Lee Dresselhaus / L’Observateur / April 26, 2000

Elian Gonzalez.

There. I said it. And, much to my surprise, I didn’t barf. I told myself that if I heard that kid’s name one more time it would undoubtedly trigger projectile vomiting because I am so very sick of the media circus that has wrapped itself around the issue like a sticky, nauseating cocoon. I also told myself I wouldn’t write anything on it because,well, everyone else has. It’s too easy. But, since I can resist anything buttemptation, I’ve changed my mind and I would like to express some thoughts on this whole ridiculous, awkward, irritating, annoying, newspaper and television-filling issue.

Thought Number One. The father has the right to the child. Period. End ofstory.

The whole thing is a political ploy because certain factions – the Cuban exiles being only one of which – feel that the kid shouldn’t go back to a Communist country run by an odious dictator. He should, of course, stay in a capitalistcountry run by a philanderer and documented liar. That’s good. Shows thatthey’ve thought THAT little argument through, doesn’t it? One of the issues they recently raised was the fear that if Elian were to return to Cuba he would be “brainwashed” by those Cuban meanies. Right onthe heels of that little pronouncement came a nightly news picture of Elian wearing a hat on backwards and dark sunshades, looking all the world like a little mini-gangsta. Personally, I’m glad we wouldn’t corrupt the boy like theCubans are sure to do, aren’t you? And besides, you’re safe from brainwashing in this country. Everybody knows that. There’s no such thing asbrainwashing in Clinton’s America. Here it’s called “sensitivity training.” Justask John Rocker.

Thought Number Two: If that were an American child being held in some other country there would be big trouble. The citizens of that country, wherever itwas, would learn to live their lives in two-word phrases. Phases like, carriergroup, war planes, landing craft, airborne troops, and bomb shelter would very quickly become part of their daily lexicon. So would single words like”Duck!” We would not sit still for one minute if that were a child of ours.

Everybody, from the politicians on the hill to the drunk at the bar, would be howling about the father’s rights. Why not now?Thought Number Three: Just how much of a threat to the United States is Cuba anyway? Boy, talk about overstating a case. Aside from the fact thatCuba is an economic basket case, their Army is about the size of the Florida National Guard. Who are they going to threaten? Castro himself is a blusteryold windbag who has outlived his time and place in history. Reforms there arejust a matter of time. When old Fidel finally kicks the bucket he won’t evenbe good and cold before the scramble is on for the American dollar. Sowhat’s the big deal? We’ll have capitalist resorts on the beaches of Cuba before Elian is out of high school.

Thought Number Four: I wonder, in this politically-correct dreamland I call the Disney Planet that most of the media wants us to live in, just what would have happened had some roles been reversed. What I mean is, what wouldhave happened if it had been Elian’s father who had drowned off the coast of Florida? What would the situation be right now if it were the mother pleading for the return of her child? Oops.

I’ll bet that would have changed the dynamics of the whole situation. Why?Because the rules of political correctness are flexible, that’s why. They canbe twisted and molded to fit the needs of the moment. A tearful, prettymother is much better media fodder than a dignified, rational father. Themedia, which has actually made this story much, much bigger than it really is, are easily led about by the nose. They have a herd mentality. Just take a lookat the way Elian’s American family has manipulated them. The whole flock ofthem would have jumped to the side of the distressed woman in an instant.

And, finally, Thought Number Five: Where are all the politicians in this? Boy, talk about staying away from a hot issue! Gore, Bush, Clinton, and Clinton (the other one), are all keeping mum on this one. Nobody wants to riskmaking someone, anyone, angry. There is a word for that stance and I’mtrying to think of what it is. Let’s see, hmmmmoh, yeah. Gutless. That’sit.

I’ll close this by going back to Thought Number One. The father has the rightto his child, and politics be damned. And in the end, if the boy isn’t returnedto the custody of his dad, it will be a grave injustice. One that was committedin the interest of politics and not in what is right.

No matter what, though, I have one request.

Can we just get this over with? Please.

Lee Dresselhaus is a regular columnist for L’Observateur.

Copyright © #Thisyear# Wick Communications, Inc.Best viewed with 4.0 or higher