit and it is clearly illegal to book
yourself on a cruise vessel that visits Cuba. I wouldn't be "ashamed" to
go either; I would love to go. I would not, however, state that I had
booked a cruise to Cuba, or that I had made arrangements to visit the
country illegaly on usenet, that would be nuts.

And AFAIK we still have this little thingy in our constitution that
> says the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and can't be forced to
> testify against himself. How's that for facts and logic?

You're doing better, and I sincerely hope the "little thingies" in the
constitution continue to stand over the coming years.

> Don't you think the credibility of the messenger has any weight?

Sure, but it was your subjective criteria for discounting the advice,
e.g. "sensitivity, empathy, and class" that got my attention.

>Even if
> you don't, I do. Look at Dan Rather and almost anybody on Fox News for an
> example.

Fox isn't news, it's entertainment just like most of the network news.
Count up all the minutes they devote to anything of real substance as
opposed to total minutes spent on "stories" that they think will boost
their viewership. I don't rate Martha Stewart anywhere near the Top 100
issues we are facing on this planet, yet add up the time spent. I also
find our "news", even our "world news" rather self-centered.
Dan Rather messed up and knows it, he at least has a bit of "history"
behind him.

Shoot--look at Chrissy Cruiser's history of posts for an example.

I haven't researched her "history" and doubt very much that I will. I
read her posts in the threads I am interested in reading and everything
else gets "newsgroup read" or "ignore" until next time I log on.
I read about a half dozen groups in bits and pieces, and I just
remembered where else I've responded to you.

> I wouldn't trust her to tell the truth about what she had for breakfast this
> morning.

I've done a fair job of figuring things out on my own so far.

IPGrunt wrote:

> I disagree. The Cubans are very proud of their southern coast, and
> are very much aware of the problems other islands have had with
> tourism destroying the coastal ecology.

Some of the other islands/countries thought they were aware as well.
Unfortunately, the awareness wasn't enough to overcome "progress".
Developers with money seem to be able to buy what they want.
>
> Cuba's oceanographers, though banished from the US, are respected all
> over the Caribbean, and therefore have an understanding of the
> situation in Mexico, where too much tourism has destroyed the reef
> off the Mayan peninsula, as well as the crisis off the coast of
> Haiti, where erosion due to lack of forest management has destroyed
> their much of their reef ecology.
>
> I doubt if they will allow development to destroy their reefs whether
> or not Fidel still continues to draw breath.

I do hope you are right, but wouldn't bet on it.

> Cubans are not as willing to trade their principles for an American
> commercial utopia as some proponents of US-style democracy would
> think.

Oh, it's hardly a utopia.

>Many things will change when Castro is gone, but not all
> things will have a price in Cuba, as was the case in the 1950s.
>
> -- ipgrunt

Sarah Banick wrote:
>>Most nondivers just don't get it. Black coral harvested for trinkets, and
>>people still buy it like it fell off a truck. They don't want to know how
>>it really got on the shelves. Of course, it will be the piers and
>>developments that will suffocate the reefs. I hope they at the very least
>>designate it a national marine sanctuary to lessen the impact somewhat.
>>
>
>
> I won't tell you how I know this, but there is plenty of black coral for
> sale in Cuba. Just check the Artist's Market in Havana....it's carved into
> all sorts of trinkets.
>
>
Well, there we go. They have picked the reef clean of it in some of the
shallow areas off of Mexico and are venturing deeper still. Vendors
have told folks that it all washed up on shore. Yeah, sure it did.