Monday, January 30, 2012

Why not a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone?

By M. Ulric Killion


Photo Source; Cover of the The New York Times Magazine, January 30, 2012; Illustration by Sean Freeman. Smoke photograph by Julian Wolkenstein; By Ronen Bergman, Will Israel Attack Iran?, New York Times, January 25, 2012.

As recently reported by the Tehran Times, “Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has said that the proposal for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East was first made by the Islamic Republic,” (Iran innovated idea of nuclear-weapons-free Middle East: FM, Tehran Times – Political Desk, January 17, 2012).

For many the latter statement might seem inconsequential. However, once one directly relates Foreign Minister Salehi’s statement to “The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT), his statement has broader regional and global implications (See The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – The text of the treaty).

This is because Salehi is addressing what might represent a “cross roads” for the future potentiality of the NPT.

It is noteworthy that Foreign Minister Salehi’s recent remarks were made on Monday, January 16, 2012, which was during a meeting with Jaakko Laajava, Under-Secretary of State in Finland’s Foreign Ministry. Laajava traveled to Iran in preparation for the 2012 NPT Review Conference, which Finland will host this year.

For those unaware, during the earlier 2010 NPT Review Conference, in New York, on 4 – 15 May 2009, the parties (or the NPT States Parties) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) adopted a consensus document containing a 64-point Action Plan for nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy (NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I)).

The Action Plan is intended to strengthen the pillars of the treaty regime, which are nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.


Photo  Source: In Iran, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi meeting with Jaakko Laajava, Undersecretary of State in Finland Foreign Ministry; “Salehi also said that the Zionist regime is the only country in the region that possesses nuclear weapons, a fact which poses a major threat to security in the region. He added that the conference should focus on this issue and the fact that the Zionist regime shows no commitment to the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Iran innovated idea of nuclear-weapons-free Middle East: FM, Tehran Times - Political Desk, January 16, 2012.

More importantly, the Action Plan is also intended to serve as an initiative to convene an international conference in 2012 on the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, which concerns the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in that region. In other words, what now refers to a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone (MENWFZ).

The broader implications of Foreign Minister Salehi’s statement should now have become clearer, as also does a sort of mandate on the part of the United Nations (UN).

According to Sergio Duarte (High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, UN),

I view this Conference as especially important, both because the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East was part of the “package deal” that led to the indefinite extension of the Treaty, and because the NPT States Parties gave the UN Secretary-General several responsibilities concerning the organization of that event. In this sense, the fate of the initiative to establish a WMD-free zone in the Middle East clearly has ramifications far beyond the region itself. It has in some respects now become a global issue, whose fate has attracted the interest of all States (Sergio Duarte, How the NPT Stands in View of the Next Review Round, 59th Pugwash Conference on Science & World Affairs: European Contributions to Nuclear Disarmament & Conflict Resolution Workshop on Nuclear Disarmament, Non-Proliferation (after the 2010 NPT Review Conference), Berlin, Germany, 4 July 2011).

There are presently five nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) in the world, and four of these NWFZs are in the Southern Hemisphere. What generally characterizes a NWFZ is the designation of a region where countries have made a commitment not to manufacture, acquire, or possess nuclear weapons.


Photo Source: Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, on right, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ronen Zvulun/Reuters; “When I mentioned to Barak the opinion voiced by the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and the former chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi — that the Iranian threat was not as imminent as he and Netanyahu have suggested and that a military strike would be catastrophic (and that they, Barak and Netanyahu, were cynically looking to score populist points at the expense of national security), Barak reacted with uncharacteristic anger,” By Ronen Bergman, Will Israel Attack Iran?, New York Times, January 25, 2012.

According to the Arms Control Association, “The regions currently covered under NWFZ agreements include: Latin America (the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific (the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga), Southeast Asia (the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok), Africa (the 1996 Treaty of Pelindaba) and Central Asia (the 2006 Treaty of Semipalatinsk),” (Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) At a Glance | Arms Control Association).

As for the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East, or a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone (MENWFZ), there is a host of factors or influences rendering the formation of such an agreement (or treaty) a difficult task.

Such as the potential for U.S. military intervention; Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity, or in Hebrew, “amimut”; Israel’s non-signatory state status, pursuant to  the NPT; the problem of Israel’s earlier introduction of nuclear weapons to the region; Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy (i.e., nuclear medicine), pursuant to the NPT; and the fear of Iran amassing nuclear weapons material in violation of the NPT (See M. Ulric Killion, Iran, nuclear weapons, and a common syntax and logic in nuclear discourse, December 8, 2010; M. Ulric Killion, Iran, nuclear weapons, and the effectiveness of economic sanctions, February 9, 2010).

In the interim, the world stands poised for a deadly confrontation, while the possibility of a MENWFZ presents a viable alternative to war with Iran, especially if Israel can be induced to become a signatory NPT state-party and shed its policy of nuclear opacity.

Copyright © Protected - All Rights Reserved M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Happy Chinese New Year 2012 - Wishing you have more money! - 恭禧发财! - Gong xi fa cai!

Happy Chinese New Year

Celebrating the Year of the Dragon in Chinatown, Singapore 2012!

Photo by M. Ulric Killion, 2012-01-12

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Understanding Republican (GOP) Elitism

By M. Ulric Killion


Photo: Reuters/Rebecca Cook. “Recently, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller -- who is a key player in the Fear Inc. report, decided to focus her anti-Muslim rants at a Muslim GOP candidate, David Ramadan, that former Reagan administration Attorney General and Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation Edwin Meese was helping to support in a local Virginia House of Delegates race,” Steve Clemons, Islamophobia Inc. Targets GOP Muslims, Too, The Atlantic, August 29, 2011.


The Republic Conundrum: How can GOP candidates purport to speak for Americans, while vehemently in both speech and action seeking to deny them the grandest idea of all—an inclusive American society.

M. Ulric Killion


There is an interesting article recently written by Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth College) and Joseph M. Parent (University of Miami), which is titled, “International polarity and America’s polarization.”

Their article is insightful and a compelling read, especially their reflections concerning America’s growing political polarization, particularly among elites.

While they do not provide us with definitive answers to the problem of growing political polarization, they did synthesize a complex problem with complex dimensions (i.e., polarization from international to domestic perspectives) for us.

In addition, their article sheds light on the relation between international polarization and domestic (American) polarization. The clearest example of this duality in the polarization processes can be seen in the recent shift in Republican thinking.

According to Sarah Wildman, the shift in Republican thinking, as seen in the speeches and statements (i.e., political discourse) of GOP candidates, resulted in “an unabashed embracing of a brand of anti-Islam rhetoric that is common among the far right leaders of Europe, and one that has become increasingly prevalent in American political discourse since the so-called ‘ground-zero mosque’ controversy.”

As Wildman explained, this variety of American political discourse actually threatened U.S.-Turkey relations (See Sarah Wildman, Perry’s out, but gaffes still poison GOP race, PBS, January 19, 2012, presenting a fuller discussion of anti-Islam rhetoric by Republicans and U.S.-Turkey relations).

While exploring the phenomenon of both international and domestic polarization processes, Bafumi and Parent (2012) presented a well substantiated case for much-needed empirical research addressing the historical problem of growing political polarization.

A clear example of the potential crises that the shift in Republic thinking can produce, for example, is the earlier mentioned case of U.S.-Turkey relations.


Source: Photo; “Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on Sunday disavowed a flyer that claimed he supported ‘equal rights’ for gay citizens and has long been reported to have been distributed by the Massachusetts Republican during his 2002 campaign for governor,” Sam Stein, Mitt Romney Campaign Disavows Pro-Gay Rights Flyer From 2002, Huffington Post, January 9, 2012.

For these reasons, the relevancy of their research and conclusions are obvious.

This is because, notwithstanding President Obama’s “inclusiveness” mission and its potential for promoting greater equality and justice in America, there is the present GOP campaign and its potential to promote greater political polarization, in terms of both international and domestic polarization.

For instance, there are the problems of the GOP’s politics of racism, “an unabashed embracing of a brand of anti-Islam rhetoric” or Islamophobia, and gay bashing or anti-gay bigotry (See Charles M. Blow, Newt Gingrich and the Art of Racial Politics, New York Times, January 17, 2012; No, Shariah Law Is Not Being Imposed In The US, Winning Progressive, December 26, 2011; 10 Quotes That Make Ron Paul Sound Racist, Addicting Info, September 7, 2011; M. Ulric Killion, Republicans fan the flames of America in crisis, January 7, 2012; Andrew Rosenthal, Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones, New York Times, January 3, 2012).

1-21-2012 9-11-53 AM

Source: Photo; Santorum: ‘I don't call you a bigot, you shouldn't call me a bigot’,, January 7, 2012; See also Suzanne Gamboa, Rick Santorum Rebuked By Urban League On Comments About Black People On Public Assistance, Huffington Post, January 6, 2012.

Then there is the issue of who are the elites or elitists that are actually responsible for promoting political polarization in America, though the answer seems obvious.

Granted, the GOP candidates will say they are not elitists. Rather, the GOP candidates, as they have done so in the past, will charge that the elitists are Obama, liberals, and Democrats.

For example, there is the earlier statement by Ron Paul, whom attacked President Obama as “a liberal elitist … [who] believes that he knows what is best for people,” (See Jacob Weisberg, Elitist Nonsense - The right's favorite scare word is "elitism.” What does it mean?, Slate, October 2, 2010).

Jacob Weisberg further writes of such misuses by GOP candidates of this French word (i.e., elitism), as follows:

When the rich former CEO of one of America's largest companies casts herself as a victim of elitism, we have surely strayed far from any literal definition of the term. So what do Republicans mean by this French word? Unlike the radical sociologist C. Wright Mills, who popularized the term to describe shared identity based on economic interests, Republicans use it with connotations of education, geography, ideology, taste, and lifestyle—such that a millionaire investment banker who works for Goldman Sachs, went to Harvard, and reads the New York Times is an elitist but a billionaire CEO who grew up in Houston, went to a state university, and contributes to Republicans, is not (Weisberg, 2010).

Weisberg actually presented several examples of misuses of the term, elitism, by both former and present GOP candidates (e.g., Ron Paul, Sharron Apple (the Nevada GOP nominee), John McCain, and Sarah Palin).

He eventually reached a critical conclusion that, “The problem with the GOP’s elite-bashing is not their definition but their contradictions,” (Weisberg, 2010).

Moreover, the GOP debates, if anything, are showing the American public a mind-blowing panoply of contradictions.

Finally, for these reasons, the article written by Joseph Bafumi and Joseph M. Parent, which is “International polarity and America’s polarization,” presents a must read for those interested in the growing crisis of American political polarization.


Joseph Bafumi and Joseph M Parent, “International polarity and America’s polarization,” International Politics (2012) 49, 1–35.

An Abstract of their article follows:

There is a growing consensus that the United States is undergoing a period of political polarization, particularly among elites. The causes of this polarization remain under-researched. We argue that shifts in the international distribution of power influence America's polarization. To demonstrate the argument, this article analyzes changes in power and polarization quantitatively and qualitatively from 1945 to 2005. A key finding is that greater relative power on the world stage substantially increases polarization and some of its correlates, like income inequality. The argument also measures the extent of international influence on domestic polarization and makes novel predictions on when and why polarization will fall.


See also

Copyright © Protected – All Rights Reserved M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Mariela Castro: “The U.S. government concerned and occupies the LGBT movement in Cuba” / “Al gobierno de EE. UU. le preocupa y ocupa el movimiento LGBT de Cuba”


Fotos y video: Aday del Sol Reyes.

por  Aday del Sol Reyes, especial de, 16 de Enero de 2012 --

La Habana será escenario del 23 al 26 de enero próximo del VI Congreso de Sexología, en su sede habitual del Palacio de Convenciones, bajo el lema “La educación sexual en los procesos de transformación social”.

A propósito de este evento y sobre el trabajo educativo que durante décadas ha llevado a cabo el Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual (CENESEX), Mariela Castro Espín, directora de ese centro  accedió a conceder una entrevista exclusiva para CubaSí.

Licenciada en Psicología-Pedagogía y Máster en Sexualidad Mariela Castro es reconocida internacionalmente como figura activa en la defensa de los derechos de las personas lesbianas, gays, bisexuales, transexuales e intersex (LGBTI) en Cuba.

Desde noviembre pasado, la hija del presidente cubano Raúl Castro, se incorporó a las redes sociales, al abrir una cuenta en twitter, @CastroEspinM y el blog , como una vía más para desarticular los prejuicios que se han establecido históricamente y desterrar la homofobia. . . .

[Photos and video: Aday of the Sun Kings Havana will host the 23 to 26 January next year the Sixth Congress of Sexology, in its usual venue of the Conference Center, under the slogan “Sex education in the processes of social transformation.”

About this event and educational work which for decades has conducted the National Center for Sex Education (CENESEX), Mariela Castro Espin, director of the center agreed to grant an exclusive interview CubaSí .

Bachelor of Psychology-Pedagogy and Sexuality Master Mariela Castro is recognized internationally as an active figure in the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) in Cuba.

Since last November, the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro, joined social networks, to open an account on twitter, @ CastroEspinM and blog, more as a way to dismantle the prejudices that historically have been established and banish homophobia. . . .] -- Translation by M. Ulric Killion.

Mariela Castro: “Al gobierno de EE.UU. le preocupa y ocupa el movimiento LGBT de Cuba”


Note: According to Mariela Castro, the daughter of President Raúl Castro, the Cuban  Revolution changed the lives of Cubans, including profound changes in their culture such as prejudices about sexuality. Known worldwide for her support and advocacy of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Cuba, she is hoping for a discussion of anti-discrimination legislation including sexual orientation and gender identity at the next  Communist Party Conference, which convenes this month. She is also hoping for approval of a same-sex unions measure by the close of this year. In terms of social justice and social equality, her advocacy of LGBT rights could potentially serve to bolster a greater liberalization  of other rights in other aspects of Cuban society and politics.

--M. Ulric Killion

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Jon Huntsman, Jr., is the only viable GOP candidate

by M. Ulric Killion

1-11-2012 2-22-09 AM

The GOP race for the presidency is undoubtedly troubling for most Americans. This is because from their various debates, slogans, quotes, and platforms, the GOP is generally showing Americans an excess in division (or disunion), inter-fighting, intolerance, and proclivity for divisiveness. All of which, during these dire economic times, are hardly the qualities that most Americans want or need in a president.

The only exception in this circus is Jon Huntsman, Jr. Today, when thinking about the possibility of Huntsman withdrawing from the race for the presidency, it dawned on me that he is really the only viable GOP candidate.

When considering the field of GOP forerunners, who really should Republican voters choose? It defies commonsense to select a forerunner who demonstrates a tendency to foster division, inter-fighting, intolerance and divisiveness. This inevitably presents the only viable choice of Huntsman.

This is because it is his experience that really sets him apart from the division, inter-fighting, intolerance, and divisiveness of the other GOP forerunners. America, as a whole, needs neither business managers nor “Ron Pauls”. It is critical to understand that Huntsman, unlike the other GOP forerunners, brings to the table invaluable experience in international diplomacy (or international relations), international economic relations and, more importantly, good relations with the People’s Republic of China. If you do not understand the importance of these qualifications, then you slept through the past ten (10) years.

Given these reasons, for America, as a whole, Jon Huntsman, Jr., is the only viable GOP candidate for the office of president.


A Brief Introduction to Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr. (born March 26, 1960) is an American politician, businessman, and diplomat who served as the 16th Governor of Utah. He also served in the administrations of four United States presidents and is a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.[1]

Huntsman worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992–1993. Huntsman served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.

Huntsman has also served as CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation and was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment by Barack Obama as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. He submitted his resignation as ambassador on January 31, 2011, in order to explore a presidential campaign. . . .

>>See the full biography at: Jon Huntsman, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


See also

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Republicans fan the flames of America in crisis

By M. Ulric Killion


Photo Source: Cheryl Senter for The New York Times, Mitt Romney at the Town Hall in Bedford, N.H., on Dec. 20, 2011; See, “Romney and his aides have designed his rhetoric to define pretty much all spending on entitlements, including provisions for the injured, unemployed, sick, disabled or elderly as benefits to the poor who, Romney implies, are undeserving”, Thomas B. Edsall, The Anti-Entitlement Strategy, New York Times,  December 25, 2011.


The Republican Conundrum — “how can a GOP candidate appeal to racists who don’t think they are racist without sounding racist?”

—  Cheryl Contee (Jill Tubman), Gingrich and Santorum Saving Lazy, Shiftless Social Parasite Black Folks from Themselves - Jack & Jill Politics, January 6, 2012.


One would think that the campaign strategies that we are recently witnessing by some Republican candidates ought to be ineffective. During American presidential elections, however, voters often seem more fickle than normal and even more gullible than one would expect. After-all, potential voters are really only hearing a red-herring-variety of arguments and positions, rather than real solutions about the real problems of America.

1-7-2012 5-40-29 AM

Photo Source: “The blogosphere piled up with headlines Thursday over a part of Newt Gingrich's campaign speech involving food stamps and the NAACP, which left the Gingrich campaign scrambling in defense to put Gingrich's comments in context”, Elicia Dover, Gingrich's NAACP, Food Stamp Remarks Stir Controversy, ABC News, January 6, 2012.

One would also think that by now the race card would have played itself out (See Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones, January 6, 2012). Nonetheless, the controversial comments keep coming. For instance, we now have Newt Gingrich’s controversial comments, such as his food stamps comment; Mitt Romney’s controversial comments, such as his Anti-Entitlement Strategy; Rick Santorum’s pandering to “racist elements in the electorates,” such as his discourses of racial stereotypes and racial divisiveness; and even Ron Paul’s history of controversial comments.


Photo Source;  “Texas Congressman and prospective 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul revealed in a radio interview that he would not have ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden almost two weeks ago”, Amanda Carey, Osama bin Laden Kill | Would Not Have Ordered, The Daily Caller, May 12, 2011.

This is because Ron Paul has long been a source of controversy and, equally so, a target of criticism. For example, one criticism of Ron Paul reads:

Somebody’s going to ask “Isn’t Ron Paul making a difference?” So I’m going to say, “Yes.” None of this is to say that right-fusionism of the Ron Paul variety isn’t now having an influence, or that none of it is good. I’m glad to see Paul spreading a few profoundly important ideas about foreign policy. But that doesn’t mean Paul’s decades of bilking paranoid bigots with bullshit prophesies of hyperinflationary race war was really a stroke of strategic genius after all. Or maybe it means it was. But that doesn’t make it right. I don’t think Paul would be where he is today without all those years of vile fear-mongering. And I don’t think anyone ought to get away with climbing up that evil ladder, kicking it away, then pretending he was born a thousand feet off the ground in the pure mountain air right there next to heaven. He knew what he was doing, chose to do it, and none of it can be justified by a little TV-time for salutary anti-imperialist and free-market ideas. I’d rather not be affiliated with a “movement” that includes him in even a conflicted way (See Wilkinson on Paul « Modeled Behavior, January 3, 2012).

1-8-2012 1-16-08 AM

“Morial [Urban League President] said Santorum made the statements to pander to racist elements in the electorate and should be ashamed. Santorum's spokesman did not immediately return telephone calls and emails Tuesday seeking comment,” Suzanne Gamboa, Rick Santorum Rebuked By Urban League On Comments About Black People On Public Assistance, Huffington Post, January 6, 2012; View the video.

The controversial comments of Rick Santorium are equally shocking for obvious reasons. Urban League President Marc Morial observed that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, “tried to leverage a stereotype about black people and public assistance programs to gain an advantage in the Iowa caucuses” (Gamboa, Huffington Post, 2012). During an interview, Marc Morial directly addressed the problem with Rick Santorium’s language of race and the use of race and/or racism in Iowa. An excerpt from the interview with Morial reads:

Morial pointed out that 84 percent of food stamp recipients in Iowa are white. Nationally, 70 percent of recipients are white, he said. Many people who receive public aid contributed to those programs as workers, Morial said.

“By falsely suggesting that people of color are a disproportionate drain on resources provided mainly by whites, Santorum deliberately fans the flames of racial divisiveness,” Morial said (Gamboa, Huffington Post, 2012).

Moreover, irrespective of the truth or falsity of such “irrelevant” comments, their “red herrings” fail to inform the American public about how they intend to revive the American economy and restore prosperity to the American people. While this obvious strategy undoubtedly bodes well for Obama supporters, the same is not true for the Americans who are actually in search of real solutions to real problems.


Photo Source: “President Obama is hoping to capitalize on his controversial decision to appoint Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “ Richard Bluey, Big Government, January 6, 2012; See also “Congressional Republicans have asked the Justice Department to weigh in on the legality of controversial recess appointments President Barack Obama made this week to install appointees to politically sensitive jobs overseeing consumer lending and the labor force,” Republicans press Obama on recess appointments, Reuters, January 6, 2012.

Yes, if one noticed, arguably the Obama administration is also guilty of sometimes employing red-herrings. The Obama administration admittedly appears not to directly attack many of the controversial comments of Republican forerunners. Nonetheless, one reasonably suspects that President Obama’s recent controversial appointment of Richard Corday as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was an indirect response to the attention drawing controversies surrounding Republican Party candidates. In other words, the tactics employed also constitute yet another red-herring being cast into the political waters.

As for the Americans who are actually in search of real solutions to real problems, this does not speak well of American politics and the “American political party system.” This is because all of this ultimately leaves one wondering when did the right of every citizen, though the now less informed citizen, to withhold acclamation become a “watered-down” right.

Given recent events, if this is as good as it gets, then there is a serious crisis looming in both American politics and the “American political party system,” notwithstanding the social and economic crises awaiting real Americans in need of real solutions to real problems.

Copyright © Protected – All Rights Reserved M. Ulric Killion, 2012.

Last update: January 8, 2012.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Plight of Cuban Refugees and U.S. Immigration Law

By M. Ulric Killion

1-5-2012 1-15-15 AM

“Public Law 89-732”, A Short Film project in Los Angeles, CA by Justin Polk

This is an interesting project. The developers of the project intend to present a compelling story about Cuban refugees and U.S. immigration and U.S. immigration law.

The focus of the project is its namesake, which is “Public Law 89-732.” More specifically, “Public Law 89-732” is the (U.S.) Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA), which the U.S. Congress earlier enacted on November 2, 1996.

They also provided a short introductory video, which can be seen at this website:


Photo source: Amazing Cuban Refugee Rafts that Dared the High Seas in Search of Freedom. “The Cuban refugee crisis has been an ongoing issue every since Fidel Castro took control in the 1950's;” The Toplist Beach: Amazing Cuban Refugee Rafts that Dared the High Seas in Search of Freedom, December 5, 2007.

Granted, in the United States, immigration is a controversial subject. This does not, however, take away from the compelling story that the developers intend to present, while exploring this controversial subject.

Additionally, from what I gathered after viewing the introductory video, the developers of this project are not standing on a soap box, if you will understand my meaning. Rather, they seem to intend only to explore the controversy by presenting a compelling story of a specific Cuban refugee and immigration.

In the same vein, I also do not intend to stand on a soap box and dictate the political preferences of those who will read this writing or view the introductory video. I think Abraham Lincoln said it best when he earlier said that even the thinnest pancake has two sides.

With that being said, the introductory video is well worth one’s time.

Copyright © Protected – All Rights Reserved M. Ulric Killion, 2012.


See also Rep. David Rivera proposed a bill to withdraw the immigration status of Cuban Americans / Rivera propone sanciones a cubanos que vuelven a la isla