ECU trustees postpone renaming Aycock building -- Democrat governor had "white supremacist views

ECU trustees postpone renaming Aycock Dorm: Black trustee Scott cites "Racist Views"

 

  

  

By Jane Stancill

jstancill@newsobserver.comDecember 18, 2014 

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/18/4414390_ecu-trustees-postpone-building.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

After lengthy debate, East Carolina University trustees postponed a decision Thursday on whether to rename a dormitory that now bears the name of Charles B. Aycock, a former governor who espoused white supremacist views.
The university has been examining the issue for months, and a vote had been planned for Thursday. A campus committee and Chancellor Steve Ballard both recommended removal of the Aycock name, saying it was detrimental to the university’s mission to serve a diverse population.
The debate, at times contentious, went on for more than 2-1/2 hours. Despite a motion from the board’s only African-American member, Danny Scott, who wanted to strip the Aycock name, most board members agreed they wanted more time to consider the issue.
“I believe we’re trying to figure out how to not celebrate his name anymore,” said trustee Deborah Davis. “But how do we not lose the history and learn from these lessons of the past, to be able to fulfill the mission of East Carolina University?”
A campus committee that studied the issue for a couple of weeks concluded that Aycock’s reputation had changed and that continued use of his name “dishonors the University’s standards and is contrary to the best interest of the University,” according to the recommendation.
Ballard echoed those sentiments, saying values have changed since 1961, when former leaders, including revered former Chancellor Leo Jenkins, chose to name the dorm for Aycock. “My view is what he represented does not represent ECU in 2014 or moving forward,” Ballard said. “I can’t say it any other way than that.”
He pointed out that naming of the building for Aycock occurred before the Civil Rights Act and before the arrival of the first African-American students. Today, students of color make up 22 percent of ECU’s student body.
Scott said African-American alumni and prospective students are watching the board’s deliberation. “We will be held accountable for the decisions we make here,” Scott said.
The Aycock name has been troubling to others. The state Democratic party in 2011 ditched the name Vance-Aycock for its fall dinner, now calling it the Western Gala. In June, Duke University removed the former governor’s name from a dormitory following pressure from student government. Two other public campuses – UNC Greensboro and UNC-Chapel Hill – also have Aycock buildings and may reconsider. The name is also attached to public schools around North Carolina.
‘Education’ governor
Aycock, who was governor from 1901 to 1905, had a complex and contradictory legacy. Known as the first “education governor,” he established 1,100 schools and nearly 900 libraries around the state. He also worked with the legislature to pass laws that disenfranchised black voters. He was prominent in the Democratic Party’s white supremacy campaigns of 1898 and 1900.
His speeches portray a man who viewed blacks as inferior. The committee’s report quotes an Aycock speech in 1904, promoting more funds for white schools over black schools: “Let us cast away all fear of rivalry with the negro, all apprehension that he shall ever overtake us in the race of life. We are the thoroughbreds and should have no fear of winning the race against a commoner stock.”
Andrew Morehead, a chemistry professor and chairman of the committee, said members learned about Aycock through his own words.
“Most of us thought of him as the education governor,” Morehead said. “I think reading those documents is fairly eye-opening.”
Some trustees weren’t confident in the results of the committee’s review, however.
Kieran Shanahan said he was disturbed by the process. The committee conducted an online survey that was unscientific, he said, and appears to have broken the state’s open meeting laws by not providing notice to the public. There were no minutes of the meetings provided, Shanahan said, and the panel only met for about seven days.
“I’m just very troubled that there’s this emotional rush to do something to make some constituency feel better,” Shanahan said.
Scott said it has taken generations for the African-American community to recover from Jim Crow laws. There is no reason not to remove Aycock’s name.
“The evil that this guy perpetrated is unbelievable,” Scott said. “I can’t imagine a standard that could be higher.”
Aycock’s words
Alumnus Neal Crawford, who served on the review committee, said he grew up a mile from Aycock’s birthplace and attended a high school named for him.
“When I read the man’s own words – we cannot have that dorm named that anymore,” Crawford said. “If I were a young African-American student coming to East Carolina, I would not want to stay in a dorm with a man who believed that and said those things. I think we need to change it. I know it’s hard.”
But some were worried about the slippery slope of renaming a building because of a namesake’s attitudes.
Chairman Robert Brinkley said perception is very important. But he wanted to explore other options for exposing Aycock’s legacy, such as a adding a plaque or a film. The board is expected to vote in February.
“I can’t imagine that anybody, regardless of how he or she votes, is voting in favor of white supremacy and those ‘values’ that are reflected in those speeches,” Brinkley said.

Stancill: 919-829-4559

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/12/18/4414390_ecu-trustees-postpone-building.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

BBC: The English venture what we fail to say about North Korean blockade of U.S. free speech.

By BBC Trending 12/19/14

The Sony hacking story escalated from embarrassing Hollywood insider gossip to a topic of Grave Concern in a matter of hours, thanks to Sony's decision to pull the plug on The Interview before the film's scheduled Christmas Day opening.

Twitter users, many posting with #TheInterview hashtag, were among the first to pass judgement on the decision, and the verdict was grim.
"With the Sony collapse America has lost its first cyberwar," writes former Speaker of the House, turned pundit Newt Gingrich. "This is a very, very dangerous precedent."
"A sad day for creative expression," tweets actor Steve Carell, who's own movie set in North Korea was scrapped soon after the Interview was pulled.
"This isn't one of those glib 'the terrorists have won' deals," says Collider.com editor Adam Chitwood. "The terrorists genuinely got their way. Bad precedent."
Sony's decision was a "cowardly act", tweets Vox culture editor Todd VanDerWerff.
Not to be outdone, the Weekly Standard issued a "special editorial", saying Sony's decision "could be - unless we reverse course in a fundamental way - a signpost in a collapse of civilisational courage".
Amidst all the garment-rending and teeth-gnashing, however, a few writers are defending Sony's actions and even downplaying the impact of the whole ordeal.
Sony's decision to pull the movie was a reflection of the free market reacting to "the reality of fear", writes Bloomberg View's Stephen L Carter.
"The relevant market actors are moviegoers," he says. "Theatre owners are guessing that with The Interview in their multiplexes, holiday audiences will stay away in droves. From everything."
And they're probably right, he concludes.
Releasing the movie just isn't worth the risk, says Business Insider's Steve Kovach.
"We know these hackers are organised," he writes. "But we don't know how organised they are. Why risk it, no matter how silly the threat may seem?"
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait says that while Sony is hardly a "profile in courage", the studio isn't at fault here - paper-thin cybersecurity notwithstanding.
"Sony is a for-profit entity, and not even an American one, that effectively has important influence over American culture," he writes. "We don't entrust for-profit entities with the common defence. And recognising that the threat to a Sony picture is actually a threat to the freedom of American culture ought to lead us to a public rather than a private solution."
Chait argues that the US government should guarantee Sony's financial liability or even cover the studio's film expenses and then distribute it on the internet for free.
"The fiscal cost of backstopping Sony, against the backdrop of the federal budget, would be insignificant," he writes.
It's a plan Breitbart's John Nolte endorses as well, calling Sony's decision a "tactical retreat" that allows it to preserve the film as a viable product.
"Once the government has done its job, only then will it be morally necessary for Sony and Hollywood to push back hard against North Korea - hopefully with withering, brutal and devastating satire," he writes.
Others downplayed the seriousness of the threat.
"The ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously," cybersecurity expert Peter W Singer tells Vice's Jason Koebler. "I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."
He adds that calling what the hackers did "cyber-terrorism" goes "beyond the realm of stupid".
"We're not going to war with North Korea over this act just because Angelina Jolie is now mad at a Sony executive," he says. "Acts of war have a different standard."
In the end, writes Vulture's Adam Sternbergh, Sony's decision to pull the plug on The Interview probably has a lot less to do with caving to threats of violence than with the studio executives thinking: "Please, oh mighty lord in heaven, just make this go away."
"Simply put, at a certain point - given the accumulated damage in industry relationships, in corporate practices revealed, in class-action lawsuits from its own employees, in potential liability nightmares - The Interview was no longer the hill that Sony wanted to die on," he says.
If Americans want to get upset over something, he says, they should be less concerned with violence spawned by shadowy hackers and more worried about studios no longer being interested in pushing the bounds of political satire.
"Freedom of expression will no doubt endure, greater battles than this will be won, firewalls will hopefully be secured, and corporate emails will likely get a lot less freewheeling," he concludes.
Just don't expect to see any new films featuring Kim Jong-un in US theatres. Or, for that matter, old ones either.
Reporting by Anthony Zurcher

Pakistan

Pakistan responds to Peshawar school massacre with strikes on Taliban

At least 141 dead – including 132 children – after attackers storm school, shoot students and fight with commandos

Relatives mourn Mohammed Ali Khan, 15, who was killed in the school attack on 16 December 2014. Photograph: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters

Jon Boone in Peshawar and Ewen MacAskill

Tuesday 16 December 2014 18.30 EST

THE GUARDIAN

The Pakistan military has taken punitive action against Taliban militants by launching massive air strikes against its border region strongholds in retaliation for the Peshawar school massacre that left 132 children and nine staff dead in one of the worst terrorist incidents in the country’s history.
In an attack that provoked horror and fierce international condemnation, seven members of Tehrik-e-Taliban, the Pakistan Taliban, dressed in army uniform and wearing suicide vests, stormed the Army Public School mid-morning on Tuesday and began their shooting spree.
Firefights with Pakistan commandos continued for about eight hours before the school was cleared. Pakistani security forces said some of the attackers had been killed by commandos and others had blown themselves up.
Tehrik-e-Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in revenge for a ferocious army offensive – named Zarb-e-Azb – that has been underway in tribal areas since the summer and has left an estimated 1,000 militants dead and tens of thousands of people displaced.

An eyewitness from the school, a lab technician, says he saw six or seven men entering classrooms and beating children. Source: Reuters

“We selected the army’s school for the attack because the government is targeting our families and females,” said Taliban spokesman Mohammed Umar Khurasani. “We want them to feel the pain.”
The Taliban claimed it had spared the youngest pupils but survivors said the shooting had been indiscriminate.
The danger over the coming weeks and months is of spiralling violence in an already volatile region as the Pakistan military, which has a well-founded reputation for ruthlessness, seeks revenge for the dead children of military personnel.
The first indication that the response will be harsh came when Pakistan’s chief of staff, General Raheel Sharif, in a tweet, said “massive air strikes” had been carried out against targets in the Khyber region, a tribal agency adjacent to Peshawar.

The army chief’s first public remarks after the attack reflected rising anger. “These terrorists have struck the heart of the nation,” he said. “But our resolve to tackle this menace has gotten a new lease of life. We will pursue these monsters and their facilitators until they are eliminated for good.”

Teenage activist Malala Yousafzai condemned the ‘atrocious and cowardly’ attack. Photograph: Oli Scarff/PA

Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, vowed a military offensive that began in the summer to eradicate Taliban havens in North Waziristan, a semi-autonomous tribal region bordering Afghanistan, would continue “until terrorism is rooted from our land”.
The government declared three days of national mourning. Around the country musicians cancelled concerts, cinemas dropped films and business owners said shops would remain closed.
Throughout the day agonising details of the attack emerged from Peshawar’s usually unremarkable military Cantonment area. The seven attackers gained entrance to the school over a wall shared with a graveyard and then began shooting at random, searching out children hiding beneath desks and benches. The school roll was over 1,000; its pupils aged between five and 18. The army said 960 students and staff survived.
Pakistan has witnessed many terrorist incidents over the last decade but the deaths of so many children produced an outcry both at home and internationally.

Barack Obama described the attack as heinous, while his secretary of state John Kerry described it as “gut-wrenching” and “an unspeakable horror”. Echoing the Pakistan government and military, Kerry said: “The perpetrators must be brought to justice.”
David Cameron described it as a dark day for humanity. “There is not a belief system in the world that can justify this appalling act,” the prime minister said.
The massacre saw regional rivals join to express sympathy and support for the victims. The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, described the attack as cowardly, adding: “It is a senseless act of unspeakable brutality that has claimed lives of the most innocent of human beings – young children in their school.”

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Pakistani soldiers move bodies of victims killed when Taliban gunmen attacked an army-run school. Photograph: Arshad Arbab/EPA

The president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, who is engaged in a struggle of his own with the Afghan Taliban, also condemned the massacre, saying “the killing of innocent children is contrary to Islam”.

Advertisement

The Nobel peace prize winner, Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head by the Pakistan Taliban two years ago for speaking out in favour of education for girls, said: “I am heartbroken by this senseless and cold-blooded act of terror in Peshawar that is unfolding before us. Innocent children in their school have no place in horror such as this.”
The united front in the region is unlikely to last long before there is a return to mutual suspicion between the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indian governments. Pakistan’s intelligence agency has long played a double-game, with elements at times supporting the Afghanistan Taliban. Adding to the dangerous mix are US drone strikes in Fata, the semi-autonomous region of north-western Pakistan.
The stepping-up of military operations in the Pakistan tribal areas looks as if it will coincide with the Afghanistan government confronting the challenge of the Afghanistan Taliban following the full withdrawal of all US and allied combat troops at the end of the month.

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Police stand beside empty coffins at a hospital dealing with those attacked by Taliban gunmen in Peshawar, 16 December 2014. Photograph: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters

Tehrik-e-Taliban is allied to the Afghanistan Taliban, sharing similar aims regarding the establishment of sharia law and opposition to the US but, unlike the Afghanistan Taliban, regards the Pakistan government as a target.
The main Pakistan opposition leader, Imran Khan, announced he was cancelling national protests planned for Thursday. Khan is a leading critic of army behaviour in the tribal areas and has called in the past for negotiations rather than fighting.

U.S. - CUBA RELATIONS -- AT LAST (AT LEAST) A THAW . . .

via Verne Strickland USA DOT COM 12/17/14


A Thaw in Relations Between the United States and Cuba -- What Will It Mean Between the Two Close Next-Door Neighbors -- One Communist, One Free?


Who knows what may happen between now and midnight EDT on the U.S. Atlantic Coast? But for now, the big news is the United States and Cuba are toying with restoring diplomatic relations,  and opening trade and travel to make nice with one another. What will it mean  between the two close next-door neighbors -- one communist, one free?

By Andrea Mitchell and Erin McClam NBC

In a historic thaw of a relationship chilled since the early days of the Cold War, the United States announced plans Wednesday to restore diplomatic and economic ties with the communist island of Cuba.

The changes came with the abrupt release of an American government contractor, Alan Gross, who had been imprisoned in Cuba for five years. He stood when his plane cleared Cuban airspace and stepped off in the United States to hugs on the tarmac.

At the same time, the United States released three Cubans jailed for 15 years on spying charges, and Cuba released a U.S. spy held there for two decades.

President Barack Obama declared that the United States was ending an "outdated approach" after five decades of isolation failed to accomplish the goal of a democratic and prosperous Cuba. The United States and Cuba severed diplomatic relations in 1961, two years after forces led by Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government.

"Neither the American nor the Cuban people are well-served by a rigid policy that's rooted in events that took place before most of us were born," Obama said from the White House. "It's time for a new approach."

Obama said that the United States would relax travel, banking and commerce restrictions, and he instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to start talks to re-establish diplomatic relations, including the eventual opening of an American embassy in Havana.

"Nobody represents American values better than the American people," Obama said, "and I believe this contact will ultimately do more to empower the Cuban people."

A ban on travel to Cuba by American tourists can only be lifted by Congress, but Obama promised to talk to lawmakers about ending the full economic embargo. In the meantime, other licensed travelers will be allowed to bring home Cuban cigars.

Obama also told Kerry to review the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, which has been in place since 1982.

While Obama was speaking in Washington, President Raul Castro went on Cuban television to welcome the restored relationship. But he said there were still profound disagreements, including on human rights, and he said the two countries must live with their differences "in a civilized manner." 

Verne Strickland (USA DOT COM)
National and international news sources, and social news reporters like myself are all grappling with how how all this will play out. But, in the interplay between the Cuban communist government and the global powerhouse USA, some tectonic shifts are already taking place.

While NBC dealt with the expected headlines -- diplomatic relations, military adjustments, trade and travel -- reporters like Jose Diaz Ballard tackled some of the more personal issues that American conservatives and patriots -- including me -- are concerned about:

JOSE DIAZ-BALART: MRC
And just within the last hour, this from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Senate. This is New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez among the things he says in his comments, his statement:

“President Obama’s actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government. There is no equivalence between an international aid worker and convicted spies who where found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage against our nation...

"Trading Mr. Gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips. I fear that today’s actions will put at risk thousands of Americans that work overseas to support civil society, advocate for access to information, provide humanitarian services, and promote democratic reforms.” Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey releasing that statement just moments ago.

HuffPo: Among the expected changes as a result of the improvement in U.S.-Cuba relations is that licensed American travelers to Cuba will now be able to return to the U.S. with $400 in Cuban goods, including tobacco and alcohol products worth less than $100 combined. This means the long-standing ban on importing Cuban cigars is over, although there are still limits, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the official White House announcement.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, who like Menendez is the son of Cuban immigrants, also slammed the president's action to open diplomatic relations, calling it "disgraceful."

"The White House has conceded everything," Rubio said at a news conference just moments after the president spoke, calling Obama the "worst negotiator" who has ever taken occupancy at the White House.

Rubio said the U.S. policy change has resulted in no commitment from Cuba to ensure freedom of the press, speech and elections.

While Congress is responsible for lifting the trade embargo, which Obama can't do unilaterally, Rubio promised to use his power as incoming chair of a Foreign Relations subcommittee next year to pressure the administration on Cuba policy. He said he is likely to be very skeptical in his role to oversee the administration's efforts to confirm diplomats to Cuba and an embassy there.

NBC News House Speaker John Boehner also slammed the new policy. "Relations with the Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until the Cuban people enjoy freedom - and not one second sooner. There is no 'new course' here, only another in a long line of mindless concessions to a dictatorship that brutalizes its people and schemes with our enemies."

Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, also denounced the policy change with Cuba. "It is about the appeasement of autocratic dictators, thugs, and adversaries, diminishing America's influence in the world," the duo wrote in a statement.

Sen. Ted Cruz, another potential 2016 contender and whose parents are Cuban immigrants, said the agreement with Cuban leader Raul Castro has made the situation "worse."

"Fidel and Raul Castro have just received both international legitimacy and a badly-needed economic lifeline from President Obama. But they remain in control of a totalitarian police state modeled on their old state sponsor, the Soviet Union," Cruz said in a statement.

the right scoop: John Bolton says that even worse than the mistake of dealing with Cuba bilaterally is the message this sends to the world:

The president for his own ideological reasons has reversed 55 years of American policy. So our adversaries all around the world will be saying ‘two years to go in the Obama administration; now is the time to line up and get what we want.’
This is a very, very bad signal of weakness and lack of resolve by the President of the United States.

Regarding Cuba itself, Bolton says it is a mistake to think that giving Cuba a benefit will suddenly turn it into a free society. And he plainly calls Obama’s policy on Cuba ‘appeasement’.

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/john-bolton-obamas-policy-on-cuba-is-appeasement/#ixzz3MCo5CcMQ

BREITBART: President Obama says he respects the opinion of the many people who oppose his dramatic change in policy toward Cuba. “To those who oppose the steps I’m announcing today, let me say that I respect your passion and share your commitment to liberty and democracy,” Obama said.
But Obama says it's time to change the policy. He says it was obvious to him that it hadn’t made a difference in changing the status of democracy in Cuba.
“I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result,” he said, “Moreover, it does not serve America's interests or the Cuban people to try to push Cuba towards collapse.”
Obama urged Cubans who were concerned about America’s attempt to “colonize” the country to put their grievances behind them.
“Let us leave behind the legacy of both colonization and communism, the tyranny of drug cartels, dictators and sham elections,” he said. “A future of greater peace, security and democratic development is possible if we work together. Not to maintain power, not to secure vested interests but instead to advance the dreams of our citizens.”

What Now?: Nine questions you were embarrassed to ask about the Cuban embargo. (You'll have more.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

updated 7:24 PM EST, Wed December 17, 2014

Will U.S. 'normalize' relations with Cuba?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Obama will ease sanctions imposed against Cuba for more than 50 years following the release of Alan Gross
• The changes will ease travel restrictions and allow U.S. and Cuban banks to build relationships
• The changes come after a flurry of diplomatic efforts to free Gross and changes in the political dialogue in the U.S.

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will ease sanctions imposed against Cuba under the U.S. embargo after Cuba agreed to release American aid worker Alan Gross.

The agreement will deliver the most sweeping changes in the U.S. policy toward the nation that lies just 100 miles off the U.S. coast since the U.S. embargo on Cuba started in the early 1960s.

Most Americans - including President Obama - weren't alive when the embargo went into effect. So get up to speed on the last five decades of American foreign policy toward Cuba.

Why did the embargo start in the first place?

Gross: Crucial to know I wasn't forgotten

An 'elated' Gross was ready to come home

Rubio: Obama is the worst negotiator

Report: Cuba releases imprisoned American

The U.S. began imposing sanctions against Cuba after Fidel Castro seized power in 1959 and soon after nationalized more than $1 billion in American assets on the island. That's two years before Obama was even born.

The U.S. ratcheted up sanctions on Cuba in 1960 and 1961 with President John F. Kennedy making the embargo official in 1962.

Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba broke off in 1961 as tensions between the two nations increased after Cuba signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Relations remained mostly frozen throughout the Cold War.

Today, Cuba remains an autocratic regime - Fidel Castro's brother Raul is president - with a poor record on human rights and a track record of silencing dissent and restricting the rights of its citizens.

What kind of restrictions does the embargo currently impose?

The embargo not only keeps American companies from doing business in Cuba, but also prohibits most Americans from traveling directly there or spending money as tourists.

American citizens can face up to a $65,000 fine for spending money in Cuba, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The embargo also limits the amount of individuals can send to family living in Cuba.

So what's changing?

Both countries will work toward reestablishing embassies.

The U.S. will ease travel restrictions, making it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba and do business there.

U.S. and Cuban banks will be allowed to start building relationships and that means American travelers will be able to use their credit and debit cards when visiting.

Americans returning from a trip to Cuba can now return with up to $400 in Cuban goods, a quarter of which can be spent on alcohol and tobacco.

Think Cuban cigars.

Is U.S.-Cuba prisoner swap an ice breaker?

And in return, Cuba will free 53 political prisoners and significantly relax its restrictions on Internet access. Gross had been arrested after delivering satellite phones and other communications equipment to Cuba's small Jewish population.

So why doesn't Obama just end the embargo altogether?

Alan Gross back on U.S. soil

Richardson: Prisoner release is 'huge'

Cuban-Americans in Miami testy

He can't. Only Congress can end a trade embargo, which is enshrined into law. But according to White House officials, the President can ease certain restrictions under his executive authority.

This is the third time Obama has acted to ease the embargo. But policy changes in 2009 and 2011, which eased travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and later for academics and religious groups, didn't come close to the scope of Wednesday's landmark agreement.

Cuba Fast Facts

Does the U.S. have international backing to keep the embargo in place?

Barely. Over the last two decades, the United Nations General Assembly has voted each year against the embargo, calling on the U.S. to reverse its policy.

Only Israel has joined the U.S. in voting against the resolution.

What's the political climate like in the U.S.?

It's shifting and more political leaders and Cuban-Americans have been calling for changes in the U.S.'s policy toward Cuba in recent years.

Cuban refugees in the U.S and their descendants have historically been the most vocal group in calling for a tough U.S. policy against Cuba. But nearly 7 in 10 Cubans now favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and about half want the U.S. to end the embargo, according to a Florida International University poll this summer.

That has changed the climate of politics in the Miami-area and throughout Florida where most of the Cuban-American community resides, a shift that is sending ripples throughout the country.

What have politicians been saying about Cuba recently and what's the Pope got to do with it?

Former Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for an end to the embargo, calling it "Fidel Castro's best friend."

And President Obama stopped short of calling for an end to the embargo, but made it clear in 2013 that the U.S. policy needs to change.

"The notion that the same policies that we put in place in 1961 would somehow still be as effective as they are today, in the age of the Internet and Google and world travel, doesn't make sense," Obama said at a November 2013 fundraiser in Florida. "We have to continue to update our policies."

A month later, Obama shook hands with Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral in South Africa in a moment that played on TV screens around the world. Since then, negotiations have continued and even the Pope weighed in. He recently wrote letters to both Obama and Castro encouraging compromise.

But a pair of potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates from Florida have emphatically defended the embargo.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who announced Tuesday his decision to "actively explore" a 2016 run, said this year the ban should actually be strengthened, not lifted.

And Sen. Marco Rubio, whose parents fled Cuba after Fidel Castro's takeover, has called the embargo "the last tool we have remaining to ensure that democracy returns to Cuba one day."

How has Gross' detention impacted the debate?

Gross' imprisonment in 2009 set off a series of diplomatic exchanges between the two countries that involved prominent U.S. politicians.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led congressional delegations to Cuba in 2012 and 2013 to secure Gross' release that included in 2013 three Democratic Senators, a Republican Senator and two Democratic congressmen.

That same year, 66 senators wrote President Obama urging him to "act expeditiously to take whatever steps are in the national interest to obtain [Gross's] release."

And in November, Sens. Jeff Flake, a Republican, and Democrat Tom Udall traveled to Cuba in another attempt to negotiate Gross' release.

In 2011, former President Jimmy Carter also made an attempt as did former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose efforts were backed by the State Department.

Sounds like a lot of political capital has been poured into this effort. How much has Cuba been impacted by the embargo?

Cuba said in 2011 that the economic damage of the U.S. embargo has topped $1 trillion in its five decade history.

The embargo's crippling effects on the Cuban economy prompted Raul Castro, the brother of the country's famed dictator, to beef up efforts to end the embargo once he took the helm in 2008.

While Cuba was sustained by a serious trading relationship with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the Cuban economy took a hard hit with the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991.

CNN's Elise Labott contributed to this report.