Asturian-American Migration Forum

Hi Bob,

I, as well as others, appreciate your comments as Moderator.

However, please read a posting I did a few days ago...I quoted some of our members on what they said about President Bush. They certainly don't have to agree with him, however, it is in poor taste (I think) to say the things that have been said about a sitting President.

Sometimes when we President Bush followers read some of these comments, its enough to make our tempers flare.

Thanks for your thoughts, Barbara. I can understand your point of view.

I don't see any harm in allowing members to label the ideas of politicians (American , Asturian or other) in any way they see fit. We can respect the presidency or a presidential candidacy while still thinking that the ideas and actions of politicians are good, evil, ill-advised, clever, stupid, arrogant, naive, compassionate, high-handed, etc. I don't think using a pejorative label for a politician who is not a member of our forum is particularly harmful. Were Bush or Kerry members of the forum, I would insist on increased decorum: no personal attacks on members.

I do think that using pejoratives to describe the ideas of fellow members (after all, we do have much in common despite whatever political differences exist) or--especially--to describe the members themselves is harmful to the purposes of the forum, and that I will not allow.

A very good friend of mine, who died about ten years ago, had political views that were the exact opposite of mine. We had some wonderful arguments, sometimes very loud ones. While we almost never came to agreement, we often learned important lessons about each other's thinking, and we had a good time arguing with each other. I think it is perfectly possible to disagree vehemently and still remain good friends. I miss both him and our political arguments very much. I think that kind of exchange is possible in our forum, too.

By the way, a great deal of the moderating that I do in this forum is in the form of private messages to members. I comment in public primarily when I think members on both sides of the political spectrum are getting a little too heated. I will also occasionally comment on an historical fact if I think that someone has made an important error (It's difficult for an academic like myself not to do this.), but I won't take sides in any argument.

Abrazos,

Bob Martinez

Xose, yesterday I was trying to get an accounting for each member of Congress and how many millionaires in total. Couldn't get an accurate accounting on a name for name basis; however, the comments from previous New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles stated that more Dems than Repubs are millionaires, which is a flip flop from previous years. The list that I have on the Dem side includes Rockefeller, Kerry, Corzine, Kennedy to name but a few. Lots of this money was inherited, married into or earned as with Corzine. A few like Byrd and Daschle of well known fame are in the "poor" house with less than a million.

Some interesting stats I uncovered: Rahn Emanuel, D-ILL, and a senior advisor to Clinton, elected to congress with a previous years income of $6.9million. Of the 435 Representatives, 123 are millionaires and 1 in 3 Senators are millionaires. That translates to 43% of the incoming freshman in Congress are millionaires vs. 1% of the American public. This is taken from a group that monitors Congressional incomes.

Wish I had kept the articles to substantiate my statement. As I said in a previous posting the party lines are being blurred if one believes Dems represent the working class and Repub the rich.

Bob, I never said in my post that Spain was a receipant of the Marshall Plan. Until Eisenhower, I believe Fascist Spain was in the Eurporean "dog house", and we needed bases to offset Communism spreading in Europe. I hope my comment that it was Eisenhower is correct. Don't have time to research that one, but only from memory. But the Marshall Plan gave Spain lots of residual benefits (like not going Communist for one).

Xose, meant to comment on Chavez, i.e. Venezuela. I don't believe for one minute the US government attempted to overthrow Chavez. Some people thrive on conspiracy theories. Chavez, in my opinion, created that rumor to help win his recall election and to stay in power. His government is unstable and probably will eventually fall. Chavez, is elected, gives the air of a little dictator, Castro ass kisser, in an attempt to get attention from the U. S. Won't work, as Chavez will be in the political graveyard (not actual death, but out of office) as his economy continues to catch up with him. Even as an oil rich country as Venezuela is, the money apparently doesn't make it to the masses (lessons from the Middle East), or generate an improved economy. I have met in Kansas City some recent immigrates from Venezuela who left because of the political climate created by Chavez.

Terechu, took me a while to figure out what in the world you are trying to express. Lots of illogical statements, conspiracy theories, and down right just made up rumors and stories.

Let's go over this again. The United States was attacked, not by a country but radical Islamic thugs from the Middle East. So, lets try to respond to your statements:

--Saudi Arabia: The Saudi government did NOT attack the US. It is true, based upon information our government has received, that many of the Al Qaeda members are Saudi's and have financing from members of theSaudi royal family. Our government, friendly to Saudi Arabia under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has pressured the Saudi government to root out Al Qaeda members within their borders.

--Afghanistan: The US attacked Afghanistan with allies from the UN to root out Al Qaeda forces that were being protected by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Prior to 2001 and prior to Bush, the Clinton administration fired a few missiles into the training camps in Afghanistan, but the Clinton administration apparently didn't have the guts to go after the radical Isamic forces. As for Bin Linden, no the US military has not given up locating him. We have special forces on the ground between Afghanistan and Pakistan seeking his whereabouts. If he is still alive and I believe he is, it is a matter of time. Hell we have criminals in the US have been on the run for years and we can not locate them. Why are we and UN forces in Afghanistan, to help keep that country safe from the return of the Taliban and Al Qaeda until a stable government is ready to assume control. We don't what that country to slip back into Taliban control. As for the women you mentioned, well they are now going to school, in government and enjoying a life not as good as yours in Asutrias, but better than under the Taliban. I guess you would prefer the stonings and killings of women in the Kabul stadiums under the Taliban???

Iraq: give me proof that any government official, Bush, Cheney, Rice, are making money off this war. If you have it, I will pass it on. If you don't have proof then stop the rumors and conspiracy theories as they don't make sense. Some facts to ponder, French and German government officials and government owned enterprises were alleged to have lucrative contracts with Hussein and that is one of many reasons they would not support the US in Iraq. Check out Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son, and the "oil for food" program with Hussein, and the money Kojo and others made off that program. This is under investigation in our Congress and within the walls of the UN, with Paul Volker heading the UN investigation.

As a side bar, are you aware that Wynot, Iraq (that's pronounced why not) held the first ever free election for city council. Probably you didn't as it is not being widely reported by the liberal press.

--Social Security: The way SS is setup money comes from workers who pay into the plan. Monies used for other programs come from other budgets. Guess you could move those monies around, Lyndon Johnson administration raided the SS funds for general funds. Don't entirely blame Bush. Again I will repeat, under our Constitution and separation of powers, the President does NOT make laws. The President can offer ideas, suggestions, concepts and then attempt to rally Congress to pass those laws. Only Congress can write and pass laws, with the President concuring or vetoing a law. So if you are a US citizen, write your Congressman, don't blame this President or any president for the shape that we believe SS is in or going to be in. Another point, the US government is not a socialist government, i.e, European style, nor do most of us want our government to be. Sure in the hell isn't working in Europe.

Your six month old socialist government will have its hands full with its pending social budget. This will be a big challenge for Solbe to juggle the conflicting interests of financial markets, regional parties and leftist allies in your Parliament. Try concentrating on that one rather than the US.

--Kerry: Your love of Kerry. What do you think Kerry will do differently than Bush. Just a name change. He will have the same challenges and will approach them the same. He has no choice. Even as I write this Kerry has changed (again) his position on Iraq and the war on terrorism. He's acting more hawkish. Some of it is for show for the portion of his party that is hawkish, but he stands the chance of losing his dovish, anti-war followers. Kerry is on a spot as he can not walk away from Iraq and the war on terrorism. Big question, can he get help from France and Germany. Bets here are NO.

So please attempt to work with facts, rather than unsubstatiated rumors and tall tales.

Ken,
I regret having talk about sending Bush to jail, I was too excited and have fogotten where I was writting. And your are right, we have strong points of wiew and we can understand each other.
Its also true that N.U will ever be weak if some nations have veto power.
Yes, Saddam was a killer, who should have been removed many years ago, but he was a killer even while he was a friend of your country. And there are many rulers who kill his own people and they aren't being removed. Pinochet was only an exemple of a ruler who kill his people and that wasn't removed by any republican president (you said that republicans hate mean dictator). And I know pretty well what is a republican in your country and that it's nothing to do with what is a republican in Spain or Europe. But it's a difficult subject.
But, as Bob and Xose have said, your are wrong when you said that Spain owe his current freedoom to U.S. After the IIWW the Allies decided not take the war to Spain nor remove Franco, although in Spain many people was longing it. The Marshall Plan didn't came to Spain, and in the 50's Eisenhawer supported Franco and this one let U.S install militar bases in Spain.
I don't love Kerry, but I think any candidate is better than Bush.
But I won't say a word about this subject again. I think this is your domestic politic.

Since I am very much of the opinion that the Bush administration has essentially alienated much of the world political community through the manner in which they approached their military response to our 9-11 tragedy (and I absolutely believe that NO leader can possibly succeed in fighting terrorism unless he/she does so in a collaborative, unified manner with other nations as partners in the effort), I'm particularly interested in how the people of Spain and other world nations perceive Bush as a person and leader, what obstacles you believe his administration might have to overcome in order to regain support, and how they might best go about doing so. When I read the online news accounts from other countries, the perspective is usually very different from that of the media in the US and it becomes quite apparent that what we're led to believe may not, in reality, be accurate.

I don't think anyone has responded to Carlos' message found here:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtop ... =2962#2962

He raises an interesting question. I've translated it so you can read it more easily.

-------------

Creo que nadie ha contestado al mensaje de Carlos que está aquí:
http://www.asturianus.org/forum/viewtop ... =2962#2962

Plantea una pregunta muy interesante. Lo he traducido para que se puede leerlo con facilidad.

It is terribly inaccurate to call Bush's war in Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the West a religious war. This is a reductionism that causes us to lose site of what is really going on. And it steps over a ugly line, showing prejudice and worse.

Islam has been expressed in a variety of ways, as has Christianity. Unfortunately, fundamentalists of both religions have dragged the rest of us into a situation in which everyone will lose. These two sides have a lot more in common than they'd ever realize.

Let's be careful not to be pejorative about entire groups of people.

------------

Es terriblemente inexacto llamar la guerra de Bush en Irak y los ataques terroristas contra el Oeste una guerra de religión. Hace un reduccionismo que hace que perdamos la vista de que realmente pasa. Y atraviesa una línea fea, mostrando al prejuicio y peor.

El Islam ha sido expresado en muchas maneras, como el cristianismo. Lamentablemente, los fundamentalistas de ambas religiones han arrastrado el resto de nosotros en una situación en la cual todos perderemos. Estos dos lados tienen mucho más en común que ellos comprenderían alguna vez.

Se ruega que no sea peyorativo sobre grupos enteros.

I've been living in Spain for almost 20 years, in 2 stints. It's very difficult if not impossible for a Spaniard to understand American politics and for that matter American mentality. Asturians in particular are anti-american and are going to criticize the US no matter what. If you read the local newspapers or media you'll see that they always bring out the bad things of the US but never the good things. I live in Gijon and the PSOE has been in power so long that its impossible to get them out. They've put their people in just about every office, association, union, etc. And their favorite subject is bashing the USA. It's just about impossible to hold a political discussion here because if you don't agree with them the first thing they call you is a fascist. They don't like Bush, OK thats allowable, some Americans don't like Bush. I remember when Clinton was in power and they criticized him too. Xose has the typical Asturian mentality "everything republican or Bush is no good" with no exceptions. I can't understand people that can't get their own life in order but want to teach us how to get ours. Anyway I hope this doesn't offend someone. Just my thoughts and experiences.

¡Dios mío, lo último que me faltaba por oir! ¿De modo que fueron los USA quienes nos quitaron a Franco de encima y nos dieron la democracia? El problema de buena parte de los norteamericanos, amigos del foro, es que sólo tienen una visión unilateral de las cosas, y además una visión que les es proporcionada por una información incompleta. En España, como en general en Europa, la gente común está mucho mejor informada y al menos sopesa más factores. Mientras que aquí se intenta llegar, hasta donde ello sea posible, a acuerdos (en eso consiste la política), parece que en USA todo se arregla "con un par de cojones" (el comentario sobre "los maricones de la ONU" = the girly ones of UN, me parece alucinante).

Señores, el papel de USA en la época de Franco fue justamente el contrario: apoyar al último dictador fascista de Europa. Después de acabada la Segunda Guerra Mundial hubo varias condenas formales de la Sociedad de Naciones, luego Naciones Unidas, del régimen de Franco, provocando un aislamiento diplomático internacional, y fue precisamente el presidente Eisenhower quien respaldó a "nuestro" dictador local. Un dictador que jamás se atrevió a hacer ningún viaje oficial al extranjero, por lo que fue el propio presidente de USA quien vino aquí. Se firmó un Tratado de Cooperación Hispano-Americano, y eso significó la rotura del aislamiento de España. El beneficio para Franco fue enorme, pues lo consolidó políticamente en el poder, dejaron de ser reconocidos internacionalmente los legítimos gobiernos republicanos en el exilio, y perdió protagonismo la oposición interior y del exilio. La cotrapartida para Eisenhower fueron las bases militares americanas, lo que le proporcionaba una buena infraestructura operativa.

A todo esto, en este país se torturaba y asesinaba impunemente, aplicando consejos de guerra, juicios sumarios, fusilamientos por ser sindicalista, se encarcelaba a la gente por ser "maricón", una madre soltera era considerada una puta, la única religión permitida era el catolicismo, no existía el derecho al divorcio, una mujer no podía manejar el dinero heredado de sus padres o hacer negocios sin permiso escrito de su marido, si cruzabas demasiadas veces la frontera te convertías automáticamente en sospechoso, y muchas otras cosas más que yo viví y nadie me contó, y todo eso con las bendiciones de los USA. Mucha gente pagó con el exilio, el destierro forzoso, la cárcel, palizas y otras torturas, hasta con su vida, el lograr tener una democracia en este país. ¡Y ahora me tengo que enterar que no, que fueron los USA quien me proporcionaron las libertades de las que disfruto!

Claro, eso fue porque no estaba el señor Bush allí para ayudarnos a acabar con un dictador asesino y torturador, él lo habría arreglado boicoteando nuestro comercio, y así con nuestra hambre y penalidades aumentaría nuestro descontento y derribaríamos a Franco. Habríamos agradecido mucho que la aviación norteamericana bombardeara Madrid, Barcelona o Bilbao para liberarnos, aunque muchas de las propias víctimas de Franco muriéramos o quedáramos mutilados o quemados bajo las bombas americanas. ¡No es lo mismo que te mate un dictador que un liberador! Poco importaría que el país quedara destrozado, sin fábricas, ni electricidad, ni agua en las casas, ni hospitales, ni trabajo, ni comida, ¡seríamos unos muertos de hambre, pero unos muertos de hambre libres! Cuando vuestros marines desembarcaran en nuestras playas, tened por seguro que seríais recibidos con los brazos abiertos, más o menos como en Iraq.

Por dios, las cosas que tiene uno que escuchar. Claro, pero mejor no tener opiniones diferentes, eso sólo significa que uno es de "extrema izquierda" ("far left") y anti-americano.



----------------------------------------------
Translated by Bob, with thanks to Terechu for her help (all errors are Bob's)


Good God, now I’ve heard it all! So it was the USA who got Franco off our backs and brought us democracy? The problem with most Americans
(northamericans), friends in the forum, is that they only have a one-sided
view of things, and moreover a view that is formed on the basis of
incomplete information. In Spain, as is common in Europe, the ordinary
people are much better informed and at least take more factors into consideration. While here [in Spain] we try to achieve what is possible through agreement (that’s what politics is about), it seems that in the USA everything is done "with a pair of balls" (the comment on "the gays of the UN" = the girly men of the UN, is mind-boggling to me).

Ladies and gentlemen, the role of the US in the Franco era was exactly the opposite: that of shoring up the last fascist dictator in Europe. After
the end of the Second World War, there were some serious penalties imposed
by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations on the Franco
regime, leading to an international diplomatic isolation, and it was your
president Eisenhower who backed up "our" local dictator. A dictator who
never dared to make a single official visit to other countries, so that it was the President of the United States who came here. They signed the Spanish-American Cooperation Treaty, which meant the breaking of Spain’s isolation. The benefit for Franco was enormous, as he was thus consolidated in power, the legitimate republican government in exile lost international recognition and domestic opposition, and, as well, the one in exile lost relevance. The compensation to Eisenhower was American military bases [in Spain], which provided him with a good working [military] infrastructure.

Meanwhile, in this country they [the government] continued to torture and
murder with impunity, using military law, summary justice, and firing squads
against trade unionists, inprisoning people simply for being gay, a single
mother was considered a whore, the only religion permitted was catholicism,
there was no right to divorce, a woman could not manage her own inheritance
or start a business without written permissin from her husband, if you
crossed the border too many times you automatically became suspect, and many other things that I lived through and no one had to tell me about, and all
of this with the blessings of the US. Many people paid for their attempt to regain democracy in this country with exile, banishment, prison, beatings and other tortures, even with their lives. And now I’m being told that, no, it was the USA who provided me with all the liberties I enjoy!

Surely, this was because there was no Mr. Bush there to help us get rid of this murdering and torturing dictator, he would have fixed it by boycotting our trade, and thus as our hunger and our troubles increased, so would our dissatisfaction and we would dislodge Franco. We would have been very grateful if American planes had bombed Madrid, Barcelona or Bilbao to free us, even though many of Franco's own victims would have died or been mutilated or burned by the American bombings. It is not the same to be killed by a dictator or a liberator! What would it matter if our country were destroyed; without factories, without electricity, without running water in our houses, without hospitals, without work, without food. We would be starving, but starving in freedom. When your marines landed on our beaches, you can be sure they would be received with open arms, more or less as they were in Iraq. [ironic tone].

For God's sake, the things one has to hear. Of course it's better not to
have differences of opinions, [since] this only means that someone you are on the "extreme left." ("far left") and anti-American.

Art, I disagree with you, totally on your last post on Sept 25. The folks that attack the US were not a group of boy scouts from some remote land outside the United States. They were by all accounts religious fundamentalist from the Islamic society. We, our news medias and others, have given this group the title of radical Islam. Also, this radical Islamic group has declared war on the US, Christianity and Judaism. The countries of the Middle East and Asia that have a majority of citizens who are practicing Muslim and believe in Islam did NOT declare war on us, but, in some cases, have allowed their radical citizens to openly challenge the US, Christianity and Judaism.

Accept this or not, Art. Your every comment in this Forum discussion and the one on 9/11 is Bush bashing at its best (i.e., Bush's war). Sometimes I wonder if that is why you suggested having the Forum move in the direction of political discussions so you could present your agenda.

Sorry to state this to you, but it has been building up in me for quite a few weeks.

Hi Manny,

Why do you think there is so much Anti-American feeling there. And why is the good things that American does not touched on. I would be very interested to know.

Miguel, thank you for your last post. I certainly respect you for just saying you are for Kerry over Bush. I don't respect bashing. I have read that in Europe that Bush would lose the election by large margins, and that he is not liked in Europe. Not sure if that is a result your news outlets bashing Bush over the Iraq war and that filters down to the populist as fact, thereby creating this European hatred for Bush.

In the US, I have read, that Bush is leading Kerry by some accounts by slim margins, and other polls by double digits. Don't know. Also, I have read that in the US, Kerry's support is split two ways---half fully support Kerry and his platform and the other 50% just hate Bush. According to pollsters that is dangerous for Kerry in that 50% of his support could turn on him, as he now is presenting a war strategy, rather than being an anti-war candidate. One of Kerry's problems has been he has been labeled a flip flopper on the issues, and this has hurt his creditability to some.

Manny, thank you for responding. Your comments are very interesting, and disappointing on our Asturian cousins. After reading what you have to say, I am not sure I want to visit Asturias as I had planned to go to Spain next summer or the year after, and attempt to go to Asturias. I have an American born cousin living in Madrid who I was going to ask to travel with my wife and myself to Asturias.

I haven't been in Spain since my honeymoon in 1972. We frequently travel to Europe, mostly Italy (Tuscany), but wanted to give Spain a try again. And I used to go to France a lot on business years ago, but never ventured to Spain.