I have. And I do every time before I make a purchase, be it tooth-picks or computers.
Neuharth dances around the answer to his own question in the title, and no one has picked up the answer in this thread.
The reason why China is "OK," but Cuba is the "'enemy'" (interesting, I just noticed that he puts "enemy" in quotation marks, as if that is someone else's word," but "OK" is not in quotation marks, as if he approves of that term) is because China has more clout. It's as simple as that . . . and hardly a reason to lift the embargo on Cuba. Neuharth was so intent on establishing "equivalency" (typical liberal misdirection) because he wants you to disregard the strongest counter-argument to his position.
I just think he's right about this.
Agreed.
And I have a problem with that.
I dissagree. If Cuba is so horrible and we are going to have an embargo on them till they can afford (in cash, resources, labor or whatever) to buy our foreign policy like China has then it's completely inconsistant.
It makes no sense and further it's an shamefull that we would allow ourselves to be bought in the first place.
Who is FEDGOV to tell me where I can travel and where I can't based on their definition of "good commie/bad commie"
Who are they to tell me I can't invest till the country in question cough's up some green to buy them off? And how in the world can we shake a finger at Castro and turn a blind eye to China?
It's insulting and hypocritical. It's embarrassing that we can be bought and paid for like some kind of third world nation, and then have the nerve to turn and claim the moral high ground.
That's your moral equivelancy argument right there.