50th Anniversary of the Bay of Pigs: Controversy in Miami

• Granma International is publishing a series of articles on the events leading up to the April, 1961 battle of the Bay of Pigs. As we approach the 50th Anniversary of this heroic feat, we will attempt to recreate chronologically the developments which occurred during this period and ultimately led to the invasion. The series will be a kind of comparative history, relating what was taking place more or less simultaneously in revolutionary Cuba, in the United States, in Latin America, within the socialist camp and in other places in some way connected to the history of these first years of the Cuban Revolution

Gabriel Molina

• A colorful controversy developed at the end of January, early February 1961, the result of which is not difficult to appreciate 50 years later. The characters, Esteban Ventura Novo and Tony Varona, seemed to have stepped out of a tragicomedy.

The former had made his name as a criminal due to his cold-blooded murder of revolutionaries in the Batista period. Ventura’s initial steps characterized him as a repressor of student demonstrations under the stern gaze of the University of Havana’s Alma Mater statue. It could be said that he had no godfather. Unaided, from murder to murder, he set about winning the ranks that Batista conferred on him. From lieutenant to colonel in just two years.

In the final days of the dictatorship, his tall slim figure, encased in a starched white drill suit or blue uniform, appeared on the front pages of newspapers with groups of revolutionaries arrested or lying in pools of their own blood. His most publicized feat was the monstrous crime perpetrated against Fructuoso Rodríguez, José Machado, Juan Pedro Carbó Servia and Joe Westbrook, at 7, Humboldt Street in Havana.

Ventura was particularly merciless with these student members of the Revolutionary Directorate in revenge for their assault on the Presidential Palace and possibly recalling that morning when, still a lieutenant, he entered the Calixto García Hospital in pursuit of them. Suddenly, Juan Pedro Carbó emerged from a closet – where he had hidden – cocking his first finger and thumb simulating a weapon like children do when playing cops and robbers, while ordering him to surrender.

Caught by surprise at the unexpected and mocking joke, Ventura almost dropped his weapon. Enraged, he shrieked hysterically, "I’m going to kill you, Carbó…I’m gonna kill you!"

With his characteristic self-possession, laughing in the face of terror, Carbó replied, "You’re not going to kill anyone, Ventura, you are a…"

On the other hand, Tony Varona was a professional politician, former prime minister, ex-president of the Senate, famous among CIA officers for his limited intelligence. Howard Hunt, the U.S. spy subordinate to David Atlee Phillips in CIA plans against Cuba, related in his book Give Us This Day compromising situations in which he was placed given that characteristic of Tony’s. His stupidity was such that he was known as Pony, both in Cuba and in the United States.

Ventura was angry with Tony because the latter had publicly vetoed him from joining the CIA ranks against the Cuban Revolution. That prompted the henchman to send a public letter to Varona, at that time the Company’s golden boy, stating, "We would say that those of us who were outstanding in our posts in our country’s armed forces cadres are the real veteran anti-communists, because we were the first to fight them."

After that unique profession of faith, Ventura moved on to recount some details of Varona’s history. He listed a number of murders committed against members of governments in which Pony was a prominent leader. He mentioned the crime against the students Masó and Regueyro; the license to kill granted to certain gangsters; the Investigation Bureau’s cork-lined torture chamber; and told him that Tony’s hands were not only bloodstained but also tainted by gold, given his involvement in the faked incineration of 40 million pesos, a sum appropriated by a group within the government of Carlos Prío, headed by Prío’s brother and treasury minister, Antonio Prío.

While accusing Varona, he was also mocking Batista who, when he fled Cuba, abandoned Varona there: "What was Dr. Tony Varona thinking in terms of his obligations as government premier when he tacitly accepted the granting of broad prerogatives to the notorious drug trafficker Lucky Luciano, so that he could make Havana his operational base for all of Latin America? This also produced gold, Dr. Tony Varona, gold that bathed the hands of various officials during your premiership of the regime. Bribery, sinecure, waste, the squandering of public funds, provided your cash in Cuba, Dr. Tony Varona, not precisely during the era of those stained by you, but of the ‘immaculate’ governments which preceded the coward who fled in the early hours of January 1, 1959… Cubans are not divided up by crimes, but by eras… if you are going to throw them out of the ‘temple of the pure’ for crimes, we can assure you that the temple would be left completely empty."

In the training camps for the invasion in Miami and in Guatemala, the Ventura v. Varona controversy, whose essence was about the participation of Batista supporters in the planned invasion of Cuba, was generalized and threatened to endanger the venture.

The development of events was giving the right to the henchman over the politico. The CIA preferred Batista’s people in its ranks. The CIA thought like Ventura: the first anti-communists had been the ex-henchmen. But it wasn’t about Tony vetoing all the Batista followers. The issue was about certain ones, like Ventura. Others, such as Calviño and the King were acceptable. But the presence of Ventura Novo was too scandalous.

Arthur Schlesinger, President Kennedy’s advisor as well as a writer, later admitted that preference, dressing it up with tactical reasons: "The U.S. advisors were growing impatient in the face of what they considered political subtleties. They preferred men with professional military experience (from Batista’s army), like Pepe San Román, who had been trained in Fort Belvoir and Fort Benning in the United States, who could be trusted to fulfill orders given." (1)

In real terms it was Batista’s officers who had the military experience, even though that was worth nothing to them in the Sierra Maestra.

As a screen for the aggression, in June 1960, the CIA had created the Democratic Revolutionary Front, bringing together five of the main capos. One of them was Tony Varona, who hastened to declare when he was accepted that assets confiscated by the Castro regime would be returned to their American and Cuban owners. But CIA control led to resentment within the Front, Schlesinger noted.

In September of that year, the CIA appointed Tony Varona coordinator of the group, which prompted the resignation of one of its members, Aureliano Sánchez Arango, former minister of education and foreign relations in the Prío government, to which Varona also belonged.

That storm passed, but in the training camps the infighting for the leadership was reflected among Batista’s men. Those in favor of Tony Varona and Manuel Artime, the brigade’s political chief, were demanding their presence in Guatemala so as to personally relay their complaints, and the disrespectful attitude of many of the U.S. instructors. But the leaders of the CIA front did not allow them to visit the camps in Retalhuleu, and they were forced to accept orders or lose their lucrative income.

But the situation developed into a crisis and, defying the opinion of the CIA chiefs in the training camps, Washington decided to authorize Varona and Artime to go there and try and solve the problem. But no airs or social graces were allowed in CIA headquarters. They had to cover all their own expenses, including the easy life and the capos’ tours of American and Europe. Howard Hunt was given instructions to take them to the training base in Guatemala and to bring everyone into line.

Hunt was an old friend of Miguel Ydígoras, the Guatemalan president. When the CIA organized and executed the plot against the constitutionally elected President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, Hunt was chief of political actions. An intelligence officer since the times of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), he had even been congratulated by Eisenhower for the 1954 operation. The Varona and Artime of that adventure were Colonels Carlos Castillo Armas and Miguel Ydígora himself. Hunt took Varona and Artime to meet President Ydígoras, who was known for his eccentricities, such as the much commented occasion when he decided to dance the Suisse before TV cameras.

Varona owed Ydígoras for having handed over Guatemalan territory for the training camps. Ydígoras owed Varona for having utilized the men of the future 2506 brigade to suppress a military uprising against his government a few months previously. But both of them were aware that they owed those favors to the CIA and, in order to back up U.S. interests, Hunt relayed back their meeting, which must have been delightful.

Varona affected his most pompous voice and tried to impress sincerity into his words in a rhetorical speech. But Ydígoras dictated a memo to his secretary while the former prime minister disguised as liberator was speaking. He had already played that role and knew it well. Afterwards, Hunt ironically wrote that it was proof of Ydígoras’ talent for doing two things at once. The future Watergate plumber made news in the 1970s for having directed the Nixon espionage operation against the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Washington, using the same individuals of Cuban origin involved in the invasion plans. In Retalhuleu, Varona had no alternative but to obey Hunt’s instructions and calm his friends down, although a number of them had already been behind bars in the Guatemalan jungle.

Those preferences for the Batista followers are still reflected, with more intense nuances, in Congress members of Cuban origin leading anti-Cuba conspiracies, headed in the last few years by Ileana Ros Lehtinen and the Díaz-Balart brothers, sons and nephews of high-ranking officials from the Batista regime, and closely linked to the dictator. •

(1) Arthur M. Schlesinger: Los mil días de Kennedy, (A Thousand Days: J. F. Kennedy in the White House), Ayma Sociedad Anónima, Barcelona, 1966, P. 179.

Havana. February 17 , 2011

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

The Culture of United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)

Brazil, Haiti and the MINUSTAH

By Jean H Charles:

I visited Brazil twenty years ago, as a globe trotter who cherished the joy of travelling, despite my trip to Brazil. I told my travel companion Eddy Harper at the end of our journey, one should not visit a country just because a plane can bring you there. I was warned before my departure that one should be very careful of your belongings, including your own ears or eyes.

They could be taken for sale as fresh organs. My bracelet that I held tightly in my hand to prevent its theft, was stolen anyway. The carnival in Rio, with a public relations machine well oiled all over the world, was for me a deception. It was a fine orchestrated exercise for the tourists (contrary to Trinidad and Tobago) with no personal participation.

I flew to Salvador de Bahia to taste the remnants of the black culture; I was not deceived. Yet my conclusion that one should not travel to a country just because a scheduled airline made the journey there was confirmed in Salvador. In the middle of the night walking around the colonial streets of the city, I was surprised to found the bustling business of the hour was the sale of coffins. An epidemic in the area was killing the citizens by the thousand.

Back in Rio, amidst the splendor of the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana, the squalor of the hills surrounding the city was threatening and menacing. The hypocrisy of the slogan: one nation, one people was mining the ethos of the society. A part of Pele, known all over the world for his skills in the sport of football/soccer, amidst the large black population one cannot find a single emerging black star in politics, the arts, science and education in Brazil.

The larger society was not in better shape, I remember my conversation with a young white teacher on the beach of Ipanema, doubling her life as a school teacher with one of a part time prostitute because her salary was not sufficient to provide a decent living.

Things have improved since in Brazil, with the advent of Ignacio Lula, who recognized social integration and upward mobility as a government policy.

Brazil was in an enviable position to help usher into Haiti a climate of hospitality for all, with the big brother holding the hands of the junior one. Passionate about soccer, the Haitian people have adopted Brazil as their idol nation. There were deaths of passion in Haiti following a football match between Argentina and Brazil. (That passion has been transmuted today onto Messi of Barcelona in Spain, revered as a demi-god.)

Brazil, with its size and its limitless resources, had hemispheric hegemonic ambition. Lula planned to use its leadership of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) in Haiti, to help his country obtain a seat on the Security Council. That goal has been a complete failure and disappointment. After the questioning suicide of the Brazilian general in Haiti, Brazil could not find another national to succeed at the helm of the mission. The Guatemalan, Edmund Mulet, whose arrogance equals only his excellent command of French, is decried on the walls of Port au Prince with the same intensity as Rene Preval, the despised Haitian president.

The MINUSTAH culture is one of make believe in most of the operations concerning its mission of stabilization of the country. A mammoth military operation in a nation at peace with itself is as out of place as an elephant moving around in a small living room.

Small countries like Nepal are competing and bidding against big ones like China to get the prime risk funding just for parading on the street of Port au Prince, forcing children to wake up at 5.00 am to reach their school destination on time amongst the crowded streets of Port au Prince.

The police as well as the military unit operates a vast cottage industry designed to provide employment to expatriates from forty nations, while providing absolutely no service or at least limited service that impacts the Haitian population in security, police, training and education and development.

The talk around the water cooler at the headquarters in Geneva or in New York is that a tour of duty in Haiti is a plum placement. You will find sun, sand, docile and attractive women, tasty food, strong and exotic culture during combat and prime risk duty while feigning to stabilize the country with words instead of action. An astute anthropologist or sociologist would have a field day studying Haiti at the age of its colonization by the United Nations.

As a detached or interested observer, I am watching the complete disintegration of Haitian society under the watch of the UN Mission of Stabilization. Starting with the women and the young people that represent the fragile segment of the nation, they exhibit coping mechanisms with pathological manifestations that will compromise the foreseeable future of the nation.

The aftermath of the earthquake and the cholera epidemic (brought by the UN into Haiti) should have been an incentive to rebuild a new Haiti hospitable to all, where the security of the environment, public health and public security would be the hallmark of the government.

Haiti is being instead quickly Africanized at its worst, with refugee camps in public places as well as on the golf courses. The indecency in public policy is being plotted, implemented, and applauded by most international institutions.

One hundred fifty years ago (1864) the Vatican stood up as the only entity to support a nation ostracized by the entire world for daring to stand up against the world order of slavery. Haiti needs today one friendly country in the world that would stand up to support with strategies, finance and technical assistance its growing opposition, thirsty for a complete break with the culture of squalor imposed upon the country during the last sixty years.

I have not seen nor heard one nation in the whole world that raises a finger to say that I am ready for the challenge!

February 19, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Much abuse in Barbados’ gay and lesbian communities

Much abuse in gay community
By Trevor Yearwood


THERE’S a lot of domestic violence in Barbados’ gay and lesbian communities.

Priest and psychologist Reverend Marcus Lashley made this charge last Wednesday night during a panel discussion at the Grand Salle, in the Tom Adams Financial Centre, Bridgetown.

Lashley said domestic violence was not limited to man/woman relationships.

“I can’t think of one case where they (partners) are equal in terms of power,” he told the meeting, organised by the Caribbean Gynaecological Endoscopic Services (CariGES).

“There is always a significant power differential and it is how that power differential is manifested that is of tremendous significance.

“There’s also a lot of violence because it is a close-knit community. It is, in essence, a minority community and therefore there is tremendous possession, tremendous jealousy, tremendous fear and that motivates a lot of the actions.”

The meeting discussed issues including domestic violence, how to become more attractive to your partner, male menopause and the prevalence of endometriosis.

The panellists included obstetrician/ gynaecologist Dr John George, women’s rights activist Nalita Gajadhar and mathematics teacher and youth leader, Corey Worrell.

Earlier, Gajadhar had said Barbadians may have some “fanciful notions” about violence and assigned roles in homosexual relations.

She was responding to a question from the audience on whether the “females” in such relationships faced abuse.

Dealing with the issue of how to become more attractive to your partner, Worrell told the gathering that it took more than financial and emotional security to keep a relationship going well.

He spoke of the need for partners to pray together and to be physically fit.

Worrell urged couples to do what was right and not what was popular, complaining that men were being encouraged to have several spouses.

“A lot of people’s lives get messed up because of a penis and a vagina,” he said.

February 18, 2011 - 12:02 AM

nationnews

Bahamas Blog International

Education is taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken in the Caribbean

Education: Equal opportunity provider or Kentucky Fried oriented?
By Oliver Mills


In our Caribbean society, commentaries and reports on educational issues seem to constantly appear in our various daily papers, sometimes competing with politics. Recently in one country, there was a commentary on the way a particular ministry of education was treating high school principals. In another, there was the issue of the importance of technical and vocational education being offered more broadly in high schools. Yet in another, there was a discussion about the inadequate performance of students in the grade achievement test leading to entry in various high schools.

All of these episodes point more starkly to the real role education should play in equipping individuals with knowledge and competencies to enable them to play a positive role in the development of their societies. But in undertaking this role, the important question can be posed. Is education an equal opportunity provider, or is it Kentucky Fried oriented? The latter description will be explained later.

In connection with the question of the role of education, a recent article published in the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, the writer states that education is charged with the task of equalising and expanding the opportunities of individuals in terms of the jobs they might have access to, and the material resources they can hope to enjoy, and their role as citizens. Does education really perform this function?

At one level it could be said that education does perform the above mentioned function. In the majority of instances, in the Caribbean, education fosters social mobility, in terms of widening the middle class because of the skills and competencies it equips those benefitting from it with.

It further opens opportunities and equalises the social structure since through it the educated person gains access to the higher echelons of society, where critical decisions are made. Education also enables many to enter the professions, politics, and to do serious research, which results in an enhancement of the lives of Caribbean people.

The educated person therefore gains access to greater material and financial resources, which he or she would be denied otherwise. Furthermore, education results in committed citizens with positive values who contribute to the welfare of their societies, and promote moral and ethical values that create trustworthiness among members of the society at large.

But is it as straightforward as it is presented here? There are some of us who seriously question whether education performs the tasks it is alleged it does. Many others think that some educated persons neither think nor act as if they have been exposed to education. And even if this is not the case, their dispositions and performance appraisal do not reflect the capabilities education should have provided.

Why is it, for example in the Caribbean, that many of our countries still experience unsatisfactory economic growth and development, even though we have various types and levels of educational institutions, which almost make education an industry, and an appreciable number of graduates from these institutions. Why can’t they get our institutions and industries to perform more efficiently? Is not this what education is all about? Why is it that skills and knowledge do not seem to match productivity in the Caribbean?

It is precisely because of these factors that some Caribbean observers are saying that although education is an opportunity provider in some sense, the opportunities do not reflect the necessary results expected both for the individual and for society. They also say in a most frightening way, that what we really have in the Caribbean is education taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken. More clearly, that it is Kentucky Fried oriented. This means that those exposed to education swallow it, barely digest it, and then through the exits it goes. It does not ever become an integral part of the individual and his being so that his or her behaviour could be transformed for the better.

In a wider sense, education, seen as being Kentucky Fried oriented, means that the ingredients of education, prepared by the lecturer, which include knowledge and skills, are fed to students in the classroom. The students ingest it, without giving the time and concentration to really savour it. They therefore swallow it, without understanding what they have been exposed to, and without giving the necessary attention to chewing it, so that it is experienced in a deep way. They then barely digest it, so that it does not become a part of their understanding. It is then expunged, without having any significant impact on the individual or the environment.

This is why many persons in their critique of education feel that some educated persons do not act as if they have been exposed to knowledge at a high level, which should make a difference for them, and to them. They do not see the education received by some individuals as related or connected to new behaviours, or contributing to national development. It is therefore of the Kentucky Fried variety, where it is swallowed, barely digested, and then goes the way of the exit.

Many students often complain also, that whenever they attend lectures, they are not given the opportunity to question, or come up with a different perspective or interpretation of what the lecturer gives. They fear that if they do, they would be penalised by being given an unsatisfactory grade. They therefore reproduce in their essays and exams what the lecturer gave them in class. Students therefore, in order to get a grade that will enable them to get a good degree, or which would put them on the path to apply for higher studies, go along with what is given to them. The more you can accurately give the lecturer’s viewpoint, the higher the grade you get. There is no alternative view, no questioning, no quoting of additional sources, because what the lecturer says is almost sacred, hence the Kentucky Fried orientation of education.

This strategy is also responsible for the fact that when students graduate and are on the job, they find it difficult to think innovatively. Even here, they fear that their manager at the workplace would penalise them, if they seem too bright, and they may even be accused of not fitting in with the team. This is because the manager has himself, or herself received the same kind of Kentucky Fried education as the employee. The vicious circle therefore continues.

This Kentucky Fried way of doing things also applies to politics. The political party has a certain line, given by either its leader, or an executive group. If there is any questioning of the ideology, a member could either be disciplined or expelled, for not being part of the dominant value system, which follows the Kentucky Fried method of doing things.

Since the Kentucky Fried strategy discourages independent thinking, it is prone to mistakes in judgment and in the implementation of policies, because other voices are censored, and only the voice of the dominant ideology is allowed.

This means that even in a general sense, if Caribbean countries undertake basically the same education project aimed at transforming their systems, it would not achieve its objectives, since it would be riddled with defects that could have been exposed had there been a fair dialogue concerning consequences and other possible paradigms for consideration. The Kentucky Fried phenomenon in education therefore hinders critical thinking, discourages alternatives, and freezes the education process. Mistakes and bad strategies therefore persist.

Education also, as an opportunity provider, if in fact this is really the case, can be seen as a contradiction. The question is opportunity provider for whom? What sector of society? Is it the sector that has always dominated decision making and co-opted others, in order to maintain its power and influence? Is education then the equal opportunity provider for the selected few, and not for the many? Despite the expansion of educational opportunities in the Caribbean, is it not the case that the top positions are held by the ‘old boys network’? And that in terms of gender equality, are not male managers more prevalent and dominant than female managers? This is despite the fact that females may be greater in numbers, but the male manager or leader possesses the resources and social capital which enable them to maintain their professional grip on the system. Where then is the equal opportunity?

From the arguments above, it could therefore be said that education, in the strict theoretical sense, is an equal opportunity provider, but not in its practical, everyday operation. Here, complexities and contradictions abound. What is most clear, however, is that the Kentucky Fried model dominates, controls, and shapes the educational process. This is because, despite the fact that education is meant to liberate and encourage critical thinking, there is a dominant philosophy which inhibits this.

This philosophy also promotes a situation throughout the Caribbean, where the Kentucky Fried paradigm operates by preparing knowledge with certain ingredients, feeding it to its clients, who then swallow it, barely digest it, and it then percolates through a predetermined exit, which neither benefits the individual nor society in any way that is significant, or positive.

February 17, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Why It's Not a 'Safe Bet' to Believe In God

AlterNet / By Greta Christina

The idea that you should believe in God "just in case" trivializes both faith and reality, and concedes your argument before it's begun.

"Why not believe in God? If you believe and you turn out to be wrong, you haven't lost anything. But if you don't believe and you turn out to be wrong, you lose everything. Isn't believing the safer bet?"

In debates about religion, this argument keeps coming up. Over, and over, and over again. In almost any debate about religion, if the debate lasts long enough, someone is almost guaranteed to bring it up. The argument even has a name: Pascal's Wager, after Blaise Pascal, the philosopher who most famously formulated it.

And it makes atheists want to tear our hair out.

Not because it's a great argument... but because it's such a manifestly lousy one. It doesn't make logical sense. It doesn't make practical sense. It trivializes the whole idea of both belief and non-belief. It trivializes reality. In fact, it concedes the argument before it's even begun. Demolishing Pascal's Wager is like shooting fish in a barrel. Unusually slow fish, in a tiny, tiny barrel. I almost feel guilty writing an entire piece about it. It's such low-hanging fruit.

But alas, it's a ridiculously common argument. In fact, it's one of the most common arguments made in favor of religion. So today, I'm going to take a deep breath, and put on a hat so I don't tear my hair out, and spend a little time annihilating it.

Which God? The first and most obvious problem with Pascal's Wager? It assumes there's only one religion, and only one version of God.

Pascal's Wager assumes the choice between religion and atheism is simple. You pick either religion, or no religion. Belief in God, or no belief in God. One, or the other.

But as anyone knows who's read even a little history -- or who's turned on a TV in the last 10 years -- there are hundreds upon hundreds of different religions, and different gods these religions believe in. Thousands, if you count all the little sub-sects separately. Tens of thousands or more, if you count every religion throughout history that anyone's ever believed in. Even among today's Big Five, there are hundreds of variations: sects of Christianity, for instance, include Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, United Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, etc. etc. etc. And sub-sects of these sects include Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Mormonism (mainstream LDS version), Mormonism (cultish polygamous version), Mormonism (repulsive infant-torturing version), Church of England, American Episcopalian, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod....

How do you know which one to wager on?

The differences between these gods and religions aren't trivial. If you obey the rules of one, you're guaranteed to be violating the rules of another. If you worship Jesus, and Islam turns out to right -- you're screwed. If you worship Allah, and Judaism turns out to be right -- you're screwed. If you worship Jehovah, and Jainism turns out to be right -- you're screwed. Even if you get the broad strokes right, you could be getting the finer points wrong. And in many religions, the finer points matter a lot. Taking Communion or not taking Communion? Baptizing at birth or at the age of reason? Ordaining women as priests or not? Any of these could get you sent straight to hell. No matter if you're Catholic, or Baptist, or Mormon, or Anglican, or whatever... there are a whole bunch of other Christians out there who are absolutely convinced that you've gotten Christianity totally wrong, and that you're just pissing God off more and more every day.

So how on Earth is religion a safer bet?

You're just as likely to be angering God with your belief as atheists are with our lack of it.

To many believers, the answer to the "Which god?" question seems obvious. It's their god, of course. Like, duh. But to someone who doesn't believe -- to someone being presented with Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe -- the answer to "Which god?" is anything but obvious. To someone who doesn't believe, the question is both baffling and crucial. And without some decent evidence supporting one god hypothesis over another, the "Which god?" question renders Pascal's Wager utterly useless.

Unless you have some actual good evidence that your particular religion is the right one and all the others are wrong, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheist's bet on no God.

And if you had some good evidence that your religion was right, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.

Does God even care? Pascal's Wager doesn't just assume there's only one god and one religion. It assumes that God cares whether you believe in him. It assumes that God will reward belief with a heavenly eternal afterlife... and punish disbelief with a hellish one.

But why should we assume that?

According to many religions -- the more progressive ecumenical ones leap to mind -- God doesn't care whether we worship him in exactly the right way. Or indeed whether we worship him at all. In these religions, as long as we treat each other well, according to our best understanding of right and wrong, God will be happy with us, and reward us in the afterlife. These believers are totally fine with atheists -- well, as long as we keep our mouths shut and don't disturb anyone with our annoying arguments -- and they certainly don't think we're going to burn in hell.

In fact, according to many of these progressive religionists, God has more respect for sincere atheists who fearlessly proclaim their non-belief than he does for insincere "believers" who pretend to have faith because it's easier and safer and they don't want to rock the boat. According to these progressives, honest atheism is actually the safer bet. The weaselly hypocrisy of Pascal's Wager is more likely to get up God's nose.

So even if you think the god hypothesis is plausible and coherent... why would it automatically follow that belief in said god is an essential part of this afterlife insurance you're supposedly buying with your "safer bet"?

In fact, I've seen (and written about) an atheist version of Pascal's Wager that takes this conundrum into account. In the Atheist's Wager, you might as well just be as good a person as you can in this life, and not worry about God or the afterlife. If (a) God is good, he won't care if you believe in him, as long as you were the best person you could be. If (b) God is a capricious, egoistic, insecure jackass whose lessons on how to act are so unclear we're still fighting about them after thousands of years... then we have no way of knowing what behavior he's going to punish or reward, and we might as well just be good according to our own understanding. And if (c) there is no god, then it's worth being good for its own sake: because we have compassion for other people, and because being good makes our world a better place, for ourselves and everyone else.

Now, to be perfectly clear: I don't, in fact, think the Atheist's Wager is a good argument for atheism. I think the best arguments for atheism are based, not on what kind of behavior is a safer bet for a better afterlife, but on whether religion is, you know, true. The Atheist's Wager is funny, and it makes some valid points... but it's not a sensible argument for why we shouldn't believe in God.

But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Pascal's Wager.

Unless you have some good evidence that God cares about our religious belief, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.

And if you had some good evidence that God cares about our religious belief, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.

Is God that easily fooled? And speaking of whether God cares about our religion: If God does care whether we believe in him... do you really think he's going to be fooled by this sort of bet-hedging?

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that God is real. And for the moment, let's also pretend that God cares whether we believe in him. Let's pretend, in fact, that he cares so much about whether we believe in him that, when he's deciding what kind of afterlife we're going to spend eternity in, this belief or lack thereof is the make-or-break factor.

Is God going to be fooled by Pascal's Wager?

When you're lining up at the gates to the afterlife and God is looking deep into your soul -- and when he sees that your belief consisted of, "Hey, why not believe, it's not like I've got anything to lose, and I've got a whole afterlife of good times to gain, so sure, I 'believe' in God, wink wink" -- do you really think God's going to be impressed? Do you really think he's going to say, "Oo, that's sly, that's some ingenious dodging of the question you got there, we just love a slippery weasel here in Heaven, come on in"? Is he going to be flattered by being seen, not as the creator of all existence who breathed life into you and everyone you loved, but as the "safer bet"?

I don't believe in God. Obviously. I think the god hypothesis is implausible at best, incoherent at worst. But of all the implausible, incoherent gods I've seen hypothesized, the one who punishes honest atheists who take the question of his existence seriously enough to reject it when they don't see it supported, and at the same time rewards insincere, bet-hedging religionists who profess belief as part of a self-centered attempt to hit the jackpot at the end of their life... that is easily among the battiest.

Unless you have some actual good evidence that God (a) exists, (b) cares passionately about our religious belief, and yet (c) is dumb enough to be fooled by Pascal's Wager, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.

And if you had some good evidence for any of this, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.

All of which brings me to:

Does this even count as "belief"? This is one of the things that drives me most nuts about Pascal's Wager. Whenever anyone proposes it, I want to just tear my hair out and yell, "Do you really not care whether the things you believe are true?"

Believers who propose Pascal's Wager apparently think that you can just choose what to believe, as easily as you choose what pair of shoes to buy. They seem to think that "believing" means "professing an allegiance to an opinion, regardless of whether you think it's true." And I am both infuriated and baffled by this notion. I literally have no idea what it means to "believe" something based entirely on what would be most convenient, without any concern for whether it's actually true. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word "believe." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Unless you have a good argument for why insincere, bet-hedging "belief" qualifies as actual belief, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.

And if you had a good argument for this insincere version of "belief," you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.

Is the cost of belief really nothing? And, of course, we have one of the core foundational premises of Pascal's Wager. It doesn't just assume that the rewards of belief are infinite. It assumes that the costs of belief are non-existent.

And that is just flatly not true.

Let's take an example. Let's say that I tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reward you with strippers and beer in heaven when you die -- and to receive this reward, you simply have to say the words, "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendage," one time and one time only. You might think I was off my rocker. Okay, you'd almost certainly think I was off my rocker. But because the sacrifice of time and energy would be so tiny, you might, for the sake of hedging your bets, go ahead and say the words. (For the entertainment value, if nothing else.)

But if I tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reward you with strippers and beer in heaven when you die -- and that to receive this reward, you have to send me a box of Godiva truffles every Saturday, get a full-color image of the Monster tattooed on the back of your right hand, be unfailingly rude to anyone who comes from Detroit, and say the words "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendage" every hour on the hour for the rest of your life... it's very, very unlikely that you're going to comply. You're going to think I'm off my rocker -- and you're going to ignore my pleading request to save your eternal soul from a beerless, stripper-less eternity. You're going to think that following the sacred customs of the FSM faith would be a ridiculous waste of time, energy, and resources. You're definitely not going to think that it's a safer bet.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Most religions don't simply require you to believe that God exists. They require you to make sacrifices, and adhere to rules. Not just the ordinary ones needed to be a moral/ successful/ happy person in everyday life, either. Religions typically require significant sacrifices, and obedience to strict rules, that can seriously interfere with happiness, success, even morality. Religions require people to donate money; participate in rituals; spend time in houses of worship; follow rules about what to eat, what to wear, what drugs to avoid, who to have sex with and how. Religions require people to cut off their foreskins. Cut off their clitorises. Cut off ties with their gay children. Dress modestly. Suppress their sexuality. Reject evolution. Reject blood transfusions. (For themselves, and their children.) Refuse to consider interfaith marriage. Refuse to consider interfaith friendship. Memorize a long stretch of religious text and recite it in public at age thirteen. Spend their weekends knocking on strangers' doors, pestering them to join the faith. Donate money to fix the church roof. Donate money to send bibles to Nicaragua. Donate money so the preacher can buy a Cadillac. Have as many children as they physically can. Disown their children if they leave the faith. Obey their husbands without question. Not eat pork. Not get tattoos. Get up early to sit in church once a week, on one of only two days a week they have off. Cover their bodies from head to toe. Treat people as unclean who were born into different castes. Treat women as sinners if they have sex outside marriage. Beat or kill their wives and daughters if they have sex outside marriage. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Religion typically requires sacrifice.

And this simple fact, all by itself, completely demolishes the foundational assumption of Pascal's wager.

The assumption of Pascal's Wager is that any other wager is a sucker's bet. Pascal's Wager doesn't just assume that the payoff for winning the bet is infinite bliss, or that the cost of losing is infinite suffering. It assumes that the stakes for the bet are zero.

But the stakes are not zero.

It's even been argued -- correctly, I think -- that the sacrifices religion requires are an essential part of what keep it going. (Think of fraternity hazing. Once you've sacrificed and suffered for a belief or project or group affiliation, you're more likely to stick with it... to convince yourself that the sacrifice was worth it. That's how the rationalizing human mind works.)

And if religion requires sacrifice... then Pascal's Wager collapses. A bet with an infinite payoff and zero stakes? Sure, that's an obvious bet. But a bet with infinite payoff and real stakes? That's a lot less obvious. Especially when there are, as I said before, thousands of competing bets, all with contradictory demands for the specific stakes you're supposed to place. And double especially when there's no good evidence that any one of these competing bets is more likely to pay off than any other... or that any of them at all have any plausible chance whatsoever of paying off. Again: If you wouldn't bet on my Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, with its entirely reasonable demands for chocolate and tattoos and hourly prayer and fanatical Detroit-phobia... then why on Earth are you betting on your own religion?

If this short life is the only one we have, then contorting our lives into narrow and arbitrary restrictions, and following rules that grotesquely distort our moral compass, and giving things up that are harmless and ethical and could make ourselves and others profoundly happy, all for no good reason... that's the sucker bet.

Besides... even if none of this were true? Even if belief in God required absolutely no sacrifice in any practical matters? No rules, no rituals, no circumcision, no sexual guilt, no execution of adulterers, no gay children shamed and abandoned, no dead children who would have lived if they'd gotten blood transfusions, no money in the collection plate? Nothing except belief?

It would still have costs.

And those costs would be significant.

The idea of religious faith? The idea that it makes sense to believe in invisible beings, undetectable forces, events that happen after we die? The idea that it makes sense to believe in a hypothesis that's either entirely untestable... or that's been tested thousands of times and consistently been proven wrong? The idea that we can rely entirely on our personal intuition to tell us what is and isn't true about the world... and ignore hard evidence that contradicts that intuition? The idea that it's not only acceptable, but a positive good, to believe in things for which you have not one single shred of good evidence?

This idea has costs. This idea undermines our critical thinking skills. It closes our minds to new ideas. It bolsters our prejudices and preconceptions. It leaves us vulnerable to bad ideas. It leaves us vulnerable to frauds and charlatans. It leaves us vulnerable to manipulative political leaders. It leads us to devalue evidence and reason. It leads us to trivialize reality.

So all by itself, even without any obvious sacrifices of time or money or restricted lifestyle or screwed-up ethical choices, religious faith shapes the way we live our lives. And it does so in a way that can do a tremendous amount of harm.

Unless you have some actual good evidence that the sacrifice of time/ money/ happiness/ goodness/ etc. required by religion -- and the sacrifice of healthy skepticism and critical thinking and passion for truth -- will actually pay off with the reward of a blissful eternal afterlife, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.

And if you had some good evidence that God exists, and that these sacrifices had a good chance of paying off, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.

Conceding Your Argument Before You've Even Started It. If you take nothing else from this piece, take this:

The moment you propose Pascal's Wager is the moment you've conceded the argument.

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for why God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager is, in fact, 100% disconnected from the question of whether God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager offers no evidence for God's existence -- not even the shaky "evidence" of the appearance of design or the supposed fine-tuning of the universe or the feelings in your heart. It offers no logical argument for why God must exist or probably exists -- not even the paper-thin "logic" of the First Cause argument. It does not offer one scrap of a positive reason for thinking that God is real.

Pascal's Wager is misdirection. Distraction. It's a way of drawing attention away from how crummy the arguments for God actually are. It's an evasion: a slippery, dodgy, wanna-be clever trick to avoid the actual argument. It's a way of making the debater feel wily and ingenious, while ignoring the actual question on the table.

It isn't an argument. It's an excuse for why you don't have an argument. And it's a completely pathetic excuse.

If you're relying on Pascal's Wager for your faith, you might as well believe in unicorns or elves, Zoroaster or Zeus, the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage or the Flying Spaghetti Monster who brought the world into being through his blessed noodley appendage. Pascal's Wager is every bit as good an argument for these beliefs as it is for any religion that people currently believe in.

If you had a better argument for God, you'd be making it. You'd be offering some good evidence for why God exists; some logical explanation for why God has to exist. You wouldn't be resorting to this lazy, slippery, bet-hedging, shot-full-of-holes excuse for why you don't have to actually think about the question.

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument.

It's an admission that you've got nothing.

Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.

February 14, 2011

alternet

Bahamas Blog International

What Wikileaks Teaches Us About Obama and Latin America

By Rebecca Ray - Common Dreams

President Obama has given little indication of the strategy for his upcoming trip through Chile, Brazil, and El Salvador. Will "the great listener" promote cooperation and understanding, or carry on the Bush administration’s approach of fighting against regional alliances?

Words of Wisdom from Past Leaders

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that last year Chilean President Bacheleturged the Obama administration to avoid separating South American nations into ideological pigeonholes:

President Bachelet emphasized the need to understand the nuances of Latin America’s leaders and their countries rather than lumping them into populist and pro-western camps … emphasizing that Morales was very different from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

In prior years, Brazil has urged the US to establish direct dialogue with administrations that have clashed with the US.  In a 2009 visit:

…both [Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor] Garcia and [Foreign Minister] Amorim used the opportunity to encourage the United States to establish 'a direct channel of communication with President Chavez.' Amorim suggested that a good USG-GOV dialogue would have an impact on the domestic situation in Venezuela, as well, because much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States.

And in a 2008 visit Brazil went so far as to offer help in establishing dialogue:

Garcia suggested that, "Maybe it is time (for the United States) to have a frank discussion with Bolivia" … Without wishing to be a mediator, he said, Brazil is willing to help in whatever it can, recalling a similar commitment he made to A/S Shannon two years earlier.

A Legacy of Division

If Obama takes either of these leaders' advice to heart, it will be a dramatic shift from the past.  The Wikileaks cables show us a detailed history of the Bush administration weakening cooperation between Latin American countries.  Not surprisingly, much of these efforts have been focused on separating Venezuela from its regional allies, but they also involved Brazil and Bolivia.

In a 2007 cable entitled "A Southern Cone Perspective on Countering Chavez and Reasserting U.S. Leadership," Santiago embassy staff develop a 6-point strategy to weaken Venezuela’s regional alliances:

1. "Know thy Enemy" (information sharing)
2. "Directly Engage" (more high-level US visits to other Latin American countries)
3. "Change the Political Landscape" (boosting Argentina’s and Brazil’s influence as counterweights)
4. "Play to Our Mil-Mil Advantage" (South American military training and peacekeeping operations)
5. "Stress Our Winning Formula" (aid and corporate social responsibility)
6. "Getting the Message Out" (public diplomacy)

An earlier cable from 2006 shows the US pushing for Brazil to work against Venezuela’s relationships with other countries:

Ambassador reiterated that the USG hopes more engagement by Brazil will serve to counterbalance Chavez' pernicious influence.

But the cables also focused on separating Brazil from the rest of the region.  In 2006, this entailed nipping in the bud a relationship between Lula and then-presidential candidate Evo Morales, as well as other leftist governments.  Embassy staff advised Ambassador Shannon:

… you can focus on the GOB’s outlook for what a Morales presidency means for regional integration, political stability and law enforcement. In particular, you can stress with all interlocutors our concerns about a possible dramatic expansion in cocaine production and export. … it will be interesting to press Garcia for explanations of statements by Lula last year that appeared to welcome Morales’ looming “populist” victory, and of how the GOB sees itself now in relation to the "Axis of Evo" (Morales, Chavez, Castro).

This strategy of division was far from successful for Bush. In spite of the Bush administrations' efforts, Brazil and Venezuela kept their alliance intact.

In 2005:

[Ambassador Danilovich] asked that FM Amorim consider institutionalizing a more intensive political engagement between the USG and GOB on Chavez, and standing up a dedicated intelligence-sharing arrangement. FM Amorim was clear in his response: "We do not see Chavez as a threat."

And later, in 2008:

Ministry of External Relations (MRE) contacts refuse to admit to us even in private that they are worried about Venezuelan interference in other countries.

And Brazilian diplomats insisted that they would continue their policy of cooperation, as Lula is a man who "believes deeply in South American unity."

In 2008:

…the USG encourages the GOB to assume greater leadership responsibilities, but the GOB is reluctant to take the controversial stances that go with leadership. Diaz replied that Brazil cannot assume leadership alone in the region, it must have partners, which would naturally be Argentina and Colombia, just as Germany and France are essential to each other in Europe. As a result, Brazil must continue to act in harmony with them and other regional players.

Has Obama Brought Change?

So far, the Obama State Department seems to have continued on the same path.

In 2009, several years after the US denied the intellectual property transfer necessary for Brazil to sell military aircraft to Venezuela, Brazilian diplomats explained to their US counterparts that it would be inconvenient if something similar blocked their sale to Bolivia.

If Bolivia wants Super Tucanos, Lula needs to be able to sell them. Brazil can’t afford the type of embarrassment caused by not being able to sell Super Tucanos to Venezuela.

The status quo appears to be continuing with isolating Venezuela, as well. For example, during the Venezuela-Colombia tensions of 2010 it chose a side rather than choosing to help ensure peace. While Brazil worked on de-escalating the conflict, the Obama administration reacted by agreeing to share intelligence with Colombia on any troop movements within Venezuela.

They did this even though they recognized Colombia’s concern about Venezuela to be "almost neuralgic." Moreover, they knew that Colombia had intentionally provoked Venezuela into the 2008 border dispute, and that Uribe held that the best reaction to any escalation in tension with Venezuela was "action – including use of the military."

Rebecca Ray is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net).

February 14th 2011

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Should heads of government continue to hand down leadership to their children?

by Oscar Ramjeet



The three-week demonstration and protests in Egypt that claimed the lives of hundreds was due to the fact that President Mubarak wanted to hold on to power in order to pass on his "throne" to his son, Gamal.

However, the demonstrators held their ground, which forced him to resign, but it cost the Egyptian people a lot -- hundreds of lives, pain and suffering and billions of dollars in damage.

It is not unusual for heads of government to hand down leadership to their sons or even daughters, but when it comes to bloodshed it is an entirely different matter. We have seen it in India in the late 1950s and 1960s when Jawaharalall Nerhu passed down to his daughter Indira Gandhi and she subsequently to her son Sanjeev. It was similar in Pakistan when President Bhutto handed over to his daughter Bonazir Bhuttoo, who was also assassinated, and she passed power on to her 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto.

In North Korea, young Yang Hyong Sop, known as Kim Jong Un, has been identified to replace his father Kim Jong II, who succeeded his father Kim Sung II, who was the first leader of the country way back in 1948.

In Kenya, East Africa, 41-year-old Uhuru Kenyatta has been handpicked by outgoing President Daniel Arap Moi to replace him because Uhuru, who has no political experience, is the son of his mentor, Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's first leader, who Moi succeeded in 1978.

Here in the Caribbean it is not too different. In Jamaica, we saw Norman Manley pass over the mantle to his son Michael. Vere C. Bird in Antigua and Barbuda to his son Lester. In Barbados, Grantley Adams to his son Tom, not to mention in Haiti, dictator Papa Doc, despite the fact that he raped the country of hundreds of millions, he "gave" the country to Baby Doc for him to continue to fleece the nation.

In Guyana, Forbes Burnham had five daughters and they were not interested in politics or else he would have placed one of them in a position to take over, but in any event he died at a relatively young of 62. Cheddi Jagan had a son, but he did not see eye to eye with his father and he was not "under his father's fold", hence his widow Janet took over, although she was a white American-born woman.

In St Vincent and the Grenadines, James Mitchell, who served three and half terms as prime minister did not have a son, and it is said that he changed the country's flag and removed the coat of arm and the breadfruit leaf, and replaced it with three green diamonds, which he said reflected the plural nature of the many islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

His critics however say that the three diamonds represented his three daughters. He had only three daughters at the time of the flag change on October 21, 1985.

Apparently his daughters were not interested in politics -- at least at that time -- so he handed over leadership of his New Democratic Party to Arnhim Eustace, who lost the government five months later. Now persons close to Sir James said he regretted the move, but nevertheless campaigned for him and New Democratic Party at the last general elections, when he made a very unfortunate statement that he cannot even trust God, which some critics say costs the NDP a lot of votes and maybe the government.

Now it is said that current St Vincent prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves, wants to hand over the mantle to his son, 38-year-old Camillo , a lawyer, who is now his country's permanent representative to the United Nations and US Ambassador based in New York.

I do not see a problem with that because I was told that Camillo, who is brown skinned, is competent enough to take over. In fact, he is much better than nearly all if not all the ministers in government.

Perhaps I should mention that Ambassador Gonsalves has made a name for himself in Washington. He was chosen as co-facilitator with Ambassador Frank Majoor of the Netherlands as facilitators for the preparatory process of the UN Conference of World Financial and Economic Crisis Impact.

He was in the forefront of making demands for more representation in the Security Council for Small Islands Developing State, which in my view is extremely good for a young diplomat.

I do not like to discuss race, especially in politics, but I mentioned that Camillo is brown skinned because the race card was touted in the November general elections, when it was said that the country, which comprises mainly blacks, has been run and administered by "red men" -- Mitchell and Gonsalves -- for more than 26 years. In the circumstances I feel that young Camillo will be the ideal person to replace his father and to administer the affairs of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

February 14, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International