Fidel Castro is no saint, and I will by no means attempt to defend his policies (although Cubans do enjoy better access to health care and education than Americans), but in the field of murdering tyrants he is by no means the worst. What makes him so easy a target for opinion pieces such as the above is that he happens to be a murdering dictator who refused to align himself with US foreign policy. Well, they’re not all going to, are they?

We also cannot overlook the United States’ unwavering strangulation policy towards Cuba, which is at least partly to blame if not for the murdering (and…raping!?…) at least for the state of the Cuban economy.

Your piece, as I understand it, it aimed at removing bias and lies from reporting, in this case through examples from the New York Times. In doing so, however, you deviate from the very principles you are advocating. You have written a one-sided opinion piece, riddled with personal attacks. Or does your distaste for bias in the media only extend to bias which offers opinions different from those widely accepted in the US?

And what is it you are doing with it, if not demonizing a political figure, using mostly the same tactics that Matthews glorified him through? Your piece makes, you will admit, unsupported claims, and if you wish to distance yourself from those you criticize, I invite you to use more objective language in describing situations which can easily be misrepresented.

Lastly, I find it somewhat outside the spirit of free speech that I, as a responder to your piece, am not allowed to personally attack or insult anyone, while sanctioned editorials allow the use of words like “idiot” and “fawning fool”. There is a reason why those restrictions are in place. They’re there because personal attacks are inappropriate, both in an editorial and in a comment thereto.

I look forward to your response.

Cheers,
Velian P.