Miami plans big party when Castro dies

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Excuse me, if you are a citizen of the City of Miami, and you dont want this party subsidized you have every right to oppose it, and I encourage you to do so.

You are excused for making such laughable insinuations. I have a right to my opinion, regardless of my place of residence.

If, OTOH, you have a different party that you think warrants public support, you also have the right support that.

Of course.

(Though as should be obvious I don't support any publicly supported parties. Lower taxes if you really have the money to blow... and let the people pay for their own parties instead.)

The decision will be made through the democratic process.

Thanks for stating the obvious. No one is denying that is what happens.

I did NOT post intending to discuss WHY the elected leaders of the City of Miami might support one over the other - I merely took issue with the assertion that BECAUSE it was a party, it was inevitably unfair to have state funds spent on it. Which I do not believe.

I do not believe that it is inevitably unfair either. "Fair" is a subjective term (which is why I have not used it), and as you say, it could be viewed as "fair" democratic process. I have not said otherwise. And as should be obvious, even a "fair" democratic process can be viewed as an unfair process, or the result of it as unfair. For instance, I'm sure we can agree that slavery was unfair, even though it was upheld democratically "fairly" for quite some time.

But to bring things back to reality from this "fair" delusion you've set your sights on, the initial statement(s) of mine that you responded to had nothing to do with "fair":

- My first statement was about how taxpayer dollars could be better spent elsewhere. It had nothing to do with how "fair" that expenditure was.
- My second statement was about how your "they did it first" response was useless, because using that type of justification would similarly justify funding for any idiot's kegger. It was an analysis of the applicability of the logic you were using, not about the "fairness" of the act you were justifying with the faulty logic.
- My third statement was about the dichotomy between playing favorites and funding every party. "Fairness" might very well be based off of such dichotomies, but I didn't make it a subject even then. It was a simple statement of fact... either you fund parties equally, or you don't. I said neither was a good option, which should have made it abundantly clear that my argument was not based on "fairness"... as I was arguing against both the options.
- My fourth and fifth statements were just analogies to Roman decadence and Byzantine bloodlust. Still nothing about "fair".
- My sixth post was about the self-refutating nature of your wish to "agree to disagree" and other arguments. Certainly nothing about "fair" there.
- My seventh post, this one, is where I've addressed the issue of "fair"... after you brought it up, pretending that that's what the debate had been about initially.

Govts celebrate events that are meaningful to the citizenry as a whole (and objections from some part of the citizenry are not incompatible with elected officials thinking its important to all) Now I do have an opinion about whether its appropriate, but I have tried to avoid getting into that substantive debate.

It's rather inane that you wish to avoid that debate given that you specifically addressed that topic when you initially quoted me. My statements were about the nature of the funding. Just because your reply was irrellevent "well they did it first" drivel doesn't change the context of what you were quoting. Though I do admit it made it abundantly clear that what you were trying to discuss was unsubstantive.

[lord of the mark]

My point about the Millenium parties was simply to make clear that public funding of parties takes place.

I think there can be good reasons for public funding of an event, that builds community, expresses values the state supports, or simply because it is difficult to charge admission. The same grounds on which say, public broadcasting is subsidized. The follow up question would then be whether the death of Castro is an opportunity to bring together the miami community, whether values that Miami shares could be expressed, etc.

Your dislike of the word fair because is "subjective", your comparison of the city council voting to spend some money on a party with slavery, etc leads me to wonder if you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

If you wish for fair to substitute "correct" or "right" or "appropriate" or whatever feel free. I didnt know you had such a hot button about the word fair.

[lord of the mark]

My point about the Millenium parties was simply to make clear that public funding of parties takes place.

I think there can be good reasons for public funding of an event, that builds community, expresses values the state supports, or simply because it is difficult to charge admission. The same grounds on which say, public broadcasting is subsidized. The follow up question would then be whether the death of Castro is an opportunity to bring together the miami community, whether values that Miami shares could be expressed, etc.

Your dislike of the word fair because is "subjective", your comparison of the city council voting to spend some money on a party with slavery, etc leads me to wonder if you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

If you wish for fair to substitute "correct" or "right" or "appropriate" or whatever feel free. I didnt know you had such a hot button about the word fair.


in general however, I think the expenditure of public funds, and the determination of whether spending money on X or Y is best, should be left to democratic processes (hopefully as best informed by cost best analysis and other info as possible). Its not something that should be limited in the way that say, allowing slavery is.

[lord of the mark]

"That's not the truely disturbing thing about this though. If people want to take to the streets and party, well it's their personal choice to behave poorly... but taxpayer dollars to run the event? Like Miami doesn't have any problems that money could be better spent on.."


Given the wide range of events that public money is spent on, it just seemed very odd that youd find it "truely disturbing" Not misguided, or incorrect, but truely disturbing. That implied to me that you thought it a novum, something that is rarely done, as opposed to something routine.

[Arrian]

Tacky. Well, it is Miami, after all.

Will Cuba be better off post-Fidel? I hope so, but that's far from clear.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Tacky. Well, it is Miami, after all.

Will Cuba be better off post-Fidel? I hope so, but that's far from clear.

-Arrian

actually some folks have made a big deal about keeping the tone positive, about the hoped for changes in cuba, not fidels death per se. In fact part of the motivation for the Orange Bowl things is cause they know there will be celebrations across the city, and they know media will be descending on Miami. I suspect they want to control their image to some degree.

Myself I wont party, but I might raise a Cuba Libre to change in Cuba.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My point about the Millenium parties was simply to make clear that public funding of parties takes place.

As I was speaking against public funding of a party, that is pretty much sure to take place... it would seem rational to just assume I realized that such funding takes place.

The pretentious nature of your "point" is noted though. Thanks for pointing out the patently obvious as if it were somehow an obscure fact.

I think there can be good reasons for public funding of an event, that builds community, expresses values the state supports, or simply because it is difficult to charge admission. The same grounds on which say, public broadcasting is subsidized.

The only good reason I could see for providing a venue is to avoid damage to private property, basically, to have some form of control over the proceedings. In which case the funding wouldn't be for a party, but for security. (And of course there are disturbing aspects of that as well... it would be quite a blow to personal freedoms if it happened in this country.)

That's not the case here, as it's not a designated party zone. It's just somewhere else to go if you want.

The follow up question would then be whether the death of Castro is an opportunity to bring together the miami community, whether values that Miami shares could be expressed, etc.

No, that was (in a bastardized way) the initial question, not a follow up.

I don't doubt it shows the "values" of the community who will be participating. I'm just calling those "values" disturbing.

Your dislike of the word fair because is "subjective", your comparison of the city council voting to spend some money on a party with slavery, etc leads me to wonder if you are a follower of Ayn Rand.

Ok, so you don't understand analogy either. I'll walk you through it. Let's look at what I said:

"For instance, I'm sure we can agree that slavery was unfair, even though it was upheld democratically "fairly" for quite some time."

That being an analogy to illustrate the concept in the preceeding statement:

"And as should be obvious, even a "fair" democratic process can be viewed as an unfair process, or the result of it as unfair."

The analogy breaks down to:

process->fairly = result; result != fair

process: US democracy (pre-1865)
fairly: following the laws
result: slavery
fair: my (and assumedly your) view of how people should be treated.

Your interpretation:
Slavery ~= party

Do you see the difference? It's pretty tough I know... If you are still wondering... I do not equate slavery to this party at all.

As for your new divination attempts... they still aren't any good. I've never read Ayn Rand. From what I've heard though, I definitely do not agree with her (on the points I've been made aware of).

If you wish for fair to substitute "correct" or "right" or "appropriate" or whatever feel free. I didnt know you had such a hot button about the word fair.

I have a "hot button" about those who try to misrepresent what I have said. "Correct" is of course just as subjective and worthless. If I had said "that's not correct"... it would be a completely retarded statement. "Right" is subjective too, and "that's not right" is just as useless a statement. "Appropriate" could be a better term, but "that's not appropriate" isn't useful either.

It's why that conclusion is reached that is important. I've explained my reasoning, and you continue to ignore it, wanting instead to address some ambiguous term instead. Just deal with what I've said if you want to address it...

Given the wide range of events that public money is spent on, it just seemed very odd that youd find it "truely disturbing" Not misguided, or incorrect, but truely disturbing. That implied to me that you thought it a novum, something that is rarely done, as opposed to something routine.

See, here you are dealing with something I actually said. It's a good first step!

Disturbing things happen all the time. Simply making them more commonplace does not make them less disturbing to me. The opposite actually.

For instance, if a solitary nuclear device was smuggled into the country, and hundreds of thousands killed... that would be truely disturbing to me. (Far moreso than this party actually. It's not a case of overstating how I feel about the public funding for the party, but in a complete and utter incapacity for language to describe how disturbing the nuclear attack would be.) The failure of our national security would also be disturbing. If it continued to happen, each attack would be equally disturbing as in the direct effects, but the status of our national security would be further eroded in my mind with each failure, the likelyhood of more failures seeming more imminent, and thus in that regard it would become more disturbing to me.

(Analogy included just on the off chance for some more laughs if you interpret it as comparing this party to a nuclear terrorist attack...)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if the dictator of another Lat Am country died , Id have no prob with the exiles partying. Esp if he died in office after 50 years.

Would you have a problem with it if it was done on your dime?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Would you have a problem with it if it was done on your dime?

They already are...it's called "St. Patrick's Day Parades".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Would you have a problem with it if it was done on your dime?

No.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe Castro doesn´t die but gets frozen if he thinks he is near death and gets only reanimated when there has been found a cure for death

[chequita guevara]

The City of Miami has been thoroughly embarrassed by this, and they have scaled back considerably the plans. Now the city will just be providing security.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The City of Miami has been thoroughly embarrassed by this, ...

Why? I expect the population will still have celebrations. Hell I'll think they'll do the same when the Castro regime falls altogether. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian
Tacky. Well, it is Miami, after all.

Will Cuba be better off post-Fidel? I hope so, but that's far from clear.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Let them celebrate, because it will bite them in the ass.

While Cubans in Cuba might not love Fidel, the sight of the gusanos having a huge party at the same time they will be having a large funeral, at which most Cubans will probably be grieving (just as people genuinely greived when Stalin die) will be wonderful propaganda for the Communist, who will certainly remain in power if they decide to.