Translations 677
Tribute to the First Women’s Antiaircraft Regiment
- English
- Español
Tribute to the First Women’s Antiaircraft Regiment
March 15, 2009 00:53:09 GMT
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
At the Museum of the Revolution, the 25 years of existence of this regiment was remembered. The regiment was created by initiative of Vilma Espin, eternal president of the Cuban Women Federation.
The Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) in the capital paid tribute to the first anti-aircraft artillery regiment of women, created by initiative of Vilma Espin, eternal president of the Cuban Women Federation (FMC), according to AIN.
During a ceremony at the Museum of the Revolution, the 25 years of existence of this regiment were remembered. Reserve Colonel Mirta Garcia Llorca was in command of this regiment from 1984 to 1991.
After placing a wreath at the eternal flame to the Heroes of the Fatherland at the Granma Memorial, the women shared their experiences and remembered the founding years. The myriad tasks performed on behalf of the FAR and the FMC, particularly during international missions and in Cuba, were also remembered.
The event, chaired by Major General Antonio Enrique Batlle Lusón, Hero of the Republic of Cuba, and by Yolanda Ferrer, secretary general of the women’s organization, was a propitious moment to recount the significance Cuban women have had as part of the Cuban people in uniform.
It also recognized the efforts of the FAR, the UJC, the FMC and the High School Student Federation (FEEM) to comply with the Women’s Voluntary Military Service, a vital link in the incorporation of young girls to the defense of our homeland.
At the end of the ceremony, Brigadier General Ramon Martinez Echevarria, of MINFAR, stressed the merits of these women who stepped forward at a time when the country urgently needed their presence in the Armed Forces and reiterated the altruism and courage with which they faced different missions.
The First Antiaircraft Artillery Regiment of Women was founded on March 8, 1984, and many of its members are still active within the FAR and the MININT, while others are active in different sectors of Cuban society.
Homenaje a Primer Regimiento Antiaéreo Femenino
15 de marzo de 2009 00:53:09 GMT
En el Museo de la Revolución fueron recordados los 25 años de existencia de este órgano armando, que surgió por iniciativa de Vilma Espín, eterna presidenta de la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas
Las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (FAR) rindieron homenaje en la capital al primer regimiento femenino de artillería antiaérea, una iniciativa impulsada por Vilma Espín, eterna presidenta de la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas (FMC), informó la AIN.
Durante una ceremonia en el Museo de la Revolución fueron recordados los 25 años de existencia de este órgano armando, al frente del cual estuvo desde 1984 hasta 1991 la coronel de la reserva Mirta García Llorca.
Tras colocar una ofrenda floral en la llama eterna a los Héroes de la Patria en el Memorial Granma, las féminas intercambiaron experiencias y rememoraron los años fundacionales y las innumerables tareas cumplidas por encargo de las FAR y la FMC, en particular en misiones internacionalistas y en suelo patrio.
El acto, presidido por el Héroe de la República de Cuba, general de división Antonio Enrique Lusón Batlle, y Yolanda Ferrer, secretaria general de la organización femenina, devino oportuno recuento de lo que ha significado la mujer cubana como parte del pueblo uniformado.
Asimismo, se reconoció el esfuerzo de las FAR, la UJC, la FMC y la Federación de Estudiantes de la Enseñanza Media (FEEM) en el cumplimiento del Servicio Militar Voluntario Femenino, un eslabón imprescindible en la incorporación de las jóvenes a la defensa de la Patria.
Al término de la ceremonia el general de brigada Ramón Martínez Echevarría, del MINFAR, destacó los méritos de estas mujeres que dieron el paso al frente en momentos en que el país urgía de su presencia en las Fuerzas Armadas y reiteró el altruismo y la valentía con que enfrentaron disímiles misiones.
El Primer Regimiento de Artillería Antiaéreo Femenino se fundó el 8 de marzo de 1984, y muchas de sus integrantes se mantienen en activo dentro de las FAR y el MININT y otras en diferentes sectores de la sociedad cubana.
Why does Obama decide 8 days before what he could have decided 8 years ago?
- English
- Español
CUBA-USA: WHY DOES OBAMA DECIDE 8 DAYS BEFORE WHAT HE COULD HAVE DECIDED 8 YEARS AGO?
By Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
January 3, 2017
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Each action should carry an analysis. If the action is carried out in the field of foreign policy the analysis should cover different aspects. It is very unlikely that an action in foreign policy has no impact on domestic policy.
Mr. Obama, eight days before finishing his term, modifies the policy of “dry feet” “wet feet,” something he should have done eight years ago, when he undertook the Presidency of the United States. He has really been slow in this matter, as in others.
What are the consequences of maintaining the policy of “dry feet” “wet feet” for eight years?
According to the statistics of the United States Government’s Coast Guard Service, during those eight years about 32,000 people were caught at sea, trying to reach the United States. More than 3,200 people did not reach the US coasts and died at sea. In the fiscal year 2015-2016 the Coast Guard reported having seized at sea 7,358 people from Cuba.
To this figure should be added those who entered illegally by land, mainly along the border with Mexico. This other figure is estimated at about 20,000 people.
In addition to this, a little more than 8,000 health professionals accepted the Plan that allowed them to enter the United States after leaving the mission entrusted to them.
As the policy aimed at stimulating these illegal entrances was that practically all those who could violate immigration controls and become “dry feet” were admitted to the US and were granted under the Cuban Adjustment Act –even if they did not fully qualify under it– the Act cost approximately $680 million dollars annually to US taxpayers. In the eight years that Obama took to eliminate this policy, he spent just over $ 4 billion. Of course, they were not out of his pocket, but they should be added to everything spent on actions against the Cuban Revolution.
Now that Trump is arriving at the White House, this is another of Obama’s maneuvers to leave the scene “hot” and provoke a measure beneficial to Cuba and even the United States, whether maintaining it is considered or not.
The Gestapo Mafia of Miami has already come out against the measure. They consider that it is one of the “favors” that Obama has made to Cuba; a little late, by the way. This removes an important element in their hostile arguments that is precisely to promote the illegal and disorderly emigration of those who “flee from communism”. No matter that some of them die in the attempt: these can also be used for propaganda purposes.
Now the ball is on Trump’s court. Perhaps Obama, unwillingly, solved a problem for him.
Trump has spoken out against illegal immigration: remember the wall, the Muslims, and anyone trying to enter the United States without obtaining the corresponding visa? It does not seem logical that he will complicate something already solved; mainly because it was not his decision, it was Obama’s. This can help him in the analysis that he will make of all the Executive Orders: to leave this one and say that he will only cancel or modify those that harm the United States. This benefits them and is in accordance with the policy that he wishes to follow.
Let’s wait and see what the unpredictable Trump decides.
CUBA.- EU.- ¿PORQUE OBAMA DECIDE 8 DIAS ANTES LO QUE PODÍA HABER DECIDIDO 8 AÑOS ANTES?
Por Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
Cada acción debe llevar un análisis. Si la acción se realiza en el campo de la política exterior el análisis debe cubrir distintos aspectos. Inclusive es poco probable que una acción en política exterior no tenga su repercusión en la política interna.
El señor Obama, ocho días antes de terminar su mandato, modifica la política de “pies secos” “pies mojados”, algo que debía haber realizado hace ocho años, cuando asumió la presidencia de los Estados Unidos. Realmente se ha mostrado lento en este asunto, al igual que en otros.
¿Qué consecuencias ha traído el mantener la política de “pies secos” “pies mojados” durante ocho años?
De acuerdo con las estadísticas del Servicio de Guarda Costas del gobierno de Estados Unidos, durante esos ocho años fueron capturados en el mar, intentando llegar a Estados Unidos, cerca de 32,000 personas, no llegaron a las costas estadounidenses y murieron en el mar un poco más de 3,200 personas. En el año fiscal 2015- 2016 el servicio de Guardacostas informó haber capturado en el mar 7,358 personas procedentes de Cuba.
A esta cifra debe agregarse aquellos que ingresaron ilegalmente por vía terrestre, principalmente por la frontera con México, lo cual se calcula en cerca de 20,000 personas.
Además de esto un poco más de 8,000 profesionales de la salud se acogieron al Plan que les permitió ingresar en Estados Unidos después de haber abandonado la misión que se les había confiado.
Cómo la política seguida para estimular estas entradas ilegales era que prácticamente todos los que podían violar los controles de inmigración y se convertían en “pies secos” se acogían a la Ley de Ajuste Cubano y se les concedía el hacerlo, aunque no calificaran totalmente para eso, la mencionada Ley costaba aproximadamente 680 millones de dólares anuales al contribuyente estadounidense. En los ocho años que Obama se demoró en eliminar esta política, gastó un poco mas de 4,000 millones de dólares. Claro que no eran de su bolsillo, pero que deben sumarse a todo lo gastado en acciones contra la Revolución Cubana.
Cómo Trump está al llegar a la Casa Blanca, esta es otra de las maniobras de Obama para dejarle “caliente” el escenario y provocar que una medida beneficiosa para Cuba y para los propios Estados Unidos, sea analizada si se mantiene o no.
La Mafia Gestapo de Miami ya se pronunció en contra de la medida. Consideran que es uno de los “favores” que Obama le ha hecho a Cuba, un poco tarde, por cierto. Esto les quita un elemento importante en sus argumentaciones hostiles que es precisamente promover la emigración ilegal y desordenada de los que “huyen del comunismo”. No importa que algunos de ellos mueran en el intento, esos también pueden utilizarse para los fines propagandísticos.
Ahora Trump tiene la palabra. Quizás Obama, sin quererlo, le resolvió un problema.
Trump se ha manifestado en contra de la inmigración ilegal, recuerden el muro, los musulmanes y todo aquel que intenta entrar en Estados Unidos sin obtener la visa correspondiente. No parece lógico que algo resuelto lo vuelva a complicar, sobre todo porque no fue su decisión, fue la de Obama y eso puede servirle en el análisis que realizara de todas las Órdenes Ejecutivas, para dejar esta y decir que solamente cancelará o modificará aquellas que perjudican a Estados Unidos. Esta los beneficia y está acorde a la política que él desea seguir.
Esperemos para ver que decide el impredecible Trump.
– Dr. Néstor García Iturbe es editor del boletín electrónico El Heraldo (Cuba) sarahnes@cubarte.cult.cu
“Strange Fruit”, the song that Rebecca Ferguson wants to sing at the Trump ceremony
- English
- Español
“Strange Fruit”, the song that Rebecca Ferguson wants to sing at the Trump ceremony
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Singing “Strange Fruit” was Rebecca Ferguson’s condition for performing at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump, attended by six religious leaders including a Catholic cardinal, a rabbi, a Hispanic clergyman and a woman.
The artist wrote in her Twitter account that she would only accept the invitation of the president-elect “if you allow me to sing” Strange Fruit “a song that has an enormous historical importance, a song that was blacklist of the United States for being too controversial.
A song that speaks to all the black people despised and trampled in the United States. “
This theme was originally performed by Billie Holiday, but the lyrics are a poem by Abel Meeropol inspired by the historical photograph showing the lynching of two African Americans, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, in 1930 in downtown Marion, Indiana.
Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, in 1930 in downtown Marion, Indiana.
Abel Meeropol was a Jewish professor of Russian origin affiliated to the Communist Party of the United States. He saw this photo of the lynchings that, according to his testimony, followed him all day and did not let him sleep. Then he wrote the poem Bitter Fruit, which he published under the pseudonym Lewis Allan in the New York Teacher and the New Masses. Later he wrote music the poem in the song Strange Fruit. Meeropol is also known for having adopted the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, after they were executed in the United States.
The song became famous in the voice of legendary jazz music Billie Holiday in 1939, and then was sung by Nina Simone. Holiday once said that when he first sang “Strange Fruit” at a New York café, she surprised the audience.
“There was not even a clap when I finished,” he wrote later in his autobiography. “Then a lonely person began to applaud nervously. Suddenly everyone applauded.”
Andrea Bocelli, Elton John, Céline Dion, country singer Garth Brooks are among the artists who have turned down the invitation to participate in the January 20 inauguration event. Even Kanye West, who has publicly supported the president-elect, has said no.
In contrast, Beyoncé sang the American anthem four years ago at the reelection ceremony of Barack Obama, Kelly Clarkson and James Taylor acted after the oath. Alicia Keys, Marc Anthony and Brad Paisley were at the official celebration in Washington.
Rebecca Ferguson ends her response to Trump reminding him that “Strange Fruit” is a song that recalls how love is the only thing that will conquer all hatred in this world, so I will gladly accept your invitation and see you in Washington.
The lyrics of Strange fruit has only three deep and mournful stanzas:
Strange Fruit
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Listen to Nina Simone performing “Strange Fruit” with Spanish subtitles
“Fruta extraña”, la canción que quiere cantar Rebecca Ferguson en la ceremonia de Trump
Rebecca Ferguson. Cantar “Strange Fruit” fue la condición de Rebecca Ferguson para actuar en la ceremonia de investidura de Donald Trump, a la que asistirán seis líderes religiosos incluidos un cardenal católico, un rabino, un clérigo hispano y una mujer. La artista escribió en su cuenta de Twitter que solo aceptaría la invitación del presidente electo “si me permites cantar “Strange Fruit” una canción que tiene una enorme importancia histórica, una canción que estuvo en la lista negra de Estados Unidos por ser demasiado polémica. Una canción que habla a todas las personas negras despreciadas y pisoteadas en Estados Unidos”.
https://twitter.com/julianbovis/status/816212016981491712/photo/1
Este tema fue originalmente interpretado por Billie Holiday, pero la letra es un poema de Abel Meeropol inspirado en la histórica fotografía que muestra el linchamiento de dos afroamericanos, Thomas Shipp y Abram Smith, en 1930 en el centro de Marion, Indiana.
Abel Meeropol era un profesor judío de origen ruso afiliado al Partido Comunista de los Estados Unidos. Vio esta foto de los linchamientos que según su testimonio le persiguió durante todo el día y no le dejó dormir. Entonces escribió el poema Bitter Fruit, que publicó bajo el seudónimo de Lewis Allan en la revista New York Teacher y en el diario New Masses. Más tarde musicalizó el poema en la canción Strange Fruit. Meeropol es conocido también por haber sido quien adoptó a los hijos de Ethel y Julius Rosenberg, tras se ejecutados en Estados Unidos.
La canción se hizo famosa en la voz de la legendaria música de jazz Billie Holiday en 1939, y luego cantada por Nina Simone. Holiday dijo una vez que cuando cantó por primera vez “Strange Fruit” en un café de Nueva York, sorprendió al público. “No había ni siquiera un aplauso cuando terminé”, escribió más tarde en su autobiografía. “Entonces una persona solitaria comenzó a aplaudir nerviosamente. De repente todos aplaudieron”. Andrea Bocelli, Elton John, Céline Dion, el cantante country Garth Brooks son algunos de los artistas que han rechazado la invitación de participar en el evento de posesión del próximo 20 de enero. Hasta Kaney West, quien ha apoyado públicamente al presidente electo, dijo que no.
En contraste, Beyoncé cantó el himno de Estados Unidos hace cuatro años en la ceremonia de reelección de Barack Obama, Kelly Clarkson y James Taylor actuaron después del juramento. Alicia Keys, Marc Anthony y Brad Paisley estuvieron durante la celebración oficial en Washington.
Rebecca Ferguson finaliza su respuesta a Trump recordando que “Stranger fruit” “es una canción que recuerda cómo el amor es la única cosa que conquistará todo el odio en este mundo, entonces aceptaré de buena gana su invitación y lo veré en Washington”.
La letra de Strange fruit tiene solo tres estrofas, profundas, dolientes:“De los árboles del sur cuelga una fruta extraña. /Sangre en las hojas, y sangre en la raíz. /Cuerpos negros balanceándose en la brisa sureña. / Extraña fruta cuelga de los álamos./Escena pastoral del valiente sur. / Los ojos saltones y la boca retorcida. / Aroma de las magnolias, dulce y fresco. / Y el repentino olor a carne quemada. Aquí está la fruta para que la arranquen los cuervos. / Para que la lluvia la tome, para que el viento la aspire, para que el sol la pudra, para que los árboles lo dejen caer./ Esta es una extraña y amarga cosecha”.
La letra original en inglés es la siguiente:
Strange Fruit
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather,
for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot,
for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Time Does Not Devour Redeemers
- English
- Español
Time Does Not Devour Redeemers
Living statue of the strongest metal,
The monsters of gold and silt who could not
Kill you with bullet and poison,
Want time to condemn you to death.
They count your hours, are encouraged by seeing
your beard gone white on your Greek profile;
And on the high summit of serene thinking
The outbreak of your gray hair amuses them.
The peoples, however, give you roses,
poems and songs; more for the dreams
you made come true than for your birthdays.
Because the age of the heroes and geniuses
is not measured by days or years,
But for long centuries and millennia.
Jesús Orta Ruiz, “El Indio Naborí”
(Written in 1996, for Fidel’s 70th Birthday)
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
El tiempo no devora redentores
Estatua viva del metal más fuerte,
no pudiendo los monstruos de oro y cieno
matarte con la bala y el veneno,
quieren que el tiempo te condene a muerte.
Cuentan tus horas, les anima verte
blanca la barba de perfil heleno;
y en la alta cumbre del pensar sereno
el brote de tus canas les divierte.
Los pueblos, sin embargo, te dan rosas,
poemas y canciones más por cosas
de cumplesueños que de cumpleaños,
pues la edad de los héroes y los genios
no se mide por días ni por años
sino por largos siglos y milenios.
Jesús Orta Ruiz, “El Indio Naborí”
(Escrito en 1996, con motivo de
los 70 años de Fidel)
¨Why I Believe Trump Will Lift the Blockade¨
- English
- Español
Why I Believe Trump Will Lift the Blockade
By Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
November 16, 2016.
A few persons have contacted me regarding the interview that I offered to VOCES DEL MUNDO where I said that, in my view, Donald Trump will lift the commercial, economic and financial blockade that the United States has maintained against Cuba for more than fifty years.
The reasons I put forward for saying this were explained in the interview, but because of a problem, seemingly a time limit in the radio program, they only broadcasted the claim, but not the reasoning behind it, which has created a logical question among all those who read the interview.
CubaNews, edited by Walter Lippmann, was interested in the subject and that is why I write this article. After it is published by CubaNews, I will also publish it in El Heraldo and send it to other recipients, because Walter showed interested in the subject and I consider he should have priority in spreading what I think.
The commercial, economic and financial blockade was imposed hoping it would stifle the Cuban Revolution and at a certain point the Cubans would have to apologize to the United States so they would lift it and we could survive.
None of this has happened; the Cuban Revolution, with difficulties, has continued to live and advance expanding its trade relations with other countries, while the United States has been absent and has therefore lost many commercial and economic opportunities. Had the blockade not existed, they would have participation and now it is other countries that benefit from those opportunities.
The outgoing President Barack Obama has repeatedly raised the futility of the blockade at this point in time and, in addition, has expressed his opinion that it should be lifted. I believe that Obama’s opinion is the reflection of companies and corporations eager to start having commercial relations with Cuba and make profits that the blockade prevents them from obtaining.
In statements made by Obama and the instructions he gave after December 17, 2014 in order to create the best possible conditions for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, he told his team that they should initiate talks with Congress aimed at lifting the blockade on Cuba. Something was done, but with no results.
In recent years, a small number of bills have been presented in the United States Congress aimed at releasing some aspects related to the blockade.
The HR 664 bill, named Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015, was introduced by representatives Mark Sanford (R-SC 1st.) And James Mc Govern (D-MA 2nd). The bill established the possibility for American citizens to travel freely to Cuba.
This project had 127 co-sponsors: 109 Democrats and 18 Republicans.
The HR 3238 bill, called The Cuba Trade Act of 2015, introduced by representatives Tom Emmer (R-MN 6th) and Cathy Castor (D-Fl 14th), would allow private businesses to trade unrestrictedly with Cuba. This project had 22 co-sponsors: 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Bill HR 3687, titled Cuba Agricultural Export Act, introduced by Representative Eric A. Crawford (R-AR 1st), would allow the use of credits for US agricultural exports to Cuba and also to make investments in private agriculture in Cuba. This project had 38 co-sponsors: 15 Democrats and 23 Republicans.
The interesting thing about these projects was precisely that a number of Democrats and Republicans associated themselves with them, which showed there was a bipartisan interest, although really limited. Notwithstanding all that, it can be said that there are precedents of interest by certain congressmen in the matter.
Now let’s go to Trump. He is a businessman and like many businessmen he recognizes how useful it would be to have the financial, economic and commercial constraints between the two countries disappear, so that all businessmen may establish relationships that will provide profits to their companies. The important thing is not exactly what happened, but what is going to happen.
In his latest statements, he mentioned that he could reverse everything Obama did, because to do so Obama had invoked the powers that the Presidential Order offered him, which now he, as president, has the possibility to overturn. However, Trump also stated that the future of relations between the two countries would be determined by what Raúl Castro and he could agree upon. Perhaps he is planing to travel to Cuba, or to invite Raul to travel to Washington.
I remember my interview several years ago with the president of the American Leaf Tobbaco Company, owner of the Partagas patent in the United States. The Cuban Revolution had nationalized the lands where they planted tobacco, the warehouses and the factory.
This man’s proposal was as follows. Cuba would give them the exclusive distribution of the Partagas cigars in the United States for five years and they would not make any claim for the nationalized goods. At the end of the five years, the patent became the property of Cuba. If Cuba considered it convenient, they would continue to distribute Partagas in the United States, or Cuba would take charge of the matter.
According to the executive, in those five years they would earn far more money than the worth of what had been nationalized, and they would also recover a good part of the losses caused by all the time that, because of the blockade, they had not been able to sell a single Partagas cigar in the U.S.
That’s the way a business man thinks. Something similar was offered to me by other companies that had been nationalized in Cuba, whose interest was to start trading as soon as possible and stop losing profits, or seeing how opportunities were taken up by different countries such as Russia, China, France, Spain and others. “Time is Money” and if they continued to waste time, they would continue to lose money.
There are companies that are really eager to be able to trade with Cuba and the blockade is the only thing that prevents it.
The trade of cigars of different brands could reach about 900 million dollars.
The Havana Club Rum trade could represent about 500 million dollars.
Tourism would also be an important source of business. One million Americans could travel to Cuba annually. They would spend an average of 400 dollars in air fares, according to the place of provenance; that would mean 400 million dollars for the transport companies. If each traveller stays one week in Cuba, they would have to pay a tourist package of approximately 550 dollars, which would represent 550 million dollars for the US tourist agencies.
On the aspect of golf courses, as we know, Trump companies had been exploring possibilities. Since the companies are now operated by his sons, it would come as no surprise that among some of the groups of businessmen who quite frequently visit Cuba, an executive of his sons’ companies might be present.
The trade of medicines and vaccines can also be an important area to consider. The price fixed for medicines in Cuba is relatively low, especially lower than the ones set for the same drugs when produced in the United States, where labor is much more expensive. The treatments in the United States are exorbitant, and the difference between the purchase price in Cuba and what the patient has to pay in the United States for using those medicines can represent an income of hundreds of millions of dollars for US clinics and laboratories.
Cuban nickel, important for US industry, is being traded in the month of November at $ 11,000 a ton. If out of our production, quite committed to other countries that are standard buyers, we would be kind enough to sell 1,000 tons to the United States, this operation would total 11 million dollars.
The lifting of the blockade could lead to joint exploration and exploitation between US and Cuban companies in the maritime economic zone of Cuba, where there are oil deposits and where the US presence could guarantee the application of techniques that allow exploitation with high standards of security. How many millions of dollars would this operation involve? It is a little risky to calculate, but it would run in the hundreds.
The free zone of the port of Mariel could also be of great interest for American companies. This port is conveniently located for ships departing from Florida, Louisiana, Texas and other cities with coasts to the Gulf of Mexico. It is a modern port, equipped for the reception of containers and ample facilities, in whose free zone, besides having the possibility to establish industries, the American companies could count on warehouses whose operation and maintenance would be much cheaper than what they could get in their country. These warehouses would not only serve to supply to Cuba the articles that it needs to buy, but also to distribute from those warehouses to clients in Central America and the Caribbean.
There are other products that American companies have shown interest in; as there are many products made in the United States that Cuba is interested in, including agricultural products and equipment, medicines, equipment of different types, tools and machine tools, maritime, land and air transport equipment, supplies for the tourism industry, computer systems and software and others.
The commercial exchange between the two countries can reach a high level, benefitting from the proximity between both. It does not require high costs of transportation or storage in large quantities, since the source of supply is only a few hours by plane and two or three days by sea, if the warehouses are not placed in Cuba.
The US economic situation, with a high commercial and financial deficit, the 94 million people that are outside the labor force and the official –under calculated–unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, Trump’s alleged policy of canceling Free Trade Agreements, and the return to the United States of jobs that were sent to other countries requires liberalized trade and a market that will help to improve to some extent the internal situation in the US. Trade, economic and financial relations with Cuba could be of assistance in that regard.
Some have tried to argue that Donald Trump is indebted to the Cuban community for having won Florida. Those who say that have not bothered to analyze how the Cuban American vote went in those elections. There Hillary Clinton received the majority of the votes of that community, so there is no debt whatsoever, and Trump can feel free to make the decisions on Cuba that he deems more convenient. Besides that, according to surveys, about 65 percent of Cubans living in Florida favor an improvement of relations with Cuba.
The lifting of the blockade will favor the international image of the United States, show the world that a more rational policy is being developed and also eliminate the possibility that next year, at the United Nations General Assembly, Cuba will again submit the resolution on the blockade. Trump could even argue that this action responds to compliance with a resolution taken at the last meeting of the body. In addition, the action would benefit US relations with Latin America and other countries, which feel limited in some way to carry out operations with Cuba for fear of being fined by OFAC.
This action on the part of the United States requires not only the wishes of Trump, but also that Congress approves what he proposes. A Congress such as the one that will work with Trump, where both chambers will have a Republican majority, offers very favorable conditions for an agreement on the lifting of the blockade against Cuba, regardless of some opposing voices that will be heard in the congressional floor.
The lifting of the blockade may be one more among the surprises that Trump has already given us.
CUBA – EU
PORQUÉ CONSIDERO QUE TRUMP LEVANTARÁ EL BLOQUEO
Por Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
CUBA.- EU.- PORQUÉ CONSIDERO QUE TRUMP LEVANTARÁ EL BLOQUEO.
GRUPO EL HERALDO sarahnes@cubarte.cult.cu
“LA SENSACIÓN DE CUMPLIR CON EL MÁS SAGRADO DE LOS DEBERES,
LUCHAR CONTRA EL IMPERIALISMO DONDEQUIERA QUE ESTÉ”
CHE
Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
16 de noviembre de 2016.
Algunas personas se han comunicado conmigo por la entrevista que ofrecía a VOCES DEL MUNDO donde expresé, que de acuerdo con mi criterio. Donald Trump levantará el Bloqueo comercial, económico y financiero que Estados Unidos hace más de cincuenta años mantiene contra Cuba.
Las razones que yo expuse para decir esto se explicaron en la entrevista, pero por un problema, al parecer de tiempo en el programa de radio, solamente difundieron la afirmación, pero no el razonamiento para hacerla, lo cual ha creado una lógica interrogante entre todos los que leyeron la entrevista.
CubaNews, editado por Walter Lippman, se interesó en el asunto y es por eso que hago este artículo, el cual después de ser publicado en CubaNews, lo publicaré en El Heraldo y lo enviaré a otros destinatarios, pues Walter se interesó por el asunto y considero debe tener prioridad en divulgar lo que pienso.
El Bloqueo comercial, económico y financiero fue impuesto con la esperanza de que el mismo ahogara la Revolución Cubana y en un momento determinado los cubanos tuvieran que pedir perdón a Estados Unidos para que lo quitaran y pudiéramos subsistir.
Nada de eso ha sucedido , la Revolución Cubana, con dificultades, ha continuado avanzando y viviendo, ampliando sus relaciones comerciales con otros países, en las que Estados Unidos ha estado ausente y por lo tanto, ha perdido muchas oportunidades comerciales y económicas, que de no existir el bloqueo, tendrían participación en las mismas y ahora son otros países los que sacan provecho de estas.
En repetidas oportunidades, el presidente saliente, Barack Obama ha planteado lo inútil que en estos momento resulta el bloqueo, además de expresar que en su opinión, el mismo debía levantarse. Considero que esta opinión de Obama es el reflejo de empresas y corporaciones deseosas de comenzar a tener relaciones comerciales con Cuba y recibir utilidades que el bloqueo le impide obtener.
En las declaraciones realizadas por Obama y las instrucciones que impartió después del 17 de diciembre del 2014 con el fin de crear las mejores condiciones posibles para el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba, planteó a su equipo, que debía iniciar conversaciones con el Congreso encaminadas al levantamiento del bloqueo a Cuba. Algo se hizo, pero sin resultados.
En los últimos años, se han presentado en el Congreso de Estados Unidos un reducido número de proyectos de ley encaminados a liberar algunos aspectos relacionados con el bloqueo.
El proyecto de ley HR 664, nombrado Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015, fue introducido por los representantes Mark Sanford (R-SC 1st.) y James Mc Govern (D-MA 2nd). El mismo establecía la posibilidad de que los ciudadanos estadounidenses pudieran viajar libremente a Cuba.
Este proyecto tenía 127 co-patrocinadores, 109 demócratas y 18 republicanos.
El proyecto de ley HR 3238, denominado The Cuba Trade Act of 2015, introducido por los representantes Tom Emmer (R-MN 6th) y el representante Cathy Castor (D-Fl 14th), permitiría a los negocios privados comerciar sin restricciones con Cuba. Este proyecto tenía 22 co-patrocinadores, 12 demócratas y 10 republicanos.
El proyecto de ley HR 3687, titulado Cuba Agricultural Export Act, introducido por el representante Eric A. Crawford (R-AR 1st), permitiría el utilizar créditos en las exportaciones agrícolas de Estados Unidos a Cuba y además el realizar inversiones en la agricultura privada en Cuba. Este proyecto tenía 38 co-patrocinadores, de ellos 15 demócratas y 23 republicanos.
Lo interesante de estos proyectos, era precisamente, que un número de demócratas y republicanos se vincularon a los mismos, por lo que existió un interés bipartidista en ellos, aunque realmente limitado. No obstante todo eso, puede decirse que existen antecedentes de interés de ciertos congresistas por el asunto.
Ahora vamos a Trump. El es un hombre de negocio y como muchos hombres de negocio reconoce el beneficio de que las limitaciones financieras, económicas y comerciales entre los dos países desaparezcan, para que todos los negociantes puedan establecer relaciones que le brinde utilidades a sus empresas. Lo importante no es exactamente lo que sucedió, sino lo que va a suceder.
En sus últimas declaraciones hizo referencia a que podría revertir todo lo realizado por Obama, pues este, para hacerlo, se había amparado en las potestades que le ofrecía la Orden Presidencial, lo cual él, como presidente, tiene la posibilidad de anular. Sin embargo, planteó también que el futuro de las relaciones entre ambos países estaría determinado en que Raúl Castro y él pudiera ponerse de acuerdo. Quizás es que piensa viajar a Cuba, o invitar a Raúl para que viaje a Washington.
Recuerdo mi entrevista, hace varios años, con el presidente de la American Leaf Tobbaco Company, propietaria de la patente Partagas en Estados Unidos. La Revolución Cubana le había nacionalizado las tierras donde sembraban el tabaco, los almacenes y la fábrica.
La propuesta de este señor era la siguiente. Cuba le daba la exclusiva de la distribución de los puros Partagas en Estados Unidos por cinco años y ellos no harían reclamación alguna por los bienes nacionalizados. Al final de los cinco años, la patente pasaba a ser propiedad de Cuba. Si Cuba lo consideraba conveniente ellos continuaban distribuyendo Partagas en Estados Unidos o Cuba se hacía cargo del asunto.
Según el ejecutivo , en esos cinco años ganarían mucho más dinero que lo que valía lo nacionalizado y además, recuperaría una buena parte de las pérdidas, que les había representado, todo el tiempo que debido al bloqueo no habían podido vender ni un puro Partagas en Estados Unidos.
Esa es la forma de pensar de un hombre de negocio. Algo parecido me fue ofrecido por otras empresas que habían sido nacionalizadas en Cuba, cuyo interés era iniciar cuanto antes el intercambio comercial y no continuar perdiendo utilidades, ni que las oportunidades fueran aprovechadas por distintos países, como los rusos, chinos, francés, españoles y otros. “Time is Money” y si continuaban perdiendo tiempo, iban a seguir perdiendo dinero.
Existen empresas que están realmente deseosas de poder comerciar con Cuba y el bloqueo es lo único que se lo impide.
El comercio de puros, de distintas marcas, pudiera llegar a cerca de 900 millones de dólares.
El comercio del Ron Havana Club pudiera representar cerca de 500 millones de dólares.
El turismo sería también una fuente importante de negocio. Pudieran viajar a Cuba anualmente 1 millón de estadounidenses, que gastarían en pasaje internacional un promedio de 400 dólares, según el lugar de procedencia, eso serían 400 millones de dólares para las empresas transportadoras. Si cada uno de ellos realiza una estancia de una semana en Cuba, tendrían que pagar un paquete turístico de aproximadamente 550 dólares, lo cual importa 550 millones de dólares que recibirán las agencias turísticas estadounidenses.
Sobre este aspecto y según conocemos, relacionado con los campos de Golf, ya las empresas de Trump estuvieron explorando posibilidades. Como ahora las empresas las operan sus hijos, no debe sorprendernos que en algún grupo de hombres de negocio que visite Cuba, de los que viajan con bastante frecuencia, se incluya un ejecutivo de las empresas de sus hijos.
El comercio de medicinas y vacunas puede ser también un aspecto importante a considerar. El precio que se le fija a la medicina en Cuba es relativamente bajo, sobre todo más bajo que el que se obtiene cuando se produce el mismo medicamento en Estados Unidos, donde la mano de obra es mucho más cara. Los tratamientos que se realizan en Estados Unidos tienen precios exorbitantes y la diferencia entre el precio de compra en Cuba y lo que tenga que pagar el paciente en Estados Unidos por la utilización de estas medicinas, puede representar un ingreso de cientos de millones de dólares para las clínicas y laboratorios estadounidenses.
El níquel cubano, importante para la industria estadounidense, se está cotizando en el mes de noviembre a 11,000 dólares la tonelada. Si de nuestra producción, bastante comprometida con otros países que son compradores habituales, hiciéramos el favor de vender a Estados Unidos 1,000 toneladas, serían 11 millones de dólares.
El levantamiento del bloqueo pudiera originar la exploración y explotación conjunta entre empresas estadounidenses y empresas cubanas de la zona económica marítima de Cuba, donde se plantea existen yacimientos de petróleo y donde la presencia estadounidense pudiera garantizar la aplicación de técnicas que permitan la explotación con altas medidas de seguridad. ¿Cuántos millones de dólares implicaría esta operación? Es un poco aventurado calcularlo, pero serían cientos.
La zona franca del puerto de Mariel pudiera ser también de gran interés para empresas estadounidense. Este puerto esta convenientemente situado para barcos que salgan de la Florida, Luisiana, Texas y otras ciudades cuyas costas se encuentran en el Gofo de México. Es un puerto moderno, habilitado para la recepción de contenedores y de amplias facilidades, en cuya zona franca, además de tener la posibilidad de establecer industrias, las empresas estadounidenses pudieran contar con almacenes cuya operación y mantenimiento sería mucho más barata que los que pudieran tener en su país. Estos almacenes no solo servirían para suministrar a Cuba los artículos que requiera comprar, sino también para desde esos almacenes distribuir hacia clientes de Centro América y el Caribe.
Existen otros productos sobre los que empresas estadounidenses han mostrado interés, al igual que existen infinidad de productos fabricados en Estados Unidos sobre los que Cuba está interesada, dentro de ellos productos y equipos agrícolas, medicinas, equipos de distintos tipos, herramientas y máquinas herramientas, equipos de transporte marítimo, terrestre y aéreo, suministros para la industria turística, sistemas y programas de computación y otros.
El intercambio comercial entre los dos países puede alcanzar un alto nivel, beneficiado por la cercanía existente entre ambos, que no requiere altos costos de transportación ni almacenaje en grandes cantidades, pues la fuente de suministro se encuentra a pocas horas en avión y dos o tres días en barco, si es que los almacenes no se sitúan en Cuba.
La situación económica de Estados Unidos, con un alto déficit Comercial y Financiero, los 94 millones de personas que se encuentran fuera de la fuerza laboral y por lo que oficialmente se dice que el desempleo es de un 4.9 por ciento, lo cual no es cierto, la política planteada por Trump de cancelar los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio y el regreso a Estados Unidos de puestos de trabajo que se enviaron a otros países, requiere un comercio liberado y un mercado que ayude en cierta medida al mejoramiento de la situación interna de Estados Unidos. Las relaciones comerciales, económicas y financieras con Cuba pudieran ayudar en algo a ese propósito.
Algunos han tratado de plantear que Donald Trump está en deuda con la comunidad cubana por haber ganado La Florida. Los que dicen eso no se han molestado en analizar cómo se manifestó el voto cubano americano en dichas elecciones, donde Hillary Clinton recibió la mayoría de los votos de dicha comunidad, por lo que no hay deuda alguna y Trump puede sentirse libre de tomar las decisiones sobre Cuba que considere más conveniente, además de que, según encuestas realizada, cerca del 65 por ciento de los cubanos residentes en La Florida favorecen un mejoramiento de las relaciones con Cuba.
El levantamiento del bloqueo favorecerá la imagen internacional de Estados Unidos, mostrará al mundo que se está desarrollando una política más racional y además eliminará las posibilidades de que el próximo año, en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, Cuba presente nuevamente la resolución sobre el bloqueo. Pudiera Trump inclusive plantear que esa acción responde al cumplimiento de una resolución tomada en la última asamblea del organismo. Además de eso, la acción beneficiaria las relaciones de Estados Unidos con América Latina y otro países, que se sienten limitados en cierta manera para realizar operaciones con Cuba por temor a ser multados por la OFAC.
Esta acción , por parte de Estados Unidos, requiere no solamente el deseo de Trump, sino además que el Congreso apruebe lo que el mismo proponga. Un Congreso como el que trabajará con Trump, donde ambas cámaras tendrán mayoría republicana, presenta condiciones muy favorables para acordar el levantamiento del bloqueo a Cuba, independientemente de que algunas voces de oponentes se escuchen en el emiciclo congresional.
El levantamiento del bloqueo, puede ser otra, dentro de las sorpresas que nos ha dado Trump.
“With Trump there will be no reversal in the relationship between the US and Cuba”
- English
- Español
Opinion: “With Trump there will be no reversal in the relationship between the US and Cuba”
By Telma Luzzani
Sputnik Mundo
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Cuban academic Néstor García Iturbe assured us of this based on the campaign promises of the president-elect, but also because he believes that it is in the interest of both countries to keep what has been achieved and to advance further. With optimism, he believes that now that Congress is in Republican hands one of the first steps Trump will take will be to lift the blockade.
The diplomat who holds a PhD in History from the University of Havana is confident that Donald Trump and President Raul Castro will find common ground for agreement.
“I believe that the policies of the Republican President will be not only more beneficial for the United States but also for Cuba. He promised measures that would limit US interference in other countries,” recalled García Iturbe.
He also thinks that Trump will lift the economic blockade against the island because: “there are many American companies eager to do business.”
Anyway, the Cuban government scheduled military exercises as a kind of message to the White House. “The periods of transition between two US administrations are often dangerous: if there is aggression or military action by the US, neither the outgoing nor the incoming president is really in charge; one, because he is leaving office and the other because he has not taken office yet.” García Iturbe calls this period the “limbo of power”. Our message is: If there is a problem we are ready to take action. However, I believe that Venezuela and Syria are in greater danger. “In this “limbo”, there could be a new attempt to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro,” he said.
On the other hand, Mexican journalist Cecilia González looked at some of the hundreds of referenda which were voted on Tuesday in different US states: legalization of marijuana, the death penalty, solar energy and slavery. “In many cases, the results were surprising,” she said. González also referred to the “infinite sadness” that Mexicans feel outside and within the United States because the Republican candidate´s discourse exacerbating rejection of Mexicans, “promoting a culture of contempt and hatred.”
Comparative media analysis discussed the coverage by the Los Angeles Times, the only newspaper to publish a poll which projected Donald Trump a winner, although the paper, as most, supported Hillary Clinton and The Washington Post where media expert Margaret Sullivan criticized the press (including the newspaper where she works) under the title “The Media Did Not Want to Believe that Trump Could Win and Therefore Looked the Other Way.” Journalists with university degrees, urban dwellers, and mostly progressive, usually live and work in New York and Washington DC or on the West Coast. And although they would cover other cities in the country, and talk to miners and the unemployed, they did not take them enough into account.
The program also reported on the suicide bombing against a German consulate in the Afghan city of Mazar i Sharif, which left at least four people dead and hundreds wounded; it also reported on the statement of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that denounced the case of the missing students of Ayotzinapa (Mexico) which still has more than 200 loose ends due to failures of the official research.
Opinión: “Con Trump no va a haber marcha atrás en la relación entre EEUU y Cuba”
Por Telma Luzzani
Sputnik Mundo
Opinión: “Con Trump no va a haber marcha atrás en la relación entre EEUU y Cuba”
Voces del Mundo
15:14 11.11.2016(actualizada a las 15:17 11.11.2016) URL corto
Lo aseguró el académico cubano Néstor García Iturbe basado en las promesas de campaña del presidente electo pero también porque considera que interesa a ambos países mantener lo logrado y avanzar más. Con optimismo, cree que ahora que el Congreso está en manos republicanas una de las primeras medidas que tomará Trump será levantar el bloqueo.
El diplomático y Doctor en Historia por la Universidad de La Habana confía en que Donald Trump y el presidente Raúl Castro se van a poner de acuerdo.
“Creo que las políticas del republicano van a ser no sólo más beneficiosas para Estados Unidos sino también para Cuba. Él prometió medidas que limiten la injerencia norteamericana en otros países”, recordó García Iturbe.
También piensa que va a levantar el bloqueo económico contra la isla ya que “hay muchas empresas norteamericanas deseosas de hacer negocios”.
De todas formas, el gobierno cubano programó ejercicios militares como una forma de mensaje a la Casa Blanca. “Los períodos de transición entre dos gobiernos norteamericanos suelen ser peligrosos: si hay una agresión o una acción militar por parte de EEUU el presidente saliente no se hace cargo porque se está yendo y el entrante tampoco porque cree que todavía no le corresponde.” García Iturbe llama esto el “limbo de poder”. “Nuestro mensaje es: si hay algún problema nosotros estamos listos para intervenir. Aunque en este momento yo creo que los que están en más peligro son Venezuela y Siria. En este “limbo”, podría haber algún nuevo intento de derrocar al presidente Nicolás Maduro”, aseguró.
Por otra parte, la periodista mexicana Cecilia González analizó algunos de las centenas de referéndum que se votaron el martes en distintos estados norteamericanos: legalización de marihuana, la pena de muerte, energía solar y esclavitud. “En muchos casos los resultados fueron sorprendentes”, afirmó. González relató además la “tristeza infinita” que sienten los mexicanos fuera y dentro de Estados Unidos porque el discurso del republicano exacerbó el rechazo hacia ellos, “instalando una cultura del desprecio y del odio”.
En comparación de medios se analizó la cobertura de Los Angeles Times, el único diario que publicó una encuesta que daba ganador a Donald Trump aunque como la mayoría apoyó a Hillary Clinton, y The Washington Post donde la experta en medios, Margaret Sullivan, criticó a la prensa (incluyendo el diario donde trabaja) con el título de “Los medios no querían creer que Trump podía ganar y entonces miraron para otro lado”. Los periodistas con títulos universitarios, urbanos y en su mayoría progres generalmente viven y trabajan en Nueva York y Washington DC o en la costa oeste. Y aunque vayan a cubrir por unos días otras ciudades del país y hablen con mineros y desocupados, no los toman en cuenta lo suficiente.
En este programa se informó, además, sobre el atentado suicida contra un consulado alemán en la ciudad afgana de Mazar i Sharif que dejó al menos cuatro muertos y centenares de heridos y sobre la declaración de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos que denunció que en el caso de los estudiantes desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa (México) hay aún más de 200 cabos sueltos debido a las fallas de investigación oficial.
What Trump´s Victory Means
- English
- Español
What Trump´s Victory Means
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Esclusive for Mexican daily POR ESTO!
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
At the onset of the 2016 presidential elections, the elites of the Democratic and Republican parties did not think the issue would be anything but business as usual. The next president of the nation would inevitably have the surname of one of the families who had ruled before: Bush or Clinton; and life in the superpower would continue to be neoliberal capitalist, without changes, as in the last three decades.
But it did not work out that way. It has been consistently shown that, despite the fact that all other elements of power remained the same, the population of the country did not want more of the same. They wanted something new and different in the nation that presumes itself to be a model of democracy for the planet.
Since the previous stage of the process, it became clear that “the oven was not ready for baking” when, within each of the traditional parties, differences were highlighted by unexpected dissent. That made it clear that the phenomenon was not a matter of cosmetic adjustments but of deep surgery. According to the US political qualification patterns, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were identified respectively as “the right of the Right” and “the left of the Left”. They had the support of the Republican and Democrat majorities.
Bernie Sanders’ campaign fell victim to the Democratic party machinery. Insensitive to the expressed tendency, it insisted on the figure of Hillary Clinton who later lost in a fight where she represented the discontented past. The alternative was the billionaire, populist and demagogue Donald Trump. He lacked the determined support of the Republican establishment. Togher with many of the main figures of that machine against him, he was elected despite his proven status as racist, sexist, abusive and systematic target of media mockery.
Although in appearance the bipartisan system of Democrats and Republicans survives, Trump’s victory represents a disaster for the system. The direct and populist style of the now President-elect, appealing to the lowest instincts of certain sectors of society –very different from the usual tone of US politicians– gave him a touch of authenticity in the eyes of the most disaffected sector of the right-wing electorate.
The Republican candidate was able to identify the presence of what can be called a “grassroots rebellion” and the growing gap between the political, economic, intellectual and media elites, on the one side, and the foundation of the conservative electorate, on the other. His rhetoric against Washington and Wall Street captivated the less-educated white voters and sectors impoverished by the effects of economic globalization, which benefited the corporations.
Trump went as far as to say that he was not competing against Hillary but against the dishonest media. This confrontation with media power antagonized the journalistic sector but rallied the support of voters exhausted by corporate media outrages.
Better than anyone else, Trump saw the widening gap between the political, economic, intellectual and media elites, and the base of the conservative electorate.
Trump is not a conventional right-winger. He defines himself as “a conservative with common sense”. He does not oppose the political model, but the politicians who have been running it. His speech is emotional and spontaneous; it appeals to people´s instincts, not to their brains or reason. He speaks for that part of the American people where discouragement and discontent have taken root. He addressed people tired of traditional politics and promised to bring honesty to the system and renew names and attitudes.
The media have given a lot of publicity to his most extreme statements and proposals, such as that he would prohibit Muslims from entering the country, expel the 11 million Latin American undocumented immigrants, and build a three thousand kilometer (1864 miles) border wall –whose $20 billion cost would be borne by the government of Mexico– to prevent the entry of Latin American immigrants.
Criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Trump stated that the marriage of a man and a woman is “the basis of a free society”. He supported so-called “religious freedom¨ laws promoted in several states to deny services to LGBT persons. He said that climate change is a concept “created by and for the Chinese, to make the US manufacturing sector lose competitiveness “.
In truth, it could be said that Trump did not win; instead that it was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who lost.
November 14, 2016.
EL TRIUNFO DE TRUMP
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
En el preámbulo de las elecciones presidenciales 2016, las élites de los partidos demócrata y republicano no pensaban que el asunto sería algo más que el negocio acostumbrado. El próximo presidente de la nación exhibiría, inevitablemente, el apellido de una de las familias que han gobernado antes, Bush o Clinton, y la vida en la superpotencia de América seguiría siendo capitalista neoliberal, sin grandes cambios, como en las últimas tres décadas.
Pero no resultó así. Quedó fehacientemente demostrado que pese a que todos los demás factores del poder se mantenían iguales, la población del país no quiere más de lo mismo. La gente quería algo nuevo y diferente en la nación que presume de ser modelo de democracia para el planeta.
Ya en la etapa previa del proceso se puso de manifiesto que “el horno no estaba para galleticas” cuando en cada uno de los partidos tradicionales se destacaron disidencias inesperadas que hicieron evidente que el fenómeno no era cosa de ajustes cosméticos sino de cirugía profunda. Donald Trump y Bernie Sanders, identificados respectivamente como “la derecha de la derecha” y “la izquierda de la izquierda”, según los patrones de calificación política
estadounidenses, acapararon el apoyo de las mayorías republicanas y demócratas.
La campaña de Bernie Sanders cayó víctima de la maquinaria del partido demócrata que, insensible a la tendencia manifiesta insistió en la figura de Hillary Clinton que más tarde cayó en una pelea en la que ella representaba precisamente el sufrido pasado. La alternativa era el multimillonario, populista y demagogo Donald Trump quien, sin un resuelto apoyo del establishment republicano y con buena parte de las principales figuras de esa formación política en su contra, y resultó electo pese a su demostrada condición de racista, sexista, abusador y blanco sistemático de burlas en los medios.
Aunque en apariencias sobrevive el sistema bipartidista de demócratas y republicanos, la victoria de Trump ha constituido para éste una verdadera hecatombe. El estilo directo y populachero del ahora Presidente electo, apelando a los bajos instintos de ciertos sectores de la sociedad, muy distinto del tono habitual de los políticos estadounidenses, le ha dado un carácter de autenticidad a los ojos del sector más decepcionado del electorado de derecha.
El candidato republicano supo identificar la presencia de lo que puede llamarse una “rebelión de las bases” y la ruptura cada vez mayor entre las élites políticas, económicas, intelectuales y mediáticas, de una parte, y la base del electorado conservador, de la otra. Su discurso contra Washington y Wall Street cautivó a los electores blancos menos cultos y a los sectores empobrecidos por los efectos de la
globalización económica, beneficiosa para las corporaciones. Trump llegó a decir que él no estaba compitiendo contra Hillary sino contra los deshonestos medios de prensa. Este enfrentamiento al poder mediático le enajenó simpatías en el sector periodístico pero de atrajo apoyo de votantes exhaustos de los desmanes de los medios corporativos de comunicación.
Mejor que nadie, Trump percibió la fractura cada vez más amplia entre las élites políticas, económicas, intelectuales y mediáticas, respecto a la base del electorado conservador.
Trump no es un ultraderechista convencional. Él mismo se define como un “conservador con sentido común”. No censura el modelo político en sí, sino a los políticos que lo han estado orientando. Su discurso es emocional y espontáneo. Apela a los instintos, no al cerebro, ni a la razón. Habla para esa parte del pueblo estadounidense en la que ha cundido el desánimo y el descontento. Se dirige a la gente cansada de la política tradicional y promete traer honestidad al sistema y renovar nombres y actitudes.
Los medios han dado mucha difusión a sus declaraciones y propuestas más extremas, como la de que prohibiría la entrada al país de musulmanes y expulsaría a los 11 millones de inmigrantes ilegales latinos y construiría un muro fronterizo de más de tres mil kilómetros para impedir la entrada de inmigrantes latinoamericanos cuyo costo de unos veinte mil millones de dólares correría a cargo del gobierno de México.
Trump ha declarado que el matrimonio de un hombre y una mujer es “la base de una sociedad libre” al criticar la decisión del Tribunal Supremo que considera un derecho constitucional el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo; ha apoyado las “leyes de libertad religiosa” impulsadas en varios Estados para denegar servicios a las personas LGTB; ha dicho que el cambio climático es un concepto “creado por y para los chinos, para hacer que el sector manufacturero estadounidense pierda competitividad”.
En verdad, podría decirse que Trump no ganó sino que quienes perdieron fueron Hillary Clinton y los demócratas.
Noviembre 14 de 2016.
Mariana Hernandez interview 1971
Mariana Hernandez interview
THE RAG, Austin, Texas, 1971
Mariana Hernandez
1971
MARIANA HERNANDEZ, interviewed by THE RAG, Austin, Texas,
Mariana Hernandez is the Socialist Party’s candidate for Travis LaRue’s job- mayor of Austin.
By printing this interview, The Rag does not mean to take sides in the upcoming election. But we would like to point out that almost any change would be an improvement.
The interview was taped on the spur of the moment at the Abortion Conference, where the Socialist candidates were promising to work for free abortions on demand if elected. The candidate’s willingness to speak into a somewhat hostile reporter’s tape recorder without advance notice was remarkable in the context of Texas politics.
RAGT: How do you propose to change the abortion laws from the City Council?
MH: Well, what we intend to do first of all is help build the Women’s Liberation movement. We will involve ourselves in all the building aspects of it and in that way involve a larger number of people. What we will do at the City| Council is also have it at a time when more women are able to come to meetings and express their views as to what the City Council ought to be| doing. That is, we won’t have them at 9 o’clock in the morning when most people can’t come. There are working women who can’t present their views because they’re working… RAG: Wouldn’t you say that most men can’t participate at that time either, so it’s a bit unfair to all citizens?
MH: That’s true. So we would have it at a time when all citizens could participate.
RAG: How do you see. your chances for winning?
MH: Well, what we see is that if we get the publicity, if we get out and are able to take our demands to the people, they’re going to support us. That’s our chances.
Many women support free abortion on demand, which is one of our positions. Large numbers of people support our anti-war position. But there are areas of the city that just have not had the opportunity to hear us.
RAG: How has the response to you been from the straight media?
MH: All of the press except for the Daily T ex an -were at our press conference. Even the Dallas Morning News was there! And, in fact, they didn’t seem to be that hostile just amazed that Socialists would run. Their major question was: “Is it serious?” The way this was answered over and over again by all the candidates was yes, we are serious, we are the only group of people running today who are serious, who are even talking about the major issues that affect people. The others are avoiding them.
RAG: Speaking of talking about the major issues, would you consider a debate with the incumbents?
MH: Yes, I would. Of course. I would certainly like to debate the mayor, Travis LaRue. We’d discuss things like pollution around laundries. We’d discuss his position on Women’s Liberation, although there’s supposed to be a Mayor’s Commission on Women. We would debate the question of the right of a citizen to march down the street and assemble.
We would discuss many issues. Like, for instance, the fact that he gives the key to the city to all sorts of people people who sell Budweiser on TV, and things like that but he would never consider the idea of inviting representatives from East Austin, say, to be mayor for a day. Not only mayor for a day, but just come in
RAG: Do you agree with what seems to be a wide-spread sentiment in East Austin that the apathy of City Government has emasculated the Human Rights Commission?
MH: I would agree with that. The reason that it was actually started in the first place was, basically, to make people believe that the City Council was going to do something.
A real, concrete example of what they haven’t done that they could have done is in the recent demands being made by the Booker T. Washington Project people. They are saying that there has been brutality, that the police come in as outsiders, they push us. around, they have guns on us, and we don’t appreciate this. The people were trying to get something done about the situation.
Of course, there have been promises of investigations. It doesn’t take more than 30 minutes to go out there and investigate that situation.
If the police—“the protectors and defenders of the people of East Austin”—were from East Austin, if they were under the control of the East Austin residents so that the East Austin residents could remove them, then we wouldn’t have police brutality, because the police would be defending the people’s rights in Austin. You wouldn’t see policemen protecting the privileges of certain people out here who go into East Austin.
RAG: Do you believe that even if you lose, your candidacy may push whoever does win towards solving these problems?
MH: Yes, there will be pressure put on them. It’s pretty much like what happened in Colorado, when La Kaza Unida candidates ran. Although there had never been any chicanos elected even within the Democratic Party, this began to happen. All of a sudden, they were pressured into getting chicanos to run, they were pressured into beginning to talk about the lettuce strike publicly, they were pressured into talking about the Coor’s beer boycott.
* In this way, we will pressure them to talk and make their stand known to the people. And this is where the media has to come in and support us. That’s our basic fight at this point letting people know what we stand for.
links
TeleSUR live: http://www.telesurtv.net/el-canal/senal-en-vivo
wl d cn fb pt e m w wh g g-tr npv t x hc laht rt cdb cdb-e wp
* / https://goo.gl/ </strong></strong>
www.rhc.cu/en/ Wall Street Journal http://www.laht.com/
https://news.google.com/news/section?hl=en&edition=us&q=Cuba
Fidel Castro’s Reflections
Raul’s speeches and interviews
Fidel’s Speeches starting 1959 mm
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/documentos/
Granma Diario Granma-en GI old
Granma pdf Juventud Rebelde
http://plenglish.com/ http://www.plenglish.com/ http://www.plenglish.com/index.php
PL Spanish
http://www.bc.gob.cu/anteriores/Iconos/2014
http://prensacubana.e-datalink.net/hoy/
The High Cost of Roller-Skating!
The High Cost of Roller-Skating
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The total can reach three digits in CUCs (1 cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs.)
The sum can reach three digits in CUCs (1 cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs.)
Skill might not suffice. There are sports in which technology is foremost, and financial backing is absolutely necessary. We may call them elite sports, and roller-skating, in any of its variants, is among them.
Unlike other sports in Cuba, it is the parents who shoulder ALL the costs, because the National Institute for Sports and Recreation (INDER) does not have the money or, in case it could eke out something from its budget, the amount would be insufficient for frequent or even sporadic outlays. We, of course, are not talking here of just any kind of roller skates because competition requires that they be of professional quality. And the skates vary according to the level of training, the size of the athlete and the type of competition. Obviously, there is no other way out of the dilemma if the goal is to train in a serious way.
No matter how unlikely it may seem to us, the fact is that there are some families that will pay any price in order to satisfy the wishes of their little ones kids. The sum can reach three digits in CUCs (1cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs. Even having them purchased abroad, the cost is still high. In case of secondary sales or “repurchases”, the figures can skyrocket.
Brand names, degree of specialization, materials used, fashions, tear and wear, etc. will make them more or less expensive. But the problem does not end here, because its useful life will depend on the quality of the track, the number of spills by the athlete, as well as other variables. Then, the count comes back to the beginning, or else to the solutions that you find in Cienfuegos: boots from one brand, a pair of wheels from one kind and the other pair from another, and so on…and the cash register is ticking.
Safety is another issue, and we have to add the cost of the helmet, knee pads, elbow patches, wrist bands and adequate clothing. The economics of it should also take in consideration working hours lost, trips, food, and even transportation. And all of this in a sport discipline that is not prioritized in Cuba.
Roller skating as a hobby is a luxury, but converting it into a competitive sport is a titanic mission. Yes, it is definitely expensive. The high cost of roller skating!
COMMENT FROM THE TRANSLATOR, who lives in Santiago de Cuba
I found the piece suggestive. I interpreted it mostly as an indirect and intelligent way of pointing out how Cuban society is changing, with some people now having enough money for what are (compared with the near past) luxuries. However, I had someone who was visiting me read the piece and she thought that it looked more like criticism of INDER (Cuba´s National Institute for Sports and Physical Recreation) for not helping roller skaters. What do you think American readers will see in it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.