Venceremos

I am happy for everything he accomplished in life. What I will most miss about him are his colorful speeches. He was a brilliant speaker who could deliver a two hour speech without even glancing at notes. As an American I was fascinated to see a Latin American leader speak about the empire and the history of Latin America. He spoke in an illuminating manner about issues which American media outlets rarely discussed.

Contrary to how he may be depicted in the vast majority of the American media outlets, Hugo Chavez was not anti-American. One of the most quotable things he ever said was, "The U.S. is a great country, and it will always be a great country, but there will come a day when it will no longer be an empire, and the driving force of a hegemonic project. "

To refer to Latin American leaders such as Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa who assert their countries' soveriegnty as anti-American is like referring to black people who assert their civil rights as anti-white.

Among his accomplishments was to assert Venezuelan control over Venezuelan oil resources, an important achievement for any country, to control its own resources. He also diversified the client base for Venezuelan oil. Apart from this, unlike his American detractors who are obsessed with perpetuating their radical oil dependence, he was aware that an oil rich country cannot transform itself without diversifying its economy. He invested in education and provided free healthcare to all of Venezuela's citizens. He also made a commitment to achieving nutritional self-sufficiency within his country.

Yet, perhaps his greatest accomplishment is not any of the foregoing, but the fact that like other men who came before him such as Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, King, X, Cesar Chavez, etc., he changed the consciousness of the world he lived in. He demonstrated that it is possible to create revolution and challenge the Anglo-Saxon hegemonists of the North American continent.

Do The Harlem Shake...Con Los Terroristas!

This is a compilation video which traces the evolution of the meme and features some of the best Harlem Shake videos. This meme has become an immense viral phenomenon, with some people loving it, some people hating it, and many others left bewildered.

Perhaps several lines from the Herman Hesse novel, Steppenwolf, can help explain the appeal of what appears to be a collective catharsis or a trance in which the music takes over the mind and the body and everybody joins together in uninhibited expression and lets go. Hesse wrote about "the intoxication of a general festivity, the mysterious merging of the personality in the mass, the mystic union of joy," as well as, "I myself breathed the sweet intoxication of a common dream and of music and rhythm."

For me, the most astonishing aspect of the viral phenomenon is the phrase which is blurted out in a high pitched voice at the very outset of the song and repeated within the first thirty seconds, "Con los terroristas!" As well as the fact that while there has been much discussion about the Harlem Shake phenomenon, very little of it has been about this phrase or its meaning. Among the most prominent search results regarding this meme, Know Your Meme, The Huffington Post, and CBS news don't even mention it. The Fader has a very brief discussion regarding it, but does not discuss its meaning. Baauer is apparently not discussing it either.

Is the monolingualism of Americans so bad that dozens of millions of people have viewed these videos, and thousands have particpated in the making of them, including universities, large companies such as Pepsi, media organizations such as Facebook, Anderson Live, The Jimmy Fallon Show, as well as the army, navy, and marines, without realizing the meaning of the expression, "Con los terroristas?"

Is it not highly ironic that American military personnel who are engaged in a "war on terrorism" are frolicking about with wild abandon to a song which prominently features the expression, "Con los terroristas?" Does it not contradict their stated objective of combatting terrorism and undermine the image of the armed forces which top military commanders, including the President himself, would like to project?

Is it not ironic that media outlets who sold Americans on the logic of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as a means to combat and prevent terrorism completely overlook this phrase in their discussions of the meme?

Out of the hundreds of thousands of words in the Spanish language, and millions of words in other languages, Baauer chose to use a sample which when translated to English means, "With the terrorists!" To further consider how subversive the use of this sample is, imagine a club full of people who when this song comes on, cheer and chant the phrase, "Con los terroristas!" then proceed to dance their brains and asses off. Or a free outdoor festival which features djs in which this song gets played, and a chorus of thousands of people bellows out, "Con los terroristas!" after which the crowd goes crazy.

While Americans may be limited by their monolingualism, the rest of the world is less so. Millions of Americans may not know what the meaning of the phrase is, but people throughout the rest of the world may find themselves reveling in a symbolic yet conscious act of subversion and defiance against the policies of the United States, and its President, who for many is barely distinguishable from the terrorists which he claims to be combatting and freeing the world of, due to his authorization of drone strikes which kill innocent civilians including women, children, and first responders who were merely assisting victims of the initial strike.

Some people may suggest that the words are meaningless. Yet a google search for "Which artist did Baauer sample on the Harlem Shake," demonstrates that people in fact attribute a lot of importance to words. The search turns up numerous discussions and links regarding the line, "Do the Harlem Shake, " attributed to Jayson Musson, which is delivered in a low, nearly imperceptible tone, whereas the line, "Con los terroristas" is high pitched and nearly impossible to miss. Some of these discussions go so far as to suggest that the Baauer song is about graffitti or that Jayson Musson himself, is the reason why people are dancing to The Harlem Shake.

I believe in, and have observed on occassion, the subconscious expression of sexual desire, and similarly believe in the subconscious expression of rebellion. I find it an intriguing possibility that the Harlem Shake viral phenomenon is a manifestation of a massive subconscious rebellion against the so called war on terrorism as articulated, constructed, and executed by the American government, which has led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, trilliions of dollars, and have led the American government to legally justify physical torture and the extrajudicial execution of American citizens.

In an article titled, The Massacre of the Afghan 17 and the Obama Cover-Up, whose topic was selected as the 23rd most censored story by Project Censored for 2012, author James Petras discusses the implausibility of the official U.S. government story that a single deranged gunmen, Robert Bales, acted alone in the massacre of 17 Afghan villagers in Kandahar province on March 11, 2012, and the possibility that Barack Obama has conspired with the US military command to cover up the facts and hide the true nature of the war in Afghanistan.

Regarding the American troops, Petras writes, "They are engaged in a long, losing war where every dead US soldier is accompanied by scores who are maimed, blinded and mentally traumatized. In Obama's war, the wounded are patched up and recycled back into the same meat grinder in an increasingly hostile environment."

As to Obama's motivations for participating in the cover-up, Petras writes, "Obama has to conspire with the Pentagon in covering up this mass murder, defending the officers in charge of these 'pacified' villages, because there are no alternatives, no back-ups, no new recruits eager to engage in the 12th year of war in Afghanistan.There are only the re-cycled killers, willing to pursue their career in 'Special Forces' involving 'kill and destroy' operations...President Obama cannot allow an entire garrison, including their commanding officer to be put on trial for the war crimes in this massacre. Holding anyone, besides the hapless Sgt. Bales accountable for the massacre would incite a general rebellion within the armed forces."

Petras ends the article by writing, "Clearly prolonged colonial wars cannot be sustained through the consent of the citizens and such wars cannot be prosecuted according to military manuals and the Geneva Conventions. At this point, only Presidential 'rule by decree' can secure compliance of the citizens at home and only massacres and cover-ups can sustain the colonial occupations abroad. But these are desperate and temporary: When the extreme measures have run their course there will be nothing to fall back on and nothing can save the president of a collapsing empire from the revolt of its citizens and soldiers."

Since September 11th, 2001, I have been of the conviction that war as a response to terrorism is illogical and unjustifiable. It is a point of view that is rarely expressed in traditional media outlets. I believe it is a conclusion which Americans must collectively arrive at if we are to ascend above the military, economic, and moral quagmire we find ourselves in.

Salvemos A Mexico

Politicians have the ability to speak positively and confidently about anything, even if the situation is dire. Recently, I watched the Mexican presidential debate on estamosdelachingada.com, which roughly translates to wearefucked.com, and the candidate for the party(PAN) which has turned Mexico into the decapitation capital of the world spoke about creating, security, peace, and economic prosperity. Do such people deserve reelection? 



According to UNESCO statistics, 28% of Mexicans of high school age, actually attend high school. Do the people(PAN and PRI) who have allowed this situation to persist for generations deserve reelection? Is it not farcical for a country to pretend to make strides towards becoming a developed country if 72% of its high school age population does not attend high school? Mexico also has the lowest economic growth in Latin America. 



The leftist candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, aka AMLO, who can make a credible claim to actually having won the election of 2006, told a story-drawing a parallel to how the PRI candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto, is backed by television giant Televisa-about how after Mexico lost half of its territory to the U.S., Santa Ana fled to Colombia, yet the Mexican elites brought him back and installed him as President. They told him, "Don't worry. We own all the newspapers in Mexico City. We control public opinion."

Numerous countries in Latin America have elected leftist presidents who have given real hope to their populations, created real change, and asserted their country's sovereignty. It will be sad to see Mexico stay behind this wave of change for another six years with a government subservient to the U.S. , if either the PAN or PRI candidate wins.

Unfortunately, AMLO is a horrible debater in my estimation; half the time he barely answers the question and returns to his overall message about how Mexico is ruled by elites, and that Mexico must opt for real change. Perhaps the core of his success lies with his campaigning and not debating. He is surging in the polls. 

Hopefully, the wave of change that has swept Latin America will reach Mexico in 2012, the year of the Mayan prophecy. Otherwise, to echo the sentiments of the webpage creator, "Estamos de la chingada!" 



The next debate is June 10th, 2012.

The World According to Thor Halvorson

I was watching CÑÑ recently and the guest for the entire hour was a Norwegian-Venezuelan named Thor Halverson. You may have heard of his son, although I hadn't until I googled this man's name to make sure of his name's spelling and confirm his identity.

They say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, which in this case is both unfortunate, and cause for mild amusement. I rarely watch television and in fact had been experiencing a media blackout for months, but was quite entertained and amused.

According to this man who is the former drug czar of Venezuela in an adminstration prior to Chavez's, some institute in England concluded that the files found in Raul Reye's computer 3 years ago, confirm the connection between the FARC and Hugo Chavez and the FARC and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. He expressed absolute faith in the findings, but acknowledged that it is an issue that both the Columbian and Venezuelan governments have turned the page on.

He further went on to say that the Venezuelan government is involved in drug trafficking, the campaign of Rafael Correa accepted financial contributions from the FARC, the government of Manuel Zelaya was involved in drug trafficking as well, but the current government of Honduras no longer is, however, the Nicaraguan government is involved in drug trafficking , and during the 1980's, Fidel Castro set up the drug lanes for Pablo Escobar Gaviria. This last piece of information is absolutely astonishing. Not only did the government headed by Fidel Castro provide healthcare for all of its citizens during this time, at the very same time Fidel Castro himself set up the drug lanes for PEEG. Wow! That's what I call efficiency. What is the President of Mexico doing wrong?

Furthermore, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban are involved in drug trafficking in Latin America as well. Also, all of this drug trafficking is destabilizing governments in West Africa. For his part, Thor expressed that he has always maintained excellent relationships with the CIA and the DEA. Meanwhile, the near non-existant coverage of Latin America by the Los Angeles Times continues. What is a well intentioned resident of Southern California and citizen of the world to believe?

On any given day, there is 2 to 3 times more coverage about Europe or the Middle East than Latin America, and it's been that way for years. How can this lack of coverage be justified, particularly when one considers that half of the population of Los Angeles County is of Latin American origin? Perhaps the Times can justify it by saying that those residents of Latin American origin don't read the L.A. Times, or by citing lack of resources, or by suggesting that what happens in Latin America is less important than what happens in Europe or the Middle East.

I do not criticize its lack of coverage, I merely point it out. However, according to Mr. Halvorson, intriguing, nefarious, criminal events involving governments and terrorists are occurring in Latin America, all with the ultimate aim of delivering lines of white powder to the noses of American consumers, and his claims are the subject of serious discussion on a prestigious cable network.

What can be expected of the average American to know about Latin America considering that major media outlets hardly cover it, and others provide a mainly distorted and biased perspective? Even PBS, in the documentary, The Hugo Chavez Show, referred to Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Hugo Chavez, as "anti-American."

Since the turn of the century, numerous Latin American leaders have been elected who have asserted their country's sovereignty and challenged Anglo-saxon hegemony. At one point Cuba was largely ostracized from the rest of Latin America and excluded from the Organization of American States, which it subsequently refused to join. Now the Latin American countries have formed a new regional organization, CELAC, which Cuba is a part of, and excludes Canada and the United States. If Americans were aware of this process, of the unraveling of Anglo-saxon hegemony, perhaps they could relate it to the overall downfall of their empire, and have anticipated the direst recession since the great depression of the 1930s, and have been further along in the process of creating transformative solutions to our ecologically and economically unsustainable society. The reality is that the rest of the world does not depend on the resources of the U.S. to sustain itself, the U.S. depends on the resources of the rest of the world, particularly oil, to sustain itself.

In the year of 2012, when there is so much interest in Mayan culture and civilization, Anglo-saxon hegemony stands to be dealt another blow in Mexico's elections, and the words of an Aymara, Evo Morales when he visited Mexico, may come closer to being realized, that "Mexico too shall be free."

I suppose CÑÑ and other traditional media outlets will keep informing us how full of anti-American, drug dealing, socialists Latin America is.

HItler Weighs in on the 2012 Election and the Downfall of the American Empire



After Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney was asking his rivals to drop out. I have not payed much attention to the Republican primaries, but even I am aware that this has been the most entertaining Republican presidential primary season in the history of the country. It has been a parade of funny, idiotic, delusional clowns. I was hoping it would go on much longer. I miss Michelle Bachman. I wish Herman Cain had not dropped out. Rick Perry, were are you? Texas can't have you all to itself. Sarah Palin, please run for President! Rick Santorum, you da man! Paul, who?

Is it possible that a Hitler parody utilizing the brilliantly written, directed, acted, shot, and edited scene from the movie Downfall, expresses more truth and gives a more realistic assessment of the state of the American society than most of the traditional media coverage regarding the 2012 Presidential election?

The U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population consumes 21% of the world's oil. At our peak it was more than 25%. Any presidential candidate who is talking about improving the economy and creating jobs without realistically describing how significant reductions in America's radical oil dependence are to occur or realistically describing how such a pattern of consumption is going to be perpetuated is masturbating.

The high prices at the pump are once again challenging American consumers and businesses, creating fear and anger, according to a recent Los Angeles Times headline. It can be deduced, that this radical oil consumption is the primary cause of America's economic woes, and perpetuating this enormous pattern of consumption is the primary motivation for its foreign policy, from Venezuela to the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the developed world has per capita oil consumption rates which are 40-60% that of the U.S.'s. The vast majority of the developed world responsibly taxes gasoline and funds vast and efficient mass transit systems.

Unfortunately, the American society is dominated by irrational attitudes and perspectives. Proposing to responsibly tax gasoline and fund mass transit, at this point in history, is still a politically suicidal move, or is it?

When we consider to what degree an alternative fuel or alternative technology will replace gasoline, we must keep in mind that there are 250 million registered cars in the United States, and the colossal problem this poses for the mass scale production and adoption of any alternative fuel or technology.

The prospect of the rest of the world eventually abandoning the U.S. dollar as the sole reserve currency of the world, should truly create fear within people who already think that the price of gasoline is too high. In fact, the run up in world oil prices undeniably reflects a weakening dollar.

Is it probable that a majority of American votes can be swayed to support one of these delusional ignoramuses? When it comes to foreign policy, does it make much difference who the President is? Is the American President not bought and paid for? Does the President of the U.S. not answer to invisible, enormously powerful interests instead of the American people?

Obama Come Home!



TelesurTV is reporting that Barack Obama's visit has been the cause of protests in Brasil and is expected to be met with protests in Chile, as well. Friday's protest ended in front of the American consulate and was dispersed by military police using tear gas and rubber bullets according to Brazilian news outlets.

According to the press release cited by Telesur, the protest is against the "imperialism of the United States and the demagoguery of Obama, who practices a militarist and interventionist policy, while he uses a rhetoric of defense of human rights."

Telesur is also reporting that the American consulate has announced that Obama's speech will no longer take place in a central square in the open air, but in an indoor location.

Folha.com has published numerous photographs related to the event and will surely publish many more in the next few days which promise to be very colorful, as well as videos, although their videos don't seem to load.

Poor Imperial Chief.

A Nobel Prize for the Imperial Chief

When the news that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize became concrete in my mind, I thought, a Nobel Prize for the imperial chief; a man who is president of a country involved in two wars. He opposed the Iraq war, but was not yet in the Senate. If he had been in the Senate back then, it is not an exageration to think that he perhaps would have voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force, given the pressure that is exerted on senators and the fact that Barack Obama is a centrist. This is a quality that has contributed to his success, even since the days as president of the Harvard Law Review, based on what I've read.

It's not just ironic that he be awarded the Nobel Prize at the same time that there is talk of escalating the war in Afghanistan, it is also ironic and disillusioning, that Barack Obama has not yet acknowledged that the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong.

Another irony is that he still maintains the economic blockade against Cuba, in spite of the fact that all of the governments of the western hemisphere have asked him to lift it, the majority of Americans are against the blockade, and he does not need the consent of Congress to lift it. This is revealing of the fact that the empire has owners. He also has not closed the prison in Guantanamo.

The seven new American military bases proposed within Colombia are also contrary to the process of peace. When Barack Obama refers to Venezuela as a "rogue state" that supports terrorism, one does not know if Barack Obama genuinely believes what he says or is cynically apealing to right wing and imperialist tendencies within his country. They are belicose and conflagrant words that collide with the image of a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There is a video on Youtube titled, "El Discurso Que Estados Unidos No Esperaba"(The Speech which the United States Did Not Expect) in which all of the presidents of the continent are gathered around a table and Hugo Chavez talks about and denies the alleged economic aid he gives to the FARC. Immediately afterwards, the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, gets up, goes straight to the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, shakes his hand, and exchanges a few words with him. Immediately after this he goes straight to Hugo Chavez and does the same thing. What this video suggests to me is that not even the President of Colombia believes in the shit which Barack Obama says.

On other occasions, he appeals to the ignorance and the prejudice of Americans, like when he proposes eliminating oil imports from Venezuela and the Middle East within ten years. When he made this proposal, the latest available data was from 2007, and such reductions would barely amount to a reduction of 17.3% of the total oil which Americans consume. The Nobel Prize committee has awarded the prize to Al Gore for his work in the area of climate change, and now awards the prize to Barack Obama in part for the same reason, but according to its criteria, is a reduction of 17.3% over 10 years on the part of a country which consumes 24% of the world's oil a goal which is commensurate with the threat that climate change represents?

Barack Obama could have proposed to reduce oil consumption by 17%, 25%, or 35% without having to wrap the goal in a turban and dress it in the military uniform of a dictator who hates America, which is how many media outlets portray Hugo Chavez. In the meanwhile, the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized countries of the world have per capita oil consumption rates which are 40-60% below that of the U.S. A country can be rich without consuming so much oil.

The U.S. can reach a similar rate, but it would have to develop mass transit, a "socialist" solution which would not go well with oil coompanies, which the vast majority of Americans are compelled to make rich because of the lack of mass transit, and who are some of the owners of the empire and the bosses of Barack Obama himself. You all cannot imagine the isolation, the loss of social and economic opportunities which results from living in a city like Los Angeles without a car. We are compelled to destroy the planet simply to be able to live our lives to the fullest.

The contradiction is immense and reminds me of something which Fidel Castro recently wrote. That the immense American military power is not a necessity of the world, but a necessity for maintaining the economic system which it has imposed on the world.

On the other hand, like Barack Obama said in his acceptance speech, "The Nobel Peace Prize has not been used just to honor specific achievement, it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes." Perhaps Barack Obama and the rest of the world will be conditioned. In determining what steps to follow in Afhanistan and other regions of the world, Barack Obama will have in mind that he is a Noble Peace Prize winner and that he should do more to achieve peace. Perhaps leaders of the world, especially from the so called "third world," will have in mind that he has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, in part because of his ambitions to confront global warming, and demand more and be more firm in Copenhagen and beyond. Perhaps Americans ourselves can demand more, like instead of perpetuating a transportation system that compels us to make oil companies rich and which requires invasions of other countries in order to sustain, we can develop mass transit as the primary mode of transportation.

The Aftermath

California was in no mood to approve short term solutions yesterday as the map demonstrates. Mainstream politicians have not brought before the voters fundamental changes to our socioeconomic structure such as the ones I discussed in yesterday's entry, because they are perceived as politically inviable. Voters have demonstrated that the short term solutions they were asked to approve are not politically viable either. It will be interesting to see how politically viable the cuts in programs and social services which are now being threatened will be, and what effect they will have on the society in the context of a plummeting economy. The opportunity for real changes is the best when the society has collapsed, or is perceived as being on the verge of collapsing. May Californians see the light and transform their socioeconomic structure which is neither ecologically, nor economically sustainable, and which I would characterize as sadomasochistic.

Congratulations Venezuela

The constitutional amendment which will permit Hugo Chavez to be re-elected to the presidency was approved yesterday with 54.85% of the votes in favor.

Hugo Chavez:, "You guys were capable of confronting lies, the attempts at manipulation by the oligarchy and its media. You guys have managed to defeat lies. The truth has imposed itself."

"You guys should study history. The complete history, and diffuse it. Like Bolivar said, history is an immense womb which contains more hopes than past events, and future events will be greater than the past ones. History is a teacher and a mother to the peoples."

Hugo Chavez on Al Jazeera: The multi-lingual video



One of the most powerful aspects of the internet is that it allows a person to have a bird's eye perspective. No longer do we have to limit ourselves to a monolithic perspective from a national television network. Such a monolithic perspective can be compared to other points of view throughout the world. One of my favorite personalities is Hugo Chavez for this reason. I found this video interesting because he is speaking in Spanish, there is an Arabic voice-over translation, and English subtitles, creating an intersection for perspectives from diverse regions of the world's population.

Here, Hugo discusses the American empire, how it is a threat to the world, how it attempts to perpetuate the American lifestyle through the acquisition of oil resources, and how such an empire must be countered through the rise of a multi-polar world. Since this interview, the American empire has become further debilitated, and the multi-polar world has gained strength.

The Most Memorable of Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech



This is perhaps the most inspiring speech I've ever heard an American president deliver. Among the most memorable quotes are the following:

"The world has changed, and we must change with it."

"In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: 'Let it be told to a future world , that in the depth of winter when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country alarmed at one common danger came forth to meet it.' America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words with hope and virtue. Let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us we carried forth this great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

I find it interesting that he compared our current state of affairs to the coldest of months, to the hardest of times, to a moment when the outcome of the American revolution was most in doubt; as if the country itself is crossing such a moment right now, as if the empire and the society it sustains is on the edge of collapse.

50 Years of Revolution: Fidel Castro Speaks to the Americas in English



In May 2003, ex-Cuban president Fidel Castro was in Argentina to attend the inauguration of the new Argentinean president, Nestor Kirchner. Just two months earlier, the United States had plunged itself into a world of intellectual darkness by pre-emptively and illegally invading Iraq. Against this backdrop, Fidel Castro delivered a 2 1/2 hour speech on the steps of the law school to thousands of Argentineans, yet the footage has the feeling as if he was speaking to the entire continental mass that comprises the Americas.

In these videos, 44 minutes have been excerpted and provided with translation so that people from the English speaking world have the opportunity to form a better criteria by which to judge one of the most historically important Americans(in this sense, someone from either of the Americas) of the 20th and 21st century.

After 50 years of revolution, 47 years of an embargo, hundreds of assassination plots, one failed invasion, and unquantifiable lies and slander by the United States government and American media outlets, the world faces the prospect of a crumbling American empire and a Cuban revolution that will survive it in the context of an increasingly independent and socialist Latin America. The multi-polar world is a reality.

By 2003, the beginnings of change had begun to manifest themselves, as Fidel Castro explains towards the end of his speech. In these 44 minutes, he discusses the Bush doctrine, education, health, immigration, the Cuban electoral system, mass media and communication, and neoliberal globalization. He even touches upon "an international economic crisis."