Monday, March 29, 2010


Matthews to Matthew: All They Will Ever Get

In the thankless world of apologists for repressive regimes, the cradle to grave dedication of the New York Times to the Castro [Barabbas?] dictatorship is something to read [Behold the Apologists?]. Gray Lady meet Pontius Pilate, the most egregious example of living with a bad decision, eternally speaking.

One month after the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, weeks into the hunger strike of Guillermo Fariñas and smack in the middle of viral-like attention to the Damas de Blanco, the New York Times regales us with a such a regime-friendly story, that one wonders if it would make Bill Ayers and North Korean guards blush. With the tone of a global warming scientist on an Earth Day lecture tour, the article diligently explains how much the United States is missing out by not investing in Cuba [otherwise known as PLEASE LIFT THE EMBARGO muzak to us veteran observers]. The photograph which accompanies the article, along with it's comical caption, appear below:

"... a pleasure few Americans have experienced in decades" - New York Times, March 28, 2010

In the photograph, we can make out an Anglo-looking couple in the back seat of a 1952 convertible Cadillac taxi ferreting tourists along Havana's El Malecón. The male is looking particularly pleased, the type of happiness typically limited to people who star in infomercials. The driver less so. For the driver of the vehicle -- whose Morgan Freeman-like role gives the picture an added level of discomfort -- the quaintness of the moment somehow escapes him.

Would it be impolite to note that the reason Americans haven't had the "pleasure of driving 1952 Cadillacs in decades" is that driving 58 year-old vehicles is mainly a pleasurable activity when one is a collector driving around a prized and meticulously kept piece of machinery. When the vehicle in question still exists due to shortages which are endemic to centrally planned economies and only functions due to mechanical improvisations born of desperation, then the thrill be gone brother.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say the guy in the back seat was Tyler Cowen, the Über-blogging economist from one of my favorite blogs. But upon closer inspection, the codger is a bit too spry to be confused with Mr Cowen. But at a minimum, they share a passion for visiting places before they suffer an improvement in their standards of living. Ahh the cultural left, they are different.

What I can wish upon them is limited, especially during Holy Week. But the Gospel of Matthew comes to mind, as in, "... they have received all the reward they will ever get."

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
March 28, 2010
Dreaming of Cuban Profits in Post-Embargo World
By MARC LACEY


CANCÚN, Mexico — Would Americans’ playing bingo in a Havana retirement home violate the Cuban government’s socialist ethos? How about avowed capitalists living on their 401(k) accounts in condominiums along the Cuban coastline? Or, horror of horrors, fast food outlets offering Big Macs, Whoppers and buckets of fried chicken along the seaside Malecón?

Although Cuba remains closed to American investment, dreamers in both countries are actively considering the money-making possibilities that the island might offer once the half-century-old travel and trade embargoes imposed by the United States become policies of the past.

“Cuba does have problems,” said Kirby Jones, a business consultant, stating the obvious at the start of a meeting last week that brought American travel industry executives and Cuban government officials to Cancún to strategize on what might, and what might not, play out in the years ahead.

Mr. Jones urged potential investors to banish certain words from their minds — Bay of Pigs, dissidents, Elián González, hijackers and socialism, for instance — and to focus on the fact that the Cuban government had already joined more than 200 joint ventures with foreign corporations, none of them American.

“Everyone is there, except us,” he told the travel agents, hoteliers, tour operators, charter companies and others with an eye on Cuba. “There are offices and representatives of over 500 companies around the world. Nobody knows when it will open up for Americans, but it will.”

But as Cuban officials nodded and participants scribbled notes, the likelihood of wholesale change in American-Cuban relations, widely considered a possibility in the early days of the Obama administration, seemed slim.

On Wednesday, the day the conference began, President Obama was scolding Cuba for its treatment of dissidents. “Instead of embracing an opportunity to enter a new era, Cuban authorities continue to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

And Cuban papers were reporting Fidel Castro’s written comments the same day calling Mr. Obama a “fanatic” when it comes to capitalism and dismissing his remarks on Cuba as “foolishness.”

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, is pushing legislation that would lift the ban on travel, and he offered an optimistic view of his bill’s chance of passing this year. But he also told the Cuban officials at the meeting that they were endangering the legislation by jailing an American government contractor, Alan P. Gross, whom the Cubans accuse of espionage but the State Department says was engaged in democracy-building.

“That sort of thing is a problem and a hindrance to change U.S. policy toward Cuba,” said Mr. Dorgan, addressing the conference by telephone.

The highest ranking Cuban official in attendance, Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz, brushed off questions of Mr. Gross’s jailing as being outside his portfolio. But he did say that the Cuban government was not concerned about large numbers of visiting Americans prompting any change to Cuba’s government or culture.

As for the likelihood that the embargo would end soon, he shrugged. “It’s impossible to predict,” Mr. Marrero said. “We have many scenarios. We are not waiting for the Americans. We’re developing tourism for others around the world.”

The same thing has happened in other aspects of Cuba’s economy, as the government, which is dependent on imports, has struck deals with countries like China, Venezuela and Iran as well as Britain, France and Spain.

“Cuba already trades with the rest of the world,” said Philip Peters, an expert on the Cuban economy at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a policy research group. “A lot of the opportunities are taken already.”

But Cuba may yet offer healthy profits one day to American entrepreneurs who manage to get in.

“It’s going to be a very slow process,” said John S. Kavulich II, an adviser to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council in New York, who criticized the Cancún meeting as a show that would probably not lead any of the attendees to real deals in Cuba. “The Cuban government is going to be very cautious about turning over the keys to the country.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Kavulich said that Cubans already closely identified with many American brands. And he envisions that Coca-Cola, McDonalds and others will have no problem one day establishing themselves, even though Cuban government enterprises now control the market when it comes to cola and fast food.

Katia Alonzo, director of Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Trade and Investment, made clear that there would be no unregulated rush of outside investment into Cuba. She outlined a few areas the government had identified as essential, including mining, oil exploration and tourism development.

She left unsaid the risks of doing business in a country where the government is used to operating unchecked, like Cuba’s decision last year to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in bank accounts held by foreign companies.

Already, there is more of an American imprint on the island than during the Bush years. The Cuban government said that 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before. Mr. Obama’s loosening of restrictions on Cuban-Americans’ travel last year prompted such a crush of new visitors that the Cubans have begun remodeling the airport terminal used for flights arriving from Miami, New York and Los Angeles.

But that is still a long way from opening travel to all Americans, which legislation in Congress would couple with an easing of restrictions on American farm exports to Cuba. The Cuban government has been permitted to buy agricultural products from the United States since 2001, but the Cubans must wire payments to third-country banks before goods are shipped, making other countries’ products far easier to buy. All the same, the agricultural exports to Cuba, which include American meat, shellfish, coffee, bread, wine, cigarettes and pistachios, among other products, reached a peak of $710 million in 2008.

Until other business is allowed, however, the dreaming goes on.

Frank C. Weed, head of real estate investment for The Americas Group, which helps businesses break into emerging markets in Latin America, envisions retirement communities in Cuba one day and American-run golf courses linked with residences that give buyers longtime rights to their vacation homes.

“Not everybody will want to live there,” he acknowledged. “They have to be an adventure seeker.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


Marching For Freedom In Cuba On SW 8th Street

Update Mar 27: Click to see the fair Washington Post article about the march.

Practically every person of Cuban descent fortunate enough to be living in the United States hopes and fears the following about the latest turmoil in Cuba: God, please let this be the spark which leads to the end of the dictatorship. Soon after though, our own Screwtape's are whispering, ... 'and just how many times have you thought that before. Don't get your hopes up [it was 'kid' when I first started hoping] viejo.'

We must ignore the demons in our heads, even as the Orlando Zapata's and Yoani Sanchez's of Cuba ignore the demons in their faces. This may not be 'it,' but when it happens, it will likely evolve as this has evolved. A few brave women and men taking a stand against a corrupt oppressor. As the struggle expands, more become aware and join in. We await the Tipping Point. The outer band of the struggle hits Miami on Thursday.

Leading the march is Gloria and Emilio Estefan - this from the Miami Herald article:

Dressed in white at a news conference, the Cuba-born singer and songwriter passionately urged Cuban exiles and others to join her in the march as an expression of solidarity with the Cuban women who last week were violently harassed during a street march to mark the anniversary of the 2003 jailing of 75 dissidents. The Miami march is being held on Calle Ocho, beginning at 6 p.m. Thursday.

"The moment has arrived for us, the Cubans who live in freedom, and all those who wish to join, to offer absolute support and encouragement to the ladies and the people of Cuba," said Estefan, standing at a lectern in the main dining room of Bongos Cuban Cafe at the American Airlines Arena in downtown Miami.

The announcement comes just a week after members of Ladies in White were confronted violently by Cuban security forces and pro-government civilians in Havana. Members said they were punched, pinched, scratched and had their hair pulled by security agents and civilians, who made rude gestures and swore at them. Agents also dragged them away in buses.

On Tuesday, Estefan asked those who plan to take part in Thursday's march to wear white, the color worn by the Cuban women's group. She also encouraged non-Cubans to join her and Cuban exiles: "Our Anglo brothers, our African-American brothers, our Haitian brothers . . . people from all nationalities . . . anybody that loves freedom, anybody that wants to join our cause, of course is invited and welcome."


Thanks to Rolando Pulido for the graphic above and as usual, to Babalu and Robert Molleda for keeping the rest of us aware of those out there helping in whatever way they can.

The Miami Herald article about the upcoming march is copied in full at end of post.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Estefan calls for march to support Cuba's 'Ladies in White'

Posted on Wed, Mar. 24, 2010

BY ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@ElNuevoHerald.com

Cuban music star Gloria Estefan, speaks during a press conference with a group of artists to call for a march along SW 8 ST next Thursday to support Las Damas de Blanco- Ladies in White marching on Havana Streets for the last seven years asking for their relative freedom. The event took place at Bongo's Cafe in Miami.

Cuban music star Gloria Estefan, speaks during a press conference with a group of artists to call for a march along SW 8 ST next Thursday to support Las Damas de Blanco- Ladies in White marching on Havana Streets for the last seven years asking for their relative freedom. The event took place at Bongo's Cafe in Miami.
In a rare personal move, Miami musical icon Gloria Estefan stepped into the international political spotlight Tuesday to say she was organizing a Little Havana march in support of Las Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White), the wives and mothers of imprisoned Cuban opponents of the Raúl Castro regime.

Dressed in white at a news conference, the Cuba-born singer and songwriter passionately urged Cuban exiles and others to join her in the march as an expression of solidarity with the Cuban women who last week were violently harassed during a street march to mark the anniversary of the 2003 jailing of 75 dissidents. The Miami march is being held on Calle Ocho, beginning at 6 p.m. Thursday.

``The moment has arrived for us, the Cubans who live in freedom, and all those who wish to join, to offer absolute support and encouragement to the ladies and the people of Cuba,'' said Estefan, standing at a lectern in the main dining room of Bongos Cuban Cafe at the AmericanAirlines Arena in downtown Miami.

The announcement comes just a week after members of Ladies in White were confronted violently by Cuban security forces and pro-government civilians in Havana. Members said they were punched, pinched, scratched and had their hair pulled by security agents and civilians, who made rude gestures and swore at them. Agents also dragged them away in buses.

On Tuesday, Estefan asked those who plan to take part in Thursday's march to wear white, the color worn by the Cuban women's group. She also encouraged non-Cubans to join her and Cuban exiles: ``Our Anglo brothers, our African-American brothers, our Haitian brothers . . . people from all nationalities . . . anybody that loves freedom, anybody that wants to join our cause, of course is invited and welcome.''

She also personally relayed news of the Miami march to Laura Pollán, spokeswoman for the Ladies in White, reached by phone in Havana during the news conference.

Pollán expressed gratitude. ``It's an honor,'' Pollán said, during a shaky phone connection in which every other word was audible.

Estefan and exile community leaders hope the singer's leadership and name recognition will draw international media attention to the plight of dissidents in Cuba, particularly the Ladies in White, and independent journalist Guillermo Fariñas, who has been on a hunger strike since Feb. 24.

Estefan's aides said that while she has not shied away from broaching opposition to the Cuban regime during her public career, this represents the first time the beloved artist has taken up the issue on a ``grand scale.''

So it was on Tuesday when a very different Estefan stepped up to the podium -- emerging as a leader with a very political message to deliver.

At the event were several prominent Cuban exile leaders, including Jorge Más Santos of the Cuban American National Foundation, and Ninoska Pérez-Castellón, of the Cuban Liberty Council. Also joining her: singer Willy Chirino, Mayor Tómas Regalado of Miami and several former Cuban political prisoners.

Estefan was dressed in white and, before the announcement, sat among a group of women also dressed in white. She stood at a lectern flanked by photos of the Ladies in White being dragged away by security agents.

Behind Estefan: a photo of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a dissident who died Feb. 23 after an 83-day hunger strike, in the middle of a Cuban flag.

Regalado said Miami police planned to close Calle Ocho beginning at 2 p.m. Thursday and that Estefan planned to cover expenses incurred by city police in providing security.

In addition to wearing white, Estefan asked that everyone carry gladiolas and march in silence from 27th to 22nd Avenues, beginning at 6 p.m.

The Ladies in White was formed in 2003 after the Black Spring government crackdown against dissidents in which husbands and sons were picked up and became political prisoners. The women wear white and march periodically, flowers in hand -- mostly gladiolas. Last week, the group marched for seven consecutive days to mark the seventh anniversary of the crackdown.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/v-print/1544287/estefan-calls-for-march-to-support.html#ixzz0j6zHYyVD
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Tuesday, March 23, 2010


CBO Numbers Outsourced: Imagine The Potential

Congressional Democrats success at selling numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] which are based on assumptions which no one believes got me to thinking. Perhaps we can outsource the CBO to other organizations which could benefit from such rigorous wishful thinking.

If CBO is allowed to produce financial projections for private industries, these headlines might be coming to a blog or newspaper near you:

  • Higher taxes not expected to adversely impact economic growth
  • Government workers are actually more motivated than those who are self-employed
  • Strong unions not seen as an impediment to productivity
  • Family economic hardships have no effect on decisions to divorce
  • New Oreo diet rocks the world of nutrition
  • Insecurity and indecisiveness seen as aphrodisiacs by women [courtesy of Albert Brooks]
  • New federal government entitlement to pay for itself [this study is being offered at a discount, given that it has already been used].

Proposed CBO Warning Label




Read more!

Monday, March 22, 2010


If Uncle George Had Ovaries, She'd Be Aunt Megan

That's George Will and Megan McArdle. While not a conservative, she is Will-like in her logic and arguments. Some recent examples:

Ms McArdle on the Democrat's abortion of a health care bill:

What I hope is that the Democrats take a beating at the ballot box and rethink their contempt for those mouth-breathing illiterates in the electorate. I hope Obama gets his wish to be a one-term president who passed health care. Not because I think I will like his opponent--I very much doubt that I will support much of anything Obama's opponent says. But because politicians shouldn't feel that the best route to electoral success is to lie to the voters, and then ignore them.

We're not a parliamentary democracy, and we don't have the mechanisms, like votes of no confidence, that parliamentary democracies use to provide a check on their politicians. The check that we have is that politicians care what the voters think. If that slips away, America's already quite toxic politics will become poisonous.
Read as Ms McArdle takes on the supposed claims of the benefits to be derived from the health care legislation, as the proponents are already running away from any measurable effects which can be attributed to the new federal entitlement:
Americans were not told that American households would be 1% less worried about bankruptcy, or that we'd save a hundred thousand lives over thirty years. They were regaled with eye-popping statistics on deaths from lack of health insurance--I certainly was, by many of the very same commentators who are now suddenly wary of prediction making. If you quoted those statistics, you were committing to a pretty strong position on the benefits of this bill.
...
I mean, maybe we say that there are a bunch of combo benefits: we reduce bankruptcies by a third, save five thousand lives a year, get some harder-to-measure morbidity benefits, and so on. But there have to be some measurable benefits. If this helps families stave off financial ruin, we should see a meaningful and sustained reduction in the number of bankruptcies. If it improves health, that should show up in life expectancy. If it doesn't, then the bill doesn't do what you said you expected it to do. That's valuable information! Not so much about you, as about health care bills.

If you don't think that any of the effects of this bill will be large enough to measure and hopefully, large enough to justify the price tag of this bill, then I have to ask two questions:

1) Why the hell are we spending $200 billion a year, plus the mandated spending by individuals and employers on premiums, plus the new money the states will have to spend on Medicaid?

2) Why on earth did you bring up all these apparently irrelevant statistics?

I'm all for accountability for beliefs. That's how you make your beliefs better. That's why I want to see all the people who threw around all sorts of theatrical arguments commit to what they are actually reasonably willing to predict will happen. Then explain why the outcomes that they are actually confident enough to predict justify spending about $2000 for every household in the country.

I don't think that's unreasonable. I sure wish people had done it before the bill passed--it would keep us more honest in our debates. But post-facto accountability is still a lot better than nothing. Otherwise the bill's supporters, and opponents, will be too tempted to move the goalposts.


Read more!

Saturday, March 20, 2010


How Expensive Will The Nanny State Become?

One of the best blogging academic economists -- Greg Mankiw -- gives his perspective on the federal health care takeover:

In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click links). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?
I assume the question is rhetorical. A public figure, like our president, who can't even bring himself to allow mere citizens to see his college transcripts and papers, will not soon be fessing up about the prohibitive cost of operating his version of government.

By the way, Communitarian or Nanny State, are politically correct labels for political philosophies which are closer, or prefer, socialized forms of government as opposed to a more laissez-faire form of government. The point is not whether we are strictly in one category or another [we are exclusively in neither], but rather which form of government are we moving towards. There is no question that the Obama administration is moving us aggressively away from laissez-faire form of government. In my book, Socialism lies at the other end of that spectrum. So the question to be answered by those who object to the Socialist label is: What aspects of Socialism are objectionable to today's leaders of the Democrat party?


Read more!

Monday, March 1, 2010


Realpolitik or Rationalizing a Lack of Nerve?

The WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady highlights the moral cowardice of Latin American leaders.

Mexican President Felipe Calderón wore a broad smile as he warmly greeted Cuba's Raúl Castro at the Rio Group summit on the posh Mexican Riviera last week. The two men, dressed in neatly pressed guayabera shirts, shook hands as Mr. Calderón, with no small measure of delight, gestured to his audience to welcome Mexico's very special guest.

A mere 300 miles away, in a military prison hospital in Havana, political prisoner Orlando Zapata lay in a coma. For 84 days the 42-year-old stone mason of humble origins had been on a hunger strike to protest the Castro regime's brutality toward prisoners of conscience. His death was imminent.
...
But over at the Playa del Carmen resort on the Yucatán, Mr. Calderón wasn't about to let Zapata spoil his fiesta, or his chance to improve his image among the region's undemocratic governments. The summit went on as planned with no mention of Havana's human-rights hell. On Tuesday Zapata passed away.

Zapata's death while Latin American leaders broke bread with Castro is a coincidence that captures the cowardice and expediency toward Cuban oppression that has defined the region for a half century. Now the Latin gang, with Cuba as a prominent member, has decided to form a new regional body to "replace" the Organization of American States. To make their intentions clear, they banned Honduras's democratically elected President Porfirio Lobo from last week's meeting.
The Castro's, Chavez's and Jong-il's of the world aside, let's assume for the sake of argument that a majority of leader's are decent people with good intentions. Their problems in governing are more complicated than those of us not privy to all the facts can appreciate.

So if you're a Felipe Calderón -- a self-described devout Catholic -- perhaps you hold your nose, say a silent prayer for Orlando Zapata and stick out your hand towards the oncoming Raúl Castro. You do so because you have been reminded repeatedly -- as was your predecessor and mentor, Vicente Fox -- that your country's especially large and poor population would be very susceptible to the type socialist snake-oil pitch which allowed totalitarian dictatorships to consolidate power in Cuba and Venezuela. In short, you are now the latest practitioner of Realpolitik.

My first crushing awareness of Realpolitik occurred when President Ford refused to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn. All seemed lost at the time. If the US president was too cowed to meet one of the great heroes in the struggle against communism, what hope was there?

Obviously, all was not lost. Within 5 years -- Pope John Paul II, Thatcher, Reagan and Afghanistan -- conditions would so change that it would mark the beginning of the end for the biggest practitioner of communism. We also know from the history of the period that Ford himself took many other steps during his administration to oppose communism. He just did not feel he could take that particular step at that particular time.

Unfortunately for Ford -- who went on to lose the election, partly due to the fact that he had to fight off a primary challenge from the right in Ronald Reagan, partly due to his Solzhenitsyn snub -- his Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney, was right. Solzhenitsyn was not just another meeting. He was not just another chip before a summit with the Soviets. In fact, it turns out that the summit for which Solzhenitsyn was sacrificed was a low point in the Cold War for the US, the Helsinki Accords.

My point being that leaders practice Realpolitik all the time, trusting their instincts -- another word for morals -- about when to shake that blood soaked hand and when to refuse. Ford's instincts failed him in the Solzhenitsyn decision and he paid a price in an appropriate manner. Political defeat and the self-knowledge of having acted fecklessly in one very public test of character.

If the death of Orlando Zapata sparks the revolt those of us rooting for Cuba's freedom hope it will, then perhaps Felipe Calderón's moral cowardice at the summit will eventually be seen by all as it was accurately described by Ms. O'Grady.

One thing is certain if Felipe Calderón is a devout Catholic. At the outset of this Lenten season, he turned his back on the poor, sick and oppressed to be in the company of a latter day version of the Sanhedrin. If you are standing behind Felipe waiting to confess, may I suggest an alternate location? Then again, these are the types of actions that can keep people, mistakenly, away from confession altogether.

The O'Grady WSJ column referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viva Zapata

A Cuban dissident is murdered while Latin leaders schmooze with Castro.

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY


Mexican President Felipe Calderón wore a broad smile as he warmly greeted Cuba's Raúl Castro at the Rio Group summit on the posh Mexican Riviera last week. The two men, dressed in neatly pressed guayabera shirts, shook hands as Mr. Calderón, with no small measure of delight, gestured to his audience to welcome Mexico's very special guest.

A mere 300 miles away, in a military prison hospital in Havana, political prisoner Orlando Zapata lay in a coma. For 84 days the 42-year-old stone mason of humble origins had been on a hunger strike to protest the Castro regime's brutality toward prisoners of conscience. His death was imminent.

Zapata's grim condition was no secret. During his strike, for 18 days, he had been denied water and placed in front of an air conditioner. His kidneys had failed and he had pneumonia. For months human-rights groups had been pleading for international attention to his case.

But over at the Playa del Carmen resort on the Yucatán, Mr. Calderón wasn't about to let Zapata spoil his fiesta, or his chance to improve his image among the region's undemocratic governments. The summit went on as planned with no mention of Havana's human-rights hell. On Tuesday Zapata passed away.

Zapata's death while Latin American leaders broke bread with Castro is a coincidence that captures the cowardice and expediency toward Cuban oppression that has defined the region for a half century. Now the Latin gang, with Cuba as a prominent member, has decided to form a new regional body to "replace" the Organization of American States. To make their intentions clear, they banned Honduras's democratically elected President Porfirio Lobo from last week's meeting.

The Mexican foreign ministry did not respond to several requests last week for a statement from Mr. Calderón on Zapata's death. Its silence suggests that the only thing the Mexican president regrets is the unfortunate timing of the dissident's demise.

Yet Zapata hasn't gone quietly. His passing has once more elevated the truth about the lives of 11 million Cubans enslaved for the last 50 years under a totalitarian regime. And it has embarrassed the likes of Mr. Calderón. Newspapers across the globe, from Buenos Aires to Madrid, are denouncing the mind-boggling hypocrisy of those who feign concern for human rights while embracing Castro.

Like most Cuban dissidents, Zapata did not so much choose his role as martyr as it chose him. Born in the province of Holguin in the eastern part of the country, he moved through the Cuban education system as any ordinary citizen.

But the requisite Marxist indoctrination didn't take. Like so many Cuban patriots before him, once his conscience had been awakened no measure of cruelty could stop him from speaking out.

Zapata became part of a wave of peaceful resistance that began to organize and grow bolder in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He was detained three times in 2002. According to Miami's Cuban Democratic Directorate, which tracks dissident activity, he was arrested for a fourth time on Dec. 6, 2002, "along with [the prominent pacifist and medical doctor] Oscar Elías Biscet."

Dr. Biscet, a devout Catholic and disciple of Martin Luther King Jr.'s adherence to nonviolence, began opposing the regime when he learned of its policy of suffocating babies who survived abortions. Today he is considered one of the island's most important human-rights defenders. His continuing imprisonment and torture are well documented. It is not known whether Mr. Calderón, who also describes himself as a Catholic, discussed Mr. Biscet's plight with his guest Raúl.

Zapata was arrested again in March 2003 along with 74 others in what the resistance calls the "black spring." This time he was held and in May 2004 he was sentenced to 25 years. But his commitment to his brethren never wavered. Indeed, it deepened.

In July 2005, at the Taco Taco prison, he took part in a nonviolent protest marking the 1994 massacre of 41 Cubans who had tried to flee the island on a tugboat and were drowned by state security. That got him another 15 years in the clink.

Zapata was judged guilty of "disobedience to authority" and was repeatedly tortured. But he died a free man, unbroken and unwilling to give up his soul to the regime, which is more than can be said for Mr. Calderón. Word is that Mr. Calderón noticed the offshore drilling contracts Castro has given to Brazil's Petrobras and is cuddling up to the dictator in hopes that Mexico's Pemex will be next.

As to Cuban freedom, the yearning lives on, and Zapata's death is already serving as a source of renewed inspiration to the movement. The regime knows this, which is why state security put his hometown on lockdown the day of his funeral. Even as Cubans mourn their loss, it is certain that, treasuring his personal triumph over evil and his gift of bravery to the nation, they will not let his death be in vain.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!