The recent custody case involving young Elian, who has been ordered back to Cuba to his surviving father’s care is getting some really ridiculous arguments from the Cuban expatriots in Florida. These thugs and descendants of thugs who made life so miserable for most Cubans that Fidel Castro is still highly regarded in present day Cuba, would have us believe that returning Elian is the moral equivalent of “child abuse”. I know that any comparison of conditions in Cuba is unfair - due to the effects of the economic warfare waged by the US government over the past 40 years [ partially counteracted until the past decade by generous energy subsidies from the Soviet Union - I can guarantee that conditions there for the majority of citizenry are better than they are in China, a repressive dictatorship that enjoys normal trade relations with the world.
What I find truly amazing about the criticism of life in Cuba - orchestrated by the aforementioned gang of thugs and spoonfed by the lapdog media - is the total lack of mention of governmental corruption. Considering how present day Russia is a virtual kleptocracy and China routinely uses organized crime to help suppress dissidents, why has Cuba been apparently immune to gansterism? It could be that the ganster element left when Fidel took over - and the economic embargo has forced an artificial honesty onto a beleaguered government [normally prone to thievery] that has to answer to a citizenry deprived of material goods by US policy. If Elian were to stay, he would not lack for material goods, since he will be used as a poster child for the return of known thuggery to Cuba. Nobody has disputed as fact that Elian’s father is a good parent who will look after his best interests; should materialism be the sole criteria for custody?