Texas firms jump into Cuba business

[bigpoppanils]

Texas firms jump into Cuba business

By Bonnie Pfister

Express-News Business Writer

Web Posted : 01/10/2004 12:00 AM

As 2003 drew to a close, Texas began to grab some agricultural trade with Cuba just as the Bush administration clamped down on travel there.

In the two years since Congress has allowed American farmers to export to the socialist nation, $328 million in U.S. beans, rice, chicken and other goods have sold to Alimport, Havana's food-buying agency.

Such agribusiness giants as Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and Tyson dominate the market.

After hanging back, Lone Star State companies have taken the plunge, with Dallas-based Dean Foods signing a $162,000 contract for coffee creamer in November.

Corpus Christi's dry-food packaging firm WestStar Food signed a $1.5 million pinto bean contract with Alimport as well. Two private Texas firms that declined to be named have contracts to deliver nonfat powdered milk and cotton.

Cynthia Thomas, president of the Texas Cuba Trade Alliance, said those numbers are sure to grow.

Thomas, who discussed that market at a meeting Thursday of Texas corn and grain-sorghum producers in Corpus Christi, said she expects Texas' exports across the Gulf of Mexico to triple to $30 million in 2004.

But some Cuba-watchers say the Bush administration is discouraging legitimate travel to the island as part of election year posturing.

Business leaders, scholars, religious groups, athletes and artists may visit the island but must be licensed by the U.S. Treasury Department and be "fully hosted," which limits how much U.S. money may be spent there. Flights directly from Miami leave several times a day.

In recent years, however, many licensed American visitors have stretched those boundaries into the realm of outright tourism. After Castro jailed 75 dissidents in March 2003, Washington tightened its travel rules.

In October and November, Homeland Security officials said they'd caught 44 people traveling illegally to Cuba and noted nearly 600 violations of bringing home unauthorized alcohol or tobacco.

Licensed American travelers are permitted to bring $100 worth of rum or cigars home for personal use, and the government now limits U.S. port authorities to a single visit per year.

But even those who follow the rules are under increased scrutiny.

"Illegal travel, legal travel — they're definitely clamping down," said David Cibrian, a San Antonio-based lawyer with Jenkens & Gilchrist. One client who legally traveled to Cuba nine years ago began receiving queries about that trip last year.

John Kavulich, president of the 10-year old U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, said he receives regular complaints from business travelers who say licenses that previously could be processed in a few days now take several weeks.

"Treasury was instructed by the State Department, which was instructed by the White House, to use every available means to discourage lawful commercial-related travel to Cuba in keeping with overall publicly stated strategy of decreasing the number of individuals visiting Cuba for any authorized purpose," Kavulich said.

A Treasury Department spokeswoman countered that most business licenses are processed within two weeks and referred those interested to the department's Web site, www.treas.gov/ofac, for further information.

Washington isn't the only government playing politics. U.S. entrepreneurs have grumbled to Kavulich that Alimport is urging them to be more public and vocal in opposing the embargo and that purchases reportedly have been funneled toward those who do so.

But many simply try to avoid discussing politics, focusing narrowly on a new export market during an era in which most of the United States' international trade is principally about buying, not selling.

"Balanced trade seems to be a logical thing to me," said Leigh Phillips, president of Houston-based freight-forwarder Biehl & Co., an Alimport contractor. "It's exciting to see a new market for U.S. exports. And it's also rewarding that it's food."

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

bpfister@express-news.net

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=110&xlc=1111399

[pattbateman]

its a communist nation not a socialist nation!

i hate how people will say anything to make it look better for the average joe reading the paper

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

its a communist nation not a socialist nation!

i hate how people will say anything to make it look better for the average joe reading the paper

What's the difference. I honestly don't know.

[pattbateman]

shut up and "google" it!!!

[pattbateman]

to the average jackass reading, socialist sounds a lot better then communist

like progresive sounds better then liberal

i read a book on how the media writes in certain words and phrases to sound better and persuade the average person

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by pattbateman

shut up and "google" it!!!

Once again, you have proven you have no idea what your talking about. Progressive doesn't mean the same thing as Liberal, just like communism doesn't mean the same thing as socialism.

The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.

The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

I'm not going to get into liberal versus progressive. You can google it.

[jamiroguy1]

Interesting article, by the way. I'll be watching for updates on this.

[pattbateman]

cuba is a communist nation

this guy said it was a socialist nation

second liberals always say they are progresive it sounds better jackass

[pattbateman]

here fucker

Are you conservative? Or, are you liberal? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason were Liberals. Now, persons identifying themselves with America's Founding Fathers are called conservatives. King George III was considered a tyrant, in the mold of persons holding the power of government above the power of people (statist). Now, such people are called "liberals". What's going on? America's "liberals" favor big government. Many American liberals consider themselves "progressive". They speak of "progressive" politics and programs. They call themselves "progressives". The term "progressive" describes a big political tent that includes Democrats, Democratic-Socialists, Socialists, Communists, Environmentalists and Feminists. The Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) which is linked to President Clinton has its own think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

[pattbateman]

another one from the encyclopedia its at the end

Liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Liberalism may be used to describe one of several ideologies that claims individual liberty to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters, in contrast to conservatism and/or communitarism.

One usage of the term is for a tradition of thought, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power, and to define inalienable individual rights. This usage is more common in continental Europe.

See: classical liberalism or libertarianism.

Another, less common usage, is to denote the tradition of various liberal parties. However, though said liberal parties were originally founded on the tradition above, they significantly diverged from it since they came to power in the 19th century, and liberal parties around the world are now based on a variety of unrelated ideologies, so the ideological content of the word depends on the geographical context.

See: political liberalism.

Another, common usage, denotes the ideology of social-democracy, as defended by the liberal party in UK since the early 20th century, under the influence of Fabianism. It is with this background that Keynes claimed to be liberal in the 1930s, and that many American leftists claimed to be liberal. This usage is very popular in the United States.

See: new liberalism.

A limited usage is to denote the tradition shared by authors like John Locke or John Stuart Mill, up to the mid 19th century.

Some commentators try to distinguish in the "liberal philosophy" (which meaning between 1, 3, or 4 remaining unspecified) a "political liberalism" from an "economical liberalism". These dichotomies reflect more about the ideology of those who make such a dichotomy, than about the ideology of anyone else.

In addition to the political usages above, the term "liberal" is also used in theology to refer to people who hold to views which depart from their religion's traditional beliefs.

See: liberal theology.

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

The common meaning of terms evolve: whereas the word "liberal" was clearly associated to meaning 1

(classical liberalism) in the 19th century, it has come to commonly have meaning 3 (new liberalism) in the US after World War II, and particularly as McCarthyism made the word socialism difficult to bear, and left-wingers massively adopted the name "liberal". For this reason, US classical liberals adopted the name "libertarian", which leads to other confusion with European connotations of the term. Recently, the word "liberal" has been so much used as a derogatory term by US conservatives that many US liberals (meaning 3) prefer to shun the word "liberal" and call themselves "progressive". In the UK, meanings 1, 2, 3 coexist, since liberalism as an ideology will be understood by scholars as classical liberalism, whereas there is an active political party named the Liberal Democratic Party, and meaning 3 is imported from the US, including the derogatory usage by conservatives. However, the derogatory connotation is weak, and social liberals from both the left- and right-wing continue to use "liberal" and "illiberal" to describe themselves and their opponents.

Liberals are sometimes referred to as Methodological Individualists

[pattbateman]

jackass!!!

'Tis a Far, Far Liberal Thing That I Do Now

Thursday, May 22, 2003

By Radley Balko

Several months ago, I wrote a column in this space drawing out what I thought were libertarian themes in the terrific HBO series The Sopranos (search). In it, however, I suggested that the writers of the show instilled plotlines that both ridiculed the excesses of government, but that also reinforced the "classical liberal" traits of rugged individualism and personal responsibility. That phrase -- "classical liberal" -- ignited a firestorm of angry email. "Rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" are...liberal?

"Liberalism," you see, wasn't always a dirty word. In fact, most all of the political thinkers who laid the foundation for the American experiment were, in their day, proud liberals. The thinkers who influenced the founders -- Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill -- and the founders themselves -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington -- all bore the liberal label with honor.

In fact, in most of the world, "liberalism" still connotes the values and principles all of those men espoused. In Europe, Latin America and Asia, "liberalism" still means belief in political pluralism, freedom of expression, property rights, the rule of law -- basically all of the ideas and principles free thinkers here in America hold dear.

So what happened? Why is "liberal" such a bad word here in America that even the liberals don't want it? Why, today, do political economists offer two definitions of liberalism, one for the likes of Locke and Jefferson, and another for our more modern impression of the word -- people like Hillary and Kennedy?

As the Cato Institute's (search) David Boaz writes in his book Libertarianism: A Primer, "around 1900 the term liberal underwent a change. People who supported big government and wanted to limit and control the free market started calling themselves liberals. The economist Joseph Schumpeter noted, "As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label."

So what Smith and Mill called "liberalism" we today call "classical liberalism" or "libertarianism." Conservatives too sometimes lay claim to old-school liberalism, though I think that in doing so, they underestimate just how much distrust the original liberals had for the state. There are lots of policy proposals put up by conservatives today that would have made the original liberals cringe.

"Conservatism" also implies a reluctance to change, no matter what it is that change is changing from, which is why hard-line communists in the former Soviet Union, religious zealots in Iran and apartheid proponents in South Africa have all been called "conservatives," and their opponents, generally, "liberals." In the strictest sense of each word's meaning, a conservative wants things to stay the same, no matter how things are in their current form, while a liberal advocates liberty, regardless of who's in charge.

The problem is that "liberal" has been so defiled here in America, true liberals may never be able to reclaim it. In America, "liberalism" has been attached to such miserable public debacles as the welfare system, ever-expanding (and ever-failing) government and Michael Dukakis (search). Dukakis, you might remember, wore the "liberal" label George H.W. Bush tagged him with proudly -- and was promptly trounced in the 1988 election.

It was after that election, in fact, that "liberal" became so tainted; the leftists who stole the word no longer wanted it. They've been running from it ever since. Rare (and dumb) is the modern politician who allows his own position to be labeled the "liberal" one.

"Liberal" today sits alone in the pantheon of political ideologies -- used, abused and soiled.

Modern leftists still hold the same positions, mind you -- massive, socially benevolent government, mistrust of markets, etc. -- but they today prefer the term "progressive," a label every bit as loaded as "liberal."

I guess the aim here is to associate themselves with the early 20th century progressives, who are often credited with such admirable accomplishments as winning the women's vote and ending the practice of child labor. But the analogy isn't perfect. The early progressives were evangelists, and drew inspiration for their public policy goals from faith -- not a practice modern leftists look fondly upon. Early progressives were also far from social libertines -- most were pro-life, for example, and the movement has largely been credited/blamed for prohibition.

It's easy to see why the left likes "progressive." "Progressive," of course, connotes "progress," and by calling themselves "progressive," leftists can then point to their opponents as "regressive" or "opponents of progress."

But if your measure of "progress" is similar to most people's -- rising standards of living, longer lives, a happier citizenry, general prosperity -- the policies embraced by self-described "progressives" haven't done much to push us in that direction. The welfare state has wrought mass poverty, perverse incentives and a generation of fatherless children. Big government and excessive regulation have put unnecessary restraints on economic growth, innovation and the free market. And there are a growing number of environmentalists who now take the position that "progress" actually means moving backward, that we've put too much emphasis on human welfare at the expense of what was here before us.

As someone who subscribes to the limited government, laissez-faire capitalist, live-and-let-live philosophy of Locke, Jefferson and Smith, I say it's time to pick "liberal" up off the ground, dust her off and reclaim her as our own. It'll take a while, I realize. But it's the only word that works, the only word that fits.

I suppose the first step in that process is to stop flattering the modern left with the label. Ralph Nader is not a liberal. He never was. He's a leftist. Or a collectivist. Even an egalitarian. But he isn't a liberal. And neither was Michael Dukakis.

So I encourage my fellow free marketers, libertarians and even some of you conservatives to join me in my crusade. Yes, it'll definitely sting the first few times. But you'll get used to it. And we owe it to our philosophical forbears.

Say it with me now:

"I'm a liberal."

[mrmatas2277]

guys this thread got a bit ...lets try getting back on the topic at hand....

[pattbateman]

exactly

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

What's the difference. I honestly don't know.

in terms of the ideas behind each type of society there isnt a great difference.

in terms of actual governemnts there is a huge difference.

communist gov'ts tend to be dictatorships and weak economically.

socialist governments are usually democracies and much stronger economically.