Easing Restrictions on Cuba: A Win-Win Situation
Posted 8/29/10 by Lauren Bailey
While recently the country has been entrenched in the mosque debate, talk of easing restrictions on Cuba has somewhat flown by the national radar. Still, it’s an idea worth discussing seriously, as it has much more far-reaching implications for citizens of both countries than does talk of the potential mosque.
A New York Daily News article reported that the Obama administration has made plans to ease travel restrictions on the Communist state. Under the Bush administration, travel restrictions to Cuba were tightened successively, and the current administration only plans to return back to Clinton-era travel guidelines, which enabled religious, humanitarian, and academic groups to visit the country much more freely than current rules allow.
Although as yet it’s a political long-shot, the idea of completely lifting the embargo on Cuba is perfectly sensible on various fronts. For one, Americans really want to visit Cuba. According to an Orbitz poll conducted last year, 67% of those surveyed said they favor all Americans having permission to travel to Cuba, and 72% of respondents agreed that allowing free travel would positively impact the lives of the Cuban people.
The whole idea behind the embargo in the first place is to ostensibly punish the Castro regime such that it is forced to move to a more democratic system of governing. Interestingly enough, this Cold War era goal is not anywhere near to coming to fruition. If anything, the embargo has only further isolated Cuba from the outside world. How can a democracy proliferate when the free flow of information is being squelched?
Moreover, it isn’t simply information that Cubans are being denied through the embargo; it’s also food and much-needed medical supplies. General health in Cuba is poor; the rationing system leaves many malnourished, especially men since women and children are given first priority.
Even if we discount humanitarian goals as being too idealistic, lifting the embargo on Cuba would be in everyone’s best interests. Cuba is a resource-rich country, and by allowing free trade with our Caribbean neighbor, the United States stands to benefit substantially.
While the embargo may have made more sense decades ago, now it is simply incomprehensible. There is no denying that the embargo remains a sensitive topic, considering the Cuban-American vote in Florida is a key group to which politicians must often kowtow and appease. In any event, let’s stop fighting fire with fire. In order to be consistent with our country’s democratic, free-market ideals, it’s time that the Obama administration considers further easing sanctions. The recent announcement to ease travel restrictions is a heartening first step in the right direction.
##
This guest post is contributed by Lauren Bailey, who writes on the topics of online colleges. She welcomes your comments at her email Id: blauren99@gmail.com.
Why I support the Cordoba Initiative
Posted 8/18/10 by Katie Zavadski
I still don’t quite understand why what should have been a local issue has become a national debate. The community board approved the community center. District leaders support it. Even the mayor agrees there’s nothing inappropriate. Yet, the debate over whether to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan continues, with people purporting to represent 9-11 families leading the charge against it.
Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for families who lost loved ones on 9-11. It was a great tragedy for our entire nation, but especially New York City. However, I think one of the most important things we can do as New Yorkers – and as Americans – is to clearly state that there is a difference between being a Muslim and being a terrorist. To forget that is to do exactly what the extremists want us to do, as it helps them gain credibility. Also, we can’t forget that Muslim-Americans were also killed on 9-11. What the terrorists were attacking wasn’t Jewish or Christian New Yorkers, but rather the values that New Yorkers of any creed hold dear: our commitment to pluralism and diversity. We can’t give that up.
Imam Rauf, the man behind the plan, so to speak, is Osama’s worst nightmare. The Imam is a moderate muslim and has been involved in the community for decades. He owns a bookstore in the neighborhood where the community center will be built. Rauf shows that you can be a devout muslim and be successfully integrated into a non-muslim, western nation. And breaking news: He’s worked with the FBI on counterterrorism efforts! Madeleine Albright looks up to him! He was welcomed into Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
He is the poster child extremists don’t want other muslims finding out about! The community center he’s building won’t be just for muslims: just like the JCC, it will be for people of all stripes, and help revitalize lower Manhattan.
Imam Rauf on the Cordoba House
Read more
Bye-bye, Prop H8
Posted 8/05/10 by Katie Zavadski
photo by Jeff Chiu/The Associated Press
California’s Proposition 8 was overturned yesterday by US Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on the basis of it violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. The opinion is a blast to read – a truly feminist piece of legal writing. Here is one of my favorite excerpts:
The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.
WHAT!?!? The meaning of marriage has changed over time? Women are no longer property? They aren’t even required to stay in the home? Radical.
All jokes aside though, it was a great ruling and a great opinion – along with a great record of the facts for when the decision is appealed, which it surely will be. Ironically, Judge Walker was appointed to the bench by Bush 41 (after a failed nomination by Reagan, blocked in part by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, who were concerned with Walker being anti-gay). I’m not one of those people advocating for Judge Walker to be appointed to the next available Supreme Court Seat – I’m not too familiar with his approach to judging, law and economics – but I do have another prediction about the Supreme Court. I think that when it comes down to it, the Court – the Chief Justice included – will be on the right side of history. After all, as Judge Walker’s clerks painstakingly laid out in the opinion, legal precedent is on our side. An explanation of legal terms after the jump.
Read more
Former HLS Dean Elena Kagan confirmed to the Supreme Court!
Posted 8/05/10 by Katie Zavadski
Today, former Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan became the fourth woman ever confirmed to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan nominee, was the first, followed by Ruth Bader Ginsberg – a Clinton nominee – and Sonya Sotomayor, also appointed by Obama). Two-thirds of the Supreme Court Justices are now Harvard Law graduates (with the exceptions of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonya Sotomayor, who all went to that other school in New Haven).
Photo from the New York Times
Kagan was confirmed by a 63 to 37 Senate vote, with 1 Democrat voting against her and 5 Republicans and two Independents voting in favor. A full breakdown of the vote can be found here.
Congratulations, Elena!