America: the land of the free, home of the brave, abode for imperialism? The U.S. Government has its citizens believe that whatever the country does is good for itself, whether that be importing cheaper materials from China or fighting terrorism in the Middle East. But what if everything America does is not good? The action in question may not harm its people directly, but instead feeds false information to its people to hinder an opposing force that was once under U.S. Control, thereby shadowing the truth and creating a web of fear and hate. Webster's Dictionary defines imperialism as the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. In retrospect, most European and Eurasian countries have been guilty of this; America included. Because the Cuban people wanted freedom from the cruel American imperialism being imposed upon them without any Cuban vote and after the successful revolution led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the U.S. Government set up anti-Cuban propaganda and instilled the Embargo Act, both of which are being used today. By looking at the history of American-Cuban relations, past and present, one will see that the injustice of the Embargo Act should not only end, but should have never been placed to begin with.
Cuba has been an important part of American history, being one of the many Caribbean Islands involved in the slave trade, but being a Spanish colony, America was unable to obtain Cuba until the Spanish-American War in 1898, where the U.S. claimed to want Cuban independence, but in reality wanted to annex it and maintain control of the island and exports. After several failed U.S appointed and non U.S. Presidencies, the latter usually crushed with U.S. Aid, and with Mafia corruption flooding the shores after U.S. Prohibition, U.S. backed and self-appointed Colonel Fulgencio Batista becomes president of Cuba in 1940, legalizes the Communist Party of Cuba during World War II, and conspires with the Mafia to allow them more freedoms and control, then retires(Chadwick). In other words, the U.S. government relied on brute force and allowed cruel dictators to reign and spread corruption in Cuba to maintain American interests, even if that meant cutting out Cuban interests altogether; with Mafia rule added to Cuba, if maintained, America might have made the island into a Caribbean Las Vegas. After coming out of retirement and realizing he is in last place in 1952 Cuban presidential election, Batista performs a bloodless coup de etat, suspends the Cuban constitution and cancels the election, successfully making himself dictator; two and a half weeks later, the U.S. recognizes Batista's government, providing him full support in exchange for kickbacks (Sierra).
Revolts had been taken place in Cuba since Spanish rule, but in 1953, the same year Batista outlaws the communist party, a major event occurred that would set the people on its path to oust U.S. imperialism: lawyer Fidel Castro leads a revolt in which 160 rebel troops attack the Moncada army barracks near Santiago de Cuba. Over 70 rebels died, and soon after Castro, along with his remaining troops, was arrested (Chadwick). Soon after capture, Castro's defense proved to be historic; defending himself, he gave a four hour speech claiming that he and his rebels had the right to revolt for Cuban freedom against the tyrannical government by Cuban law, called for reinstating the Cuban constitution, instating fairer wage cuts for sugar and industrial works, and for punishment of those violated Cuban law, mainly those in power. He ends his speech boldly: “I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me (Castro).” In 1955, Batista grants amnesty to political prisoners, and Castro is freed; he and several others flee to Mexico, where Castro meets Che Guevara, and in 1956, together with 80 other insurgents, leave Mexico to start the revolution, where, upon arrival, they are met by Batista's soldiers and nearly all are captured or killed, only 15 rebels escaping into the Sierra Maestra mountains (Sierra). By 1957, while Cuban Mafia leaders were entertaining U.S. Senators, US Ambassador to Cuba Arthur Gardener was suggesting to President Eisenhower the assassination of Fidel Castro, claiming that Castro victory would “contrary to U.S. interests.” After Castro and his supporters ousted Batista in 1958 and coming to power in 1959, the U.S. listened to this suggestion; “In February, an American assassin, Robert Nye, working for US crime syndicates, is arrested with a sniper rifle before he can shoot Castro. A CIA memo from J.C. King, head of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA, to Allen Dulles recommends “dirty tactics” to destabilize Cuba. King says America must do away with Fidel Castro if they wanted to overthrow the Cuban revolution.(Chadwick)”
Having lost control of Cuba and 1.6 million acres of Havana land, the American government begins working against the new Cuban government, canceling sugar orders, cutting Cuban quota by 95%,after nationalization of foreign companies, and CIA sponsored propaganda projects, all in the name of Capitalism(Chadwick). During the infamous Bay of Pigs, 1300 CIA-trained Cuban exiles,who, according to Cuban history, were “the scions of the privileged propertied class of pre-revolutionary Cuba, coming back to reclaim their substantial holdings”, but in U.S. media were represented as “dedicated champions of liberty-who had lived so comfortably and uncomplainingly under the Batista dictatorship”, hoped to overthrow Fidel's government, but they lost abruptly due to mislead hopes of the Cuban people supporting the counter revolution, which they did not (Parenti). Nevertheless, this event left Fidel uneasy and in the summer of 1962 led him to allow Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to place short-range nuclear missiles in Cuba in hopes averting another U.S. attack; after the discovery of these weapons and endless negotiations, the “Cuban Missile Crisis” was averted on October 28 when Khrushchev announced he would dismantle the missiles in exchange for assurance that the U.S. would not invade Cuba (thinkquest.org).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Library databases
Fuentes, Leonardo Padura (July/August 2009). "Obama's Cuba Challenge." New Internationalist, Issue 423 p.34-35 2p.
Using the library databases, this particular article written by Cuban journalist Leonardo Fuentes answers more directly why the embargo should end. He does not necessarily blame Castro for what the state of his country, but he does say that yes, he uses it as a scapegoat and rallies support using it. In short, the embargo hinders the countries growth and has not promoted democracy and freedom, but the exact opposite.
Suguin, Denis (2/12/2007). "Viva La Evolucion." Canadian Business, Vol. 80 Issue 4 doi 00083100.
In this article, Suguin claims that while politics may not be spoken freely on the streets, Cuba is nearly a goldmine for the Canadian economy in terms of nickel and oil, but oil in Cuba may b e in danger due to the Straits of Florida, which may drain out any oil fields in Cuba, but it is very unlikely. Since there have been no talks between the U.S. and Cuba, Cuba being treated as part of the unspoke "axis of evil", Canada stands the most to gain by trading with Cuba. By lifting the embargo, however, Cuban business and trade will increase expenentially and benefit all parties.
Using the library databases, this particular article written by Cuban journalist Leonardo Fuentes answers more directly why the embargo should end. He does not necessarily blame Castro for what the state of his country, but he does say that yes, he uses it as a scapegoat and rallies support using it. In short, the embargo hinders the countries growth and has not promoted democracy and freedom, but the exact opposite.
Suguin, Denis (2/12/2007). "Viva La Evolucion." Canadian Business, Vol. 80 Issue 4 doi 00083100.
In this article, Suguin claims that while politics may not be spoken freely on the streets, Cuba is nearly a goldmine for the Canadian economy in terms of nickel and oil, but oil in Cuba may b e in danger due to the Straits of Florida, which may drain out any oil fields in Cuba, but it is very unlikely. Since there have been no talks between the U.S. and Cuba, Cuba being treated as part of the unspoke "axis of evil", Canada stands the most to gain by trading with Cuba. By lifting the embargo, however, Cuban business and trade will increase expenentially and benefit all parties.
Monday, June 28, 2010
2X 250 word analysis
Griswold, Daniel (2009). "The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure." Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10295&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29
This article explains the many ways that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is a failure while still maintaining a pro-American stance on the issue. Written in June 2009, Griswold was suggesting that since Obama was looking at the issue that the embargo might finally be lifted. According to Griswold, the embargo has been a failure because it has not changed the political stance of Cuba and has only added fuel to Castro's campaign, that the reason why the island is impoverished is because of the embargo, but Griswold suggests that it is because of Castro's Caribbean-style socialism. Although he does not say that the embargo is suppressing basic human rights for people in Cuba, he does say that with the embargo, American rights are being violated by restricting travel and trade with Cuba, that the American farmer/trader has lost billions of dollars not trading with Cuba.
With that said, Griswold brings up the fact that since some restrictions of trade had been lifted in 2000, Cuba has gone from zero trade to trading over $691 million in 2008. With that in mind, and with revenue from the other Caribbean, that if they were to spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP on farm exports and such, that we can be raking in nearly $2 billion per year from Cuba. Griswold also suggests that be allowing trade and travel, American-Cuban relations will improve, and eventually democracy will overcome. Although I do not agree with some of what he has to say, Griswold, ignorant as he may seem, has some good points that the average American can understand.
Groombridge, Mark A.(2001) "Missing the Target: The Failure of the Helms-Burton Act." CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6601/print
Groombridge argues that the Helms-Burton Act, established in March of 1996, has done nothing but hinder world relations and provide Castro with an excuse for his failing economy. The act hinders world relations by fining outside foreign companies for trading with Cuba. It is legally and practically flawed because the U.S. Is one of the only countries that does not have claims in Cuba, which in turn increases U.S property claims in Cuba to $6 billion to $100 billion. In short, America has no right to place this act on Cuba because it undermines sovereignty on a foreign country and undermines the President's decision to deal with foreign matters by making it a weapon for Congress. Because the U.s. Has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, it allows U.S. Courts to try non-U.s. Citizens on matters in which they have no business being in. On hindering world relations, by fining other countries for trading with Cuba, U.S. Look like a bully and very petty. Although it claims this act is allowable under the national security exemption to the U.S. World Trade Organization commitments, this act is difficult to validate because Cuba poses no threat to national security. Politically speaking, this act did not promote democracy in Cuba as promises, but provided Castro a scapegoat for his failing economy. During the publication of this article, George W. Bush had an opportunity to remove this act and improve Canadian and European relations, but since this was probably written before 9/11/2001, the act was probably forgotten for a while and did not get repealed.
This article explains the many ways that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is a failure while still maintaining a pro-American stance on the issue. Written in June 2009, Griswold was suggesting that since Obama was looking at the issue that the embargo might finally be lifted. According to Griswold, the embargo has been a failure because it has not changed the political stance of Cuba and has only added fuel to Castro's campaign, that the reason why the island is impoverished is because of the embargo, but Griswold suggests that it is because of Castro's Caribbean-style socialism. Although he does not say that the embargo is suppressing basic human rights for people in Cuba, he does say that with the embargo, American rights are being violated by restricting travel and trade with Cuba, that the American farmer/trader has lost billions of dollars not trading with Cuba.
With that said, Griswold brings up the fact that since some restrictions of trade had been lifted in 2000, Cuba has gone from zero trade to trading over $691 million in 2008. With that in mind, and with revenue from the other Caribbean, that if they were to spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP on farm exports and such, that we can be raking in nearly $2 billion per year from Cuba. Griswold also suggests that be allowing trade and travel, American-Cuban relations will improve, and eventually democracy will overcome. Although I do not agree with some of what he has to say, Griswold, ignorant as he may seem, has some good points that the average American can understand.
Groombridge, Mark A.(2001) "Missing the Target: The Failure of the Helms-Burton Act." CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6601/print
Groombridge argues that the Helms-Burton Act, established in March of 1996, has done nothing but hinder world relations and provide Castro with an excuse for his failing economy. The act hinders world relations by fining outside foreign companies for trading with Cuba. It is legally and practically flawed because the U.S. Is one of the only countries that does not have claims in Cuba, which in turn increases U.S property claims in Cuba to $6 billion to $100 billion. In short, America has no right to place this act on Cuba because it undermines sovereignty on a foreign country and undermines the President's decision to deal with foreign matters by making it a weapon for Congress. Because the U.s. Has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, it allows U.S. Courts to try non-U.s. Citizens on matters in which they have no business being in. On hindering world relations, by fining other countries for trading with Cuba, U.S. Look like a bully and very petty. Although it claims this act is allowable under the national security exemption to the U.S. World Trade Organization commitments, this act is difficult to validate because Cuba poses no threat to national security. Politically speaking, this act did not promote democracy in Cuba as promises, but provided Castro a scapegoat for his failing economy. During the publication of this article, George W. Bush had an opportunity to remove this act and improve Canadian and European relations, but since this was probably written before 9/11/2001, the act was probably forgotten for a while and did not get repealed.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
proposal
In times of war, one nation may set up a blockade around the other to dwindle down its resources and force them to surrender; an embargo is a restriction of trade and travel on an opposing nation, but either way, war is involved. So when did the United States declare war on Cuba? For nearly half a century, the U.S. has hindered the growth of Cuba by placing an embargo upon them, but what has the U.S. gained from it? What is the goal? If the goal is the economic collapse of Cuba, then it has failed. If it is against Communism, what business does the U.S. have trading with China or Vietnam? For the rational thinking individual, when the information is presented, unbiased with no propaganda, one would not be able to find a decent reason why the embargo was ever placed, let alone why it is ongoing, and eventually cannot help be biased when thinking about the injustice of it all.
For this project, by going through Cuba’s history, more so within the past hundred years, and by explaining Fidel Castro’s hardships and goals, along with other revolutionaries such as Ernesto “Che” Guevara, I hope to expose the injustice the Cuban people has had to deal with in terms of the imperialistic force of the U.S. and the events that took place in setting up the embargo.
In terms of audience, since most people are afraid of the truth, cannot handle the truth, or choose to ignore the truth to blindly follow what our leaders tell them, my audience should be free-thinking, open-minded individuals that want change, but are quite sure what needs to be changed or are looking for a narrow field of change, or are simply interested in the subject matter.
In terms of research, I will try to use periodicals from America, but since those are usually laced with propaganda, I will mainly use books on the subject and periodicals from other countries to make my point. However, what can be determined as propaganda and what is considered the truth? Because of this, I will be force to use sources I normally would consider “garbage”, but only to allow readers to view both sides and come to the conclusion on their own.
In conclusion, by stating the facts and exposing the injustice of our imperialistic state know as the U.S., readers would agree that yes, the embargo should be lifted, but also that the U.S. had no right to place it to begin with.
Moise, Hilary.(2006) U.S. Embargo against Cuba under Growing Siege. Council on Hempspheric Affairs. http://www.coha.org/cuba-embargo-under-growing-siege/Sierra, J.A. (2010) Economic Embargo Timeline. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm
For this project, by going through Cuba’s history, more so within the past hundred years, and by explaining Fidel Castro’s hardships and goals, along with other revolutionaries such as Ernesto “Che” Guevara, I hope to expose the injustice the Cuban people has had to deal with in terms of the imperialistic force of the U.S. and the events that took place in setting up the embargo.
In terms of audience, since most people are afraid of the truth, cannot handle the truth, or choose to ignore the truth to blindly follow what our leaders tell them, my audience should be free-thinking, open-minded individuals that want change, but are quite sure what needs to be changed or are looking for a narrow field of change, or are simply interested in the subject matter.
In terms of research, I will try to use periodicals from America, but since those are usually laced with propaganda, I will mainly use books on the subject and periodicals from other countries to make my point. However, what can be determined as propaganda and what is considered the truth? Because of this, I will be force to use sources I normally would consider “garbage”, but only to allow readers to view both sides and come to the conclusion on their own.
In conclusion, by stating the facts and exposing the injustice of our imperialistic state know as the U.S., readers would agree that yes, the embargo should be lifted, but also that the U.S. had no right to place it to begin with.
Moise, Hilary.(2006) U.S. Embargo against Cuba under Growing Siege. Council on Hempspheric Affairs. http://www.coha.org/cuba-embargo-under-growing-siege/Sierra, J.A. (2010) Economic Embargo Timeline. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm
Monday, June 21, 2010
200 word summary
America is supposedly the land of opportunity, but does that give us the right to impose upon other countries? For nearly fifty years, an embargo has been placed against Cuba, restricting trade of goods and medicines, travel, and fines any country that trades with it. Why is this important? As Americans, we do not know what the truth is on this matter because propaganda has been fed to us since day one. Most Americans believe Fidel Castro to be a tyrant on par with Saddam Hussein; truth be told, he is a hero of the people, a soldier against imperialism, a revolutionary. This may seemed biased, and I do not want to come across as anti-American, but my goal is to shed light on the matter and have people look at it in a different way. What i would like to study is why the embargo is ongoing i.e. the underlying reasons of why it was placed, how Castro managed to keep his country going while under the embargo, and what can be accomplished when the embargo is lifted. In retrospect, education is the key to lifting the embargo: educating the people on what the embargo, who Castro is and what he has done, and what could be the benefits.
6/21 post #1
Moise, Hilary.(2006) U.S. Embargo against Cuba under Growing Siege. Council on Hempspheric Affairs. http://www.coha.org/cuba-embargo-under-growing-siege/(what can be accomplished by lifting the embargo?)
Sierra, J.A. (2010) Economic Embargo Timeline. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm (how was the embargo set up?/ what are the resons for the embargo?)
These sites are valuable to me because they have been updated within the past five years, provides dates for articles, provide detailed background information and external sources.
Sierra, J.A. (2010) Economic Embargo Timeline. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/embargo.htm (how was the embargo set up?/ what are the resons for the embargo?)
These sites are valuable to me because they have been updated within the past five years, provides dates for articles, provide detailed background information and external sources.
Until victory always: Why is the embargo against Cuba still intact?
(assuming that is a decent title)
Summary:Due to the unability to admit that they are wrong, America has no decent reason to continue this embargo other than hope that Cuba will collapse economically so America can be there to pick up the pieces. The goal of this paper is to expose the injustice of this embargo, answer the question of why it is still intact, and what could be accomplished once it is lifted.
Key question: Why does the embargo need to end?
Sub-questions: What are the official reasons for the embargo? What are the real reasons for the embargo? How is the embargo effecting Cuba? How does the embargo benefit America?
Summary:Due to the unability to admit that they are wrong, America has no decent reason to continue this embargo other than hope that Cuba will collapse economically so America can be there to pick up the pieces. The goal of this paper is to expose the injustice of this embargo, answer the question of why it is still intact, and what could be accomplished once it is lifted.
Key question: Why does the embargo need to end?
Sub-questions: What are the official reasons for the embargo? What are the real reasons for the embargo? How is the embargo effecting Cuba? How does the embargo benefit America?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Three subjects
Three subject matters I would like to write about this semester would be revolutionaries in history, injustices brought about Imperialism, and a general philosophical of what the "ideal" Utopia would be in today's world.
Response 1
My subject matter that I'd like to write about is the American Embargo Act against Cuba i.e. the history of Cuba within the past hundred years; history we as Americans have not heard because of the propaganda against Cuba and it's "terrible dictatorship'. Most people believe Fidel Castro to be a villain, on par with Saddam Hussein; truth be told, America is the villain, and Castro and Ernesto "Che" Guevara are heroes for Cuba because they are against imperialism. My field of study focuses on their lives.
America, during WWI and WWII, tried to gain control of Cuba for its sugar, hoping to establish a monopoly on the sugar market; they even allowed gangsters to station there to turn it into a Caribbean Las Vegas, in a sense, since records of politicians were seen conversing and making business with these gangsters (for example: JFK).
Guevera started off as a medical student about to finish his education when he and a friend took a trip down to South America on a motorcycle, in which he recorded his time down there in what is now called "The Motorcycle Diaries." While traveling the continent, Guevara discovered the injustice of imperialism firsthand when encounter impoverished workers, and after a stint in helping out leprosy patients, he reconsidered his stance in life, and eventually decided to be a revolutionary.
Castro started off as a lawyer in Cuba, but seeing the injustice done to his people, became a revolutionary and set up numerous attacks against the dictatorship of Batista setup in Cuba by America, and when captured, defended himself in court with a speech taking hours, ending with the line "History will absolve me." He was then sentenced to 15 years.
Castro did not serve his full time, and eventually fled Cuba to South America, and along with other revolutionaries, including Guevera, came back to Cuba, and through guerrilla warfare, eventually overthrew Batista.
Now, because Castro and Che were highly-intelligent leaders for the working class, propaganda in America labeled them as "communists" and "bad for America." America did so much to try and destroy their government, even going as far as attacking Cuba, an event known as "The Bay of Pigs". America was fought off, but Castro had to think about protecting his nation and so sided with the USSR, allowing them to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, which even lead to "The Cuban Missile Crisis." Since then, the CIA has done everything in its power to destroy and discredit Castro, whether that be assassination attempts, dosing him with acid during his speeches, or even something as silly as shaving off his beard. Castro survived because he stayed in Cuba; Che, however, being the revolutionary, decided to leave Cuba for good to help other countries and revolutionaries against imperialism, and sometime in the 70s was assassinated by the CIA, his dying words being “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man.”
When the USSR collapsed in 1990, Castro allowed people to leave Cuba, but did so even before so, but Cuba has been holding on by a thread since then. My questions are: what is the point of continuing this embargo? What do we as America have to gain with this embargo? What can we do to rebuild the bridge with Cuba?
Before joining with the USSR, the embargo against Cuba
America, during WWI and WWII, tried to gain control of Cuba for its sugar, hoping to establish a monopoly on the sugar market; they even allowed gangsters to station there to turn it into a Caribbean Las Vegas, in a sense, since records of politicians were seen conversing and making business with these gangsters (for example: JFK).
Guevera started off as a medical student about to finish his education when he and a friend took a trip down to South America on a motorcycle, in which he recorded his time down there in what is now called "The Motorcycle Diaries." While traveling the continent, Guevara discovered the injustice of imperialism firsthand when encounter impoverished workers, and after a stint in helping out leprosy patients, he reconsidered his stance in life, and eventually decided to be a revolutionary.
Castro started off as a lawyer in Cuba, but seeing the injustice done to his people, became a revolutionary and set up numerous attacks against the dictatorship of Batista setup in Cuba by America, and when captured, defended himself in court with a speech taking hours, ending with the line "History will absolve me." He was then sentenced to 15 years.
Castro did not serve his full time, and eventually fled Cuba to South America, and along with other revolutionaries, including Guevera, came back to Cuba, and through guerrilla warfare, eventually overthrew Batista.
Now, because Castro and Che were highly-intelligent leaders for the working class, propaganda in America labeled them as "communists" and "bad for America." America did so much to try and destroy their government, even going as far as attacking Cuba, an event known as "The Bay of Pigs". America was fought off, but Castro had to think about protecting his nation and so sided with the USSR, allowing them to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, which even lead to "The Cuban Missile Crisis." Since then, the CIA has done everything in its power to destroy and discredit Castro, whether that be assassination attempts, dosing him with acid during his speeches, or even something as silly as shaving off his beard. Castro survived because he stayed in Cuba; Che, however, being the revolutionary, decided to leave Cuba for good to help other countries and revolutionaries against imperialism, and sometime in the 70s was assassinated by the CIA, his dying words being “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man.”
When the USSR collapsed in 1990, Castro allowed people to leave Cuba, but did so even before so, but Cuba has been holding on by a thread since then. My questions are: what is the point of continuing this embargo? What do we as America have to gain with this embargo? What can we do to rebuild the bridge with Cuba?
Before joining with the USSR, the embargo against Cuba
Thursday, June 17, 2010
initial website evaluation: the name of this site is talking heads
This site is updating what members of the band are up to nowadays; since the band is no longer together and some of the members aren't doing very much, the site mostly talks about it's frontman, David Byrne, and what he's up to (or at least on this particular page).
The site is well organized and updated within the past five days, but can really only update when members of the band do something news worthy; for example, the most recent article was an interview with David Byrne and how the interview is now available for free on iTunes. Even the advirtisements are related to Talking Heads.
The information of this site is provide by talking-heads.net, and yet they claim no authority or accuracy on the information given, and pretty much state "read at your own risk."
On the whole, the information given is on par with wikipedia; not to be used academically, but still chalk full of interesting info.
The site is well organized and updated within the past five days, but can really only update when members of the band do something news worthy; for example, the most recent article was an interview with David Byrne and how the interview is now available for free on iTunes. Even the advirtisements are related to Talking Heads.
The information of this site is provide by talking-heads.net, and yet they claim no authority or accuracy on the information given, and pretty much state "read at your own risk."
On the whole, the information given is on par with wikipedia; not to be used academically, but still chalk full of interesting info.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)