Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

What purpose for the US public does that serve? How is that a "public good" And if you answer its good for the "world public." Than your illustrating the point that kind of leak is treasonous "giving of aid and comfort to the enemy".

I'm merely correcting the false statements, not debating its merits. But, no, I do not believe the world is our enemy.

And its absurd to compare the US's actions to that of China on this issue. It's bullshit false equivalence.

Who's to say? You've shown your judgment to be heavily influenced by irrational nationalism, so I wouldn't leave it up to you.

 

[el retorno]

I'm merely correcting the false statements, not debating its merits. But, no, I do not believe the world is our enemy.



Who's to say? You've shown your judgment to be heavily influenced by irrational nationalism, so I wouldn't leave it up to you.

I don't believe the world is our enemy but some countries are. states are self interested we should share everything.

And its not irrational nationalism its a informed opinion that the United States is and has been a force for good in the world and has a relatively democratic and accountable government. It is "better" than certain other countries (as in its government). The united states does not violate established human rights, privacy rights, intellectual property rights on the same scale as china. Is it free from flaws? no but certain comparisons show a biases that I feel is rooted in a contempt and disdain for its power.

 

[el retorno]

Rubio got caught saying two different things, one in spanish, another in english.

Its not like bilingual people exists...

http://noticias.univision.com/al-pu...imStage&ftpos=channel1521:wcmWidgetUimStage:1

"primero, la legalizacion"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Different-Things-to-Spanish-English-Audiences

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) apologized to Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity on his nationally-syndicated radio program on Wednesday after being caught telling different things to Spanish and English audiences about the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.

According to the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Rubio told Hannity that he “probably should have been more artful in the use of terms” when he claimed on Univision to a Spanish-speaking audience that the bill first legalizes America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants, then provides for increased border security after.

“Let’s be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the legalization,” Rubio said on Univision on Sunday. “The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: first comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

Rubio went on to say during that Univision interview that such “legalization” measures in this bill are “not conditional.”

The Florida Senator has presented information differently when interviewed on programs with primarily English-speaking audiences. For instance, as Hannity noted during his interview with Rubio on Wednesday: “I remember when I first interviewed you about this and I asked you very specifically, 'Do you support border security first,' and your answer was 'yes.'”

Rubio responded: “Right, but it is border security before the green card. The problem is in the interim you have to do something with the people who are here illegally so we know who they are.”

Sorry for the brietbart link

 

[Chichikov]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...vernment-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china

He's now talking to Chinese reporters and revealing things like this



This isn't about civil liberties or violating laws, its about his ideology and opposition to US policy. And those documents that the Post and the guardian refused to publish? Guess whose hands they are in? The Chinese.

Guy isn't a hero in the slightest.

The story isn't the man, but the information he put forward.
But if we are to focus on unimportant things, you should probably know that the SCMP is a Murdoch rag who has been pushing the US hacking angle before Snowden.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Oh, fuck. This got me. :lol

 

[The Librarian]

 

[B-Dubs]

Nope, that isn't weird. Not at all.

 

[Tamanon]

I honestly had no clue what you guys were laughing at in that picture until clicking through to the article. I just completely missed her.

 

[linsivvi]

But if we are to focus on unimportant things, you should probably know that the SCMP is a Murdoch rag

You might want to check your facts. Murdoch has had nothing to do with SCMP for 2 decades now.

 

[rocketknight]

I honestly had no clue what you guys were laughing at in that picture until clicking through to the article. I just completely missed her.

Thank you, I didn't either.

 

[el retorno]

The story isn't the man, but the information he put forward.
But if we are to focus on unimportant things, you should probably know that the SCMP is a Murdoch rag who has been pushing the US hacking angle before Snowden.

I think they are two separate stories.

I don't think the stories is about the man but he represents something that I think is vital to the story of why things are leaked. People like him have no loyalty or devotion to country and yet are working in an industry whose entire focus is defending the country.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think they are two separate stories.

I don't think the stories is about the man but he represents something that I think is vital to the story of why things are leaked. People like him have no loyalty or devotion to country and yet are working in an industry whose entire focus is defending the country.

I think you're right that it's worth looking at what the guy's motivations were, but I don't think it's accurate to say that he was "working in an industry whose entire focus is defending the country". He was employed by a consulting firm called Booz Allen Hamilton. It's listed on the NYSE. Its shareholders are not primarily concerned with defending the country.

 

[el retorno]

I think you're right that it's worth looking at what the guy's motivations were, but I don't think it's accurate to say that he was "working in an industry whose entire focus is defending the country". He was employed by a consulting firm called Booz Allen Hamilton. It's listed on the NYSE. Its shareholders are not primarily concerned with defending the country.

The intelligence agency's business is the defense of the agency. The fact that booz allen is a private company though is something we should be looking at. Do we really want all this outsourcing? Is it safe? Can we trust them etc.

Not only for preventing leaks but for being better prepared for other countries spying, corporate espionage, financial crimes, hacking

I think the story of the man is important because its a part of a larger narrative of this growing internet subculture that has a radical agenda and ideas which is opposed to the existing order and most people's desires in general. These are the same ideologies that drove the youth in egypt, turkey, OWS, indignados, greek protestors. Its changing the world and rapidly increasing instability, for better or worse. I think this strain of though really started in seattle and will reverberate into the future for a long time.

 

[empty vessel]

I think you're right that it's worth looking at what the guy's motivations were, but I don't think it's accurate to say that he was "working in an industry whose entire focus is defending the country". He was employed by a consulting firm called Booz Allen Hamilton. It's listed on the NYSE. Its shareholders are not primarily concerned with defending the country.

Not only that, but "defending the country" is exactly what is in dispute here. Before this argument goes anywhere one first has to prove that the actions of the NSA are taken to defend the country. History has shown that "national security" often has nothing to do with protecting the domestic public and everything to do with projecting American corporate power. Not only that, the actions frequently place the American domestic public at greater harm than they otherwise would be. See 9/11. So pretty much the opposite of defending the country.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

I honestly had no clue what you guys were laughing at in that picture until clicking through to the article. I just completely missed her.

Oh shit, I didn't see her until you mentioned a 'her'.

I am laughing now, are you happy, Dax?

 

[Angry Fork]

I think the story of the man is important because its a part of a larger narrative of this growing internet subculture that has a radical agenda and ideas which is opposed to the existing order and most people's desires in general. These are the same ideologies that drove the youth in egypt, turkey, OWS, indignados, greek protestors. Its changing the world and rapidly increasing instability, for better or worse. I think this strain of though really started in seattle and will reverberate into the future for a long time.

This is a good thing. Claiming the existing order is what 'most people desire' is bullshit also.

 

[el retorno]

This is a good thing. Claiming the existing order is what 'most people desire' is bullshit also.

Not in my opinion, and I'm sorry but most people are happy with the general capitalistic order and don't want radical reform (communism, central planning, etc.). They want small reform (a return to things that have worked in the past) not revolution. If anything they are conservative in the truest sense of the word. You misconstrue discontent with your desire for global stateless revolution

Not only that, but "defending the country" is exactly what is in dispute here. Before this argument goes anywhere one first has to prove that the actions of the NSA are taken to defend the country. History has shown that "national security" often has nothing to do with protecting the domestic public and everything to do with projecting American corporate power. Not only that, the actions frequently place the American domestic public at greater harm than they otherwise would be. See 9/11. So pretty much the opposite of defending the country.

This is such a tired argument from you. The NSA protect the country and its people. You have to radically redefine what these notions mean to defend your point of view.

Your thing about "putting them in greater harm" is also tired and lazy, its part of the "blame the US" attitude. But since you see everything through the marxist lense that's to be expected. Everything is some kind of david and goliath story with the david always being in the right or at least not in the wrong. Smaller actors always are forced into action, they have no choice and larger actors are all immoral rich people who don't care.

 

[SpeedySwaf]

He's not running. What does it matter?

Obama will get more popular after he leaves.

Very possible. Even Nixon of all people is given props for some of the things he's done, and Clinton is remembered more fondly as well.

 

[el retorno]

Very possible. Even Nixon of all people is given props for some of the things he's done, and Clinton is remembered more fondly as well.

And if jeb runs, people will remember the things they hate bush for.

 

[speculawyer]

Very possible. Even Nixon of all people is given props for some of the things he's done, and Clinton is remembered more fondly as well.

Well it is all relative. Nixon WAS a crook.

But there is no denying that he ended the Vietnam war, created the EPA, opened up China, and did other good things.

Bush did sign the 'no-call-list' law and did help with AIDS drugs in Africa. But beyond that, I can't find much good he did.

Edit: If Obama leaves office without a major economic melt-down, he will be remembered quite fondly. Despite all the hate from the right because that is mostly just petty bullshit.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Edit: If Obama leaves office without a major economic melt-down, he will be remembered quite fondly. Despite all the hate from the right because that is mostly just petty bullshit.

The GOP fucking hated Clinton when he was in office, outright accused him of murder, now losers like Hannity are saying "Oh good ol' Bill would have done things differently" whenever they want to dump on Obama. And Romney was talking him up a LOT until Bill gave a full-throated endorsement of Obama.

I'm sure when Hillary runs they'll try and dreg some of the old stuff up, but both of the Clintons are currently enjoying like 70% approval ratings so it won't stick.

 

[empty vessel]

This is such a tired argument from you. The NSA protect the country and its people. You have to radically redefine what these notions mean to defend your point of view.

First, you are the one invoking the national defense so the obligation is on you to demonstrate that what our government does secretly (e.g., causing a coup in Iran) advances that purpose.

Second, you cannot do this because your government keeps you in the dark about its activities.

Third, it should be obvious that your allegation is based on blind faith, and contra the historical declassified record to boot. To the extent we have any evidence at all it is aligned against you and suggests your blind faith is naive.

Now, this isn't to say that nothing the government does in secret is to protect the public. But when you consider that it is all the other things the government does in secret that gives rise to threats to the public in the first place, that's small consolation.

 

[The Librarian]

Oh shit, I didn't see her until you mentioned a 'her'.

I am laughing now, are you happy, Dax?

Yes!

 

[Grakl]

Hey guys, when does the SCOTUS usually release decisions?

 

[Angry Fork]

Not in my opinion, and I'm sorry but most people are happy with the general capitalistic order and don't want radical reform (communism, central planning, etc.). They want small reform (a return to things that have worked in the past) not revolution. If anything they are conservative in the truest sense of the word. You misconstrue discontent with your desire for global stateless revolution

I didn't mean to imply the majority think like me, just that there's no way of really knowing what they think. The point I was making is there is mass discontent, and many of the things associated with capitalism: greed, inequality, lack of democracy, dog eat dog world etc. are things a huge amount of people do not like. Just because ordinary people are weary of politics or joining an anti-capitalist movement doesn't mean they haven't thought about what life would be like under a different social order.

But this will all change once the environment implodes. Then we'll see how well capitalism survives, assuming we haven't developed terraforming capabilities at that point and republicans/democrats will just say let's move to Mars. The coming decades will get worse and worse not because of the internet creating radical individuals (although that helps), but because the current order cannot and will not sustain itself.

Not just the environment but everything from technological revolutions in robotics/AI, 3D printing, transhumanism to how intellectual property functions in a completely digital world. Things will have to move more and more towards a more communal, egalitarian mode of functioning. If not, more and more will be tightly controlled under tyrannical governments set up by smaller and smaller amounts of owners of all of these things.

First, you are the one invoking the national defense so the obligation is on you to demonstrate that what our government does secretly (e.g., causing a coup in Iran) advances that purpose.

Second, you cannot do this because your government keeps you in the dark about its activities.

Third, it should be obvious that your allegation is based on blind faith, and contra the historical declassified record to boot. To the extent we have any evidence at all it is aligned against you and suggests your blind faith is naive.

Now, this isn't to say that nothing the government does in secret is to protect the public. But when you consider that it is all the other things the government does in secret that gives rise to threats to the public in the first place, that's small consolation.

I don't know how anyone can even skim through some of the things we did throughout the 60s-80s alone and think the US was ever interested in purely protecting it's citizens or 'spreading' democracy.

Honestly what do nationalists think of cointelpro? Red scares? Placing dictatorships in other countries? Purposeful centralization of wealth and influence? Would the el retorno's of the time have justified it in order to keep the 'current soldier order'? Does he think we're different now? I don't understand.

 

[The Librarian]

Hey guys, when does the SCOTUS usually release decisions?

In the mornings. Gay marriage/Prop 8 and VRA should be out this summer.

 

[Grakl]

In the mornings. Gay marriage/Prop 8 and VRA should be out this summer.

Cool, thanks. I read by the 26th/27th?

 

[Particle Physicist]

In your 874757th edition of Dat Outreach™, House Judiciary Committee today passed a bill that would make abortion illegal beyond the first twenty weeks.

My biggest problem with that is that every single Republican on that committee is male: http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html

My biggest problem with that is that genetic screening for things like the different trisomies (some of which are just incredibly awful) is done at 20 weeks. Meaning couples will have to make an immediate decision. Christ, these people don't know shit

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...vernment-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china

He's now talking to Chinese reporters and revealing things like this



This isn't about civil liberties or violating laws, its about his ideology and opposition to US policy. And those documents that the Post and the guardian refused to publish? Guess whose hands they are in? The Chinese.

Guy isn't a hero in the slightest.

Did he seriously turn over top secret documents to the Chinese? I'm sorry, but that moves him into traitor territory if true. :/

 

[Incognito]

Hey guys, when does the SCOTUS usually release decisions?

Friday afternoons, around 5. Hence "Friday news dumps".

 

[Grakl]

Today's rulings:
59 6/13/13 11-798 American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles
58 6/13/13 11-889 Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
57 6/13/13 12-167 United States v. Davila
56 6/13/13 12-398 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

I think a lot of people were looking at the DNA one.

Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

 

[AndyD]

Today's rulings:
59 6/13/13 11-798 American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles
58 6/13/13 11-889 Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
57 6/13/13 12-167 United States v. Davila
56 6/13/13 12-398 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

I think a lot of people were looking at the DNA one.

Yep. A short and sweet decision too.

 

[el retorno]

Did he seriously turn over top secret documents to the Chinese? I'm sorry, but that moves him into traitor territory if true. :/

He took the documents with him across the border

If he doesn't destroy him, the Chinese will look at them. They're not stupid.

First, you are the one invoking the national defense so the obligation is on you to demonstrate that what our government does secretly (e.g., causing a coup in Iran) advances that purpose.

Second, you cannot do this because your government keeps you in the dark about its activities.

Third, it should be obvious that your allegation is based on blind faith, and contra the historical declassified record to boot. To the extent we have any evidence at all it is aligned against you and suggests your blind faith is naive.

Now, this isn't to say that nothing the government does in secret is to protect the public. But when you consider that it is all the other things the government does in secret that gives rise to threats to the public in the first place, that's small consolation.

The historical declassified record doesn't say the government doesn't try to protect its people. If anything it confirms it does or at least attempts to.

Iran? securing cheap oil and trying to keep a friendly regime in power helps americans and the economy.
Proxy conflicts? helped de-stabilize the soviets kept them involved in conflicts that weakened them

Those are just two examples, were there mistakes made? Of course. Do I support all those decisions? No I think some turned out to be bad (I am in no way attempting claim they were the "right thing to do" just that they show the motives). But international relations isn't a science. No leaving the middle east isn't going to solve our problem with terrorism or Iran, in fact it could do the opposite. My problem is you pretend that decision makers can make perfect decisions, there are correct and incorrect choices. there aren't. Nothing in the history shows that the intelligence community has ever protected the rich and let horrible things happen to all the other non-elite Americans. The only thing I can think of that even gets close to this is some actions during the civil rights movement which I am critical of.

Its not blind faith, I've seen no examples of what you claim they do. Protect exclusively the elite and their interests. You ascribe this malice evidence doesn't really show.

 

[el retorno]

@SteveKingIA

20 brazen self professed illegal aliens have just invaded my DC office. Obama's lawless order gives them de facto immunity from U.S. law.

making friends

 

[rocketknight]

Inside The Meltdown At America’s Most Conservative, Most Christian Political Consulting Firm
Rex Elsass built a Republican empire on his faith. But he found himself battling his closest allies over his immortal soul.

When the conversation came to a close, the seven men drew close to Elsass and laid their hands on him, taking turns invoking the Lord’s blessings as their boss sought to overcome temptation and find peace. After a round of warm embraces, they left the office.

The next day, Elsass went to war with them.

This is a good read.

 

[el retorno]

When the conversation came to a close, the seven men drew close to Elsass and laid their hands on him, taking turns invoking the Lord’s blessings as their boss sought to overcome temptation and find peace.

This is creepy, like really creepy. Its cultish.


Also related. The GOP is doubling down on religious conservatives

I really think Christie is the only chance they have in the general

“We think you’ve got to add more young people, more Hispanics, more women, more African-Americans — you’ve got to grow the movement and grow the party,” Reed said. “But you don’t do that by taking the most loyal constituents that you’ve got and throwing them under the bus.”

How do you propose to do this while keeping your racist, misogynistic and bigoted platform? Its like they think just by wanting (praying?) it enough things will change.

 

[Wilsongt]

Fuck off, Rubio.

Rubio: ‘I’m done’ if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay unauthorized immigrants to claim foreign same-sex partners as family.

"If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done," Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is."

The amendment, introduced by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, would grant green cards to foreign partners of gay unauthorized immigrants who seek legal status under new rules in the bill. Leahy originally introduced the measure during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, but he withdrew it under pressure from Republican lawmakers who said it would reduce the chance of the bill passing.

The effort underway in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration system is a bipartisan one, and its success hinges on a fragile coalition of political, business and religious groups that span the ideological spectrum. Opponents of Leahy's amendment have said repeatedly that his proposal would cause some key groups to withdraw their support and kill the bill. Rubio's exit would be especially devastating to its survival.

The Senate is expected to vote on Leahy's amendment soon.

In the interview, Rubio also said that as the bill is currently written, it has "no chance" of passing.

"If the border situation is not improved in this bill, this bill won't pass," he said. "It won't pass the Senate and it has no chance in the House. It won't become a law and we're wasting our time."

"We only care about immigrants if they're straight. Not you gay ones. Go away. Shoo."

 

[rocketknight]

Fuck off, Rubio.

Rubio: ‘I’m done’ if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment



"We only care about immigrants if they're straight. Not you gay ones. Go away. Shoo."

The guy is so busy creating escape hatches for himself. What a dirtbag.

 

[Link]

No surprise. Rubio has been looking for excuses to bail out on immigration since the start.

 

[B-Dubs]

Fuck off, Rubio.

Rubio: ‘I’m done’ if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment



"We only care about immigrants if they're straight. Not you gay ones. Go away. Shoo."

Who didn't see this coming?

 

[Hitokage]

No surprise. Rubio has been looking for excuses to bail out on immigration since the start.

The GOP as a whole has been trying to give the appearance of immigration reform without actually doing anything.

 

[Link]

The GOP as a whole has been trying to give the appearance of immigration reform without actually doing anything.

That goes without saying, but Rubio was lauded as the "savior" that could get it done.

 

[Particle Physicist]

He took the documents with him across the border

If he doesn't destroy him, the Chinese will look at them. They're not stupid.

That is quite awful. Handing over classified documents to the media in order to shed light on possible government abuse of power is one thing, but giving documents to a foreign government just because the media refused to publish some of those crosses a line. If he actually does this, it will completely change my view of him and his actions. I hope other people are paying attention. :/

 

[empty vessel]

The historical declassified record doesn't say the government doesn't try to protect its people. If anything it confirms it does or at least attempts to.

Iran? securing cheap oil and trying to keep a friendly regime in power helps americans and the economy.

First, you've moved the goalpost. We're no longer talking about defending the American public but allegedly acting aggressively on their behalf.

Second, despite this, this new allegation is unimaginably naive. You think regular Americans get the benefits from the US's actions abroad? No. Western oil companies got contracts to produce oil that Iran would sell, with a cut going back to American oil corporations. How's that Iraq benefit treating you?

Third, there is no point in further discussion if your world view is so vile that you endorse your government's violently overthrowing democratic governments so that (even in your view) Americans and the economy are "helped."

I'd say you would do well to spend a lot of time here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/. I did many years. But given that you actually endorse these acts, you've nothing to learn from it.

 

[el retorno]

That is quite awful. Handing over classified documents to the media in order to shed light on possible government abuse of power is one thing, but giving documents to a foreign government just because the media refused to publish some of those crosses a line. If he actually does this, it will completely change my view of him and his actions. I hope other people are paying attention. :/

I don't think its quite fair at this point to say he's giving them anything. But the very nature of crossing the border puts them under china's jurisdiction. You think they don't really will look at them?

First, you've moved the goalpost. We're no longer talking about defending the American public but allegedly acting aggressively on their behalf.

Second, despite this, this new allegation is unimaginably naive. You think regular Americans get the benefits from the US's actions abroad? No. Western oil companies got contracts to produce oil that Iran would sell, with a cut going back to American oil corporations. How's that Iraq benefit treating you?

Third, there is no point in further discussion if your world view is so vile that you endorse your government's violently overthrowing democratic governments so that (even in your view) Americans and the economy are "helped."

I'd say you would do well to spend a lot of time here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/. I did many years. But given that you actually endorse these acts, you've nothing to learn from it.

You shifted the posts to redefining what "defending the nation" means. Defending that nation means not only defending the public from attacks (which they do) but also to maintain the United States competitive and material advantages. This doesn't mean to keep down other nations but it means to make sure the US can act if it wants.

Yes I believe americans get benefits from US actions. The privileged position of our country in the world gives many material benefits. We need to do a better job of allowing more to experience them though.

And on Iran and others, I never said I supported or endorsed overthrows, just that they were done with the intention of helping the country, that includes our corporations. The world has changed from the cold war. I can't see myself supporting actions like that today.

Still I'm a realist (with a desire to be a liberal) when it comes to international relations. I don't subscribe to the democratic peace theory and believe the thing keeping us from reliving much of the horrors of the 20th century are the material benefits derived from globalized capitalism (which makes possible the social safety net).

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Fuck off, Rubio.

Rubio: ‘I’m done’ if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment



"We only care about immigrants if they're straight. Not you gay ones. Go away. Shoo."

Shocker.

 

[el retorno]

Fuck off, Rubio.

Rubio: ‘I’m done’ if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment



"We only care about immigrants if they're straight. Not you gay ones. Go away. Shoo."

Won't DOMA being struck down at least make it impossible to discriminate for those with marriages or civil unions from other countries?

I hate the insincerity this guy has. Especially in his Spanish language interviews.

But to be fair this is him throwing meat to the base, the bigoted base that got him elected. If he wants to be president this will prove to be an empty threat.

 

[Link]

Hopefully Rubio gets washed back out to sea in 2016. With the way Florida has been trending, it's a good possibility, especially if Hillary runs.

 

[el retorno]

Hopefully Rubio gets washed back out to sea in 2016. With the way Florida has been trending, it's a good possibility, especially if Hillary runs.

Is that a cuban joke?

 

[Incognito]

Is that a cuban joke?

Think more of a climate change joke. Could be wrong, but am often not.