I have to sit back and wonder what the hell people were thinking when the Elian situation was going on in Florida. I found myself for one brief moment in life agreeing with the actions of Janet Reno. That required a higher number of drinks to work through that week. Why did I agree? Because of the political circus and hypocrites that circled like vultures looking for the next sound bite and using this kid as the reason to get points with the mindless masses.
Politicians like to sit back and talk about the sacred nature of family and how "they are fighting for family*". But notice the asterisk. That asterisk makes the message read this. "They are fighting for family as long as they like what country the father lives in and if they don't then to hell with family and the dad because deep down we understand that we know better then any father who wants his kid back".
So that is the one time I agreed with the Reno beast. When the mother died we should have done everything to return the boy to his natural father. Many would say that since the mother died trying to get the child to America that he should stay, but would simply getting to America remove the rights of the father? He may not be living in the best situation, but that is not of his doing and we should not punish him by keeping his kid from him because of it. Yes the Miami family might have bought him more "made in China" Mattel crap from Wal-Mart and Castro is an evil bastard, but the father is the father.
So why rant about this now. Because in Florida the people near the raid to get the kid were exposed to tear gas. I saw a link to the article with this snide remark right under a small quote from it.
[editor's note: Silly me -- I thought that any and all force used to kidnap a child and return him to life under a Communist dictatorship was obviously, and by definition, unreasonable - TLK]This type of thought is the issue. They see the government as the final destination of the boy, while the site talks about individual liberties they seem to forget that rights of the father. The link was on a site called ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty). I guess individual liberties are only to be protected when the father lives in an area with a government they like. Otherwise the father has no rights. The father had ALL parental rights to this boy and the right to choose where he lives. He decided the boy should live with him.
Did the Cuban government use the father? Yes, just like our politicians and the Cuban community used the boy. Everyone involved whored themselves for PR. I also feel little sympathy for the people involved in the raid who were gassed. Being there, desiring to be part of the circus they created, then not being happy when the government uses the worst sort of action to get the boy.
But the father is the final authority. Where he lives does not matter. If you lived in a bad neighborhood would you want your children taken because the government does not like the area you live in?