The Facts About Going To Cuba

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

>
> I've seen black coral for sale in countries that trade with Cuba. Not only
> don't I buy it, I tell the store manager/booth owner that it's an endangered
> species, and that's why I'm not going to patronize their store/booth.

I have done the same.

Chrissy Cruiser wrote:


> Stand or not, "little thingies" LOL don't keep you from being arrested,
> don't keep you from being exposed to jail time prior to trial, don't keep
> you from being wrongly convicted, and don't keep you from the humongous
> expense of criminal trial lawyers.

True enough. I think we can all find a case where an innocent was
jailed for years.
>
> It is past incredibly naive to put yourself at risk to years of potential
> hassle because one takes the "protection" of innocent until proven guilty.

Not to mention that not getting caught or not having enough evidence to
convict one of a crime, doesn't make one innocent of an illegal activity
either.

"greatviz" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:lWiYd.112155$pc5.35701@tornado.tampabay.rr.co m...
> 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.

Better safe than sorry? I still stand by my point but I also understand and
agree with yours.

> 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.

That makes two of us, the determined efforts of the current regime
notwithstanding.

>> 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.

I was being facetious.

>>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.

A history bound by missteps, but you're right on the money about Fox News.
Unfortunately, far too many people think their words are gospel.

> 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.

This will save you a lot of money on pain and nausea medication.

> 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.

Mostly travel and music news groups is where I spend my time here.

>> 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.

Good to meet you!

On 11 Mar 2005, greatviz <invalid@invalid.invalid> postulated in
news:D0jYd.133850$qB6.22481@tornado.tampabay.rr.co m:

>
>
> 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.

We shall see soon enough.

>
>> 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.

My tongue was firmly in-cheek while typing that remark.

>
>>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
>


It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Cuba's 45 year
"experiment" with socialism has made on the Cuban government's
ability to resist the corrupting influence of the dollar.

Cuba has assumed the moral high ground for many years, at least with
the Western left. It will be interesting to see if they can now put
their money where their mouth is, in terms of resisting unfettered
growth in the rush to make the southern coastline of Cuba the next
Miami Beach.


-- ipgrunt