Translations 676
What Lies in the Future of Capitalism
- English
- Español
WHAT LIES IN THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
US American economists of different political orientation have been commenting these days on Robert Reich´s new book entitled Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few, in the New York Review of Books (December 17, 2015).
For Paul Krugman “It was gratifying to find the stark candor behind the title of Reich’s book. ‘Saving capitalism’ assuredly implies that capitalism is on the ropes –in danger of expiring– an implication that I both believe and welcome.”
Marxist analyst Zoltan Zigedy says that Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz share lofty accomplishments in academic economics and constitute the intellectual triumvirate informing the non-Marxist left in the US.
Although they do not agree on everything, they share a core set of beliefs in the viability of capitalism and its need for reform. It is unusual to see Krugman and Reich blatantly suggesting the urgency of saving the capitalist order.
The urgency they feel turns on the dramatic increase in economic inequality in major capitalist countries, particularly the US. Krugman stresses that inequality was an issue that Reich and he “were already taking seriously” twenty-five years ago.
“That may be, but I think it’s fair to say that neither was taking the growth of inequality seriously as a structural feature of capitalism until the important work of Thomas Piketty two years ago.”
According to Zigedy, Krugman, Reich, and other non-Marxist economists modified their understanding of the causes of the growth of inequality over the last several decades. Krugman, says Zigedy, describes a currently- evolved capitalism resembling the capitalism that Marxists described well over half of a century ago.
Decades ago, liberal economists believed that rising inequality sprang from a poor match between technological requirements and workers’ skill sets –what Krugman calls “skill-based technological change” (SBTC). Education was seen as the great leveler, restoring wealth and income to those falling behind.
But with the correlation between levels of education and compensation broken today, all reject SBTC as an adequate explanation and the key to arresting the growth of inequality. The growth of debt-laden college graduates working in call centers surely shattered that illusion.
Krugman thus dismisses a technological explanation for the growth of inequality. Instead he urges that we consider the centerpiece of Reich’s study: monopoly power.
It is the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer corporate players that accounts for growing economic inequality. According to Krugman and Reich: “…it’s obvious to the naked eye that our economy consists much more of monopolies and oligopolists than it does of atomistic competitors.”
Zigedy wonders, why did it take Reich and Krugman so long to arrive at this juncture, a place that Lenin had visited over a hundred years ago? Marxist writers like Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy devoted an entire influential book to monopoly capitalism nearly fifty years ago.
Thus, non-Marxist economists and their political allies have scorned the concept of monopoly power until recently, a concept that Marxists have made a centerpiece of their analyses.
Krugman and Reich reveal another crucial linkage –that between economic power (monopoly power) and political power. They see monopoly power as sustained, protected, and expanded by political actors. At the same time, they see political actors as selected, nourished, and guided by monopoly power. This creates a troubling conundrum for those seeking to reform capitalism.
Reich’s conclusion, in Krugman’s words: Rising wealth at the top buys growing political influence via campaign contributions, lobbying, and the rewards of the revolving door. Political influence in turn is used to rewrite the rules of the game in society. The result is a sort of spiral, a vicious cycle of oligarchy.
For Marxists, concentration necessarily begets monopoly capitalism, which subsequently completely fuses with the state, creating a mutually reinforcing synthesis. The state rules in the interest of monopoly capitalism while policing the economic terrain to maximize the viability and success of monopoly capital.
Nothing demonstrates the intimacy more than the crisis bailouts of mega-corporations (“too big to fail”) and the increasing monopoly capital’s dominance over the two-party political system that rules the United States.
January 8, 2016.
LO QUE DEPARA EL CAPITALISMO PARA EL FUTURO
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Economistas estadounidenses de diversa orientación política han estado opinando en estos días acerca del nuevo libro de Robert Reich titulado Salvando al capitalismo: para los muchos, no para los pocos, presentado en la Revista de Libros de Nueva York el 17 de diciembre de 2015.
Para Paul Krugman fue gratificante constatar la sinceridad descarnada que expresa el título de libro de Reich porque “salvar el capitalismo” implica que el capitalismo está contra las cuerdas, o sea, en peligro de extinción, “consideración en la que creo, saludo y comparto”.
El marxista Zoltan Zigedy señala que Robert Reich, Paul Krugman y Joseph Stiglitz comparten altos logros en la economía académica y constituyen un triunvirato intelectual no marxista bien informando. Aunque ellos no estén de acuerdo en todo, comparten un conjunto básico de creencias en la viabilidad del capitalismo y su necesidad de reforma. No obstante es raro ver a algunos sugiriendo manifiestamente la urgencia de salvar el orden burgués.
La urgencia deriva del espectacular aumento de la desigualdad económica en los principales países capitalistas, particularmente en Estados Unidos. Krugman confiesa que la desigualdad era una cuestión que Reich y él “empezaron a tomar en serio” ya hace veinticinco años. “Pero creo que es justo decir que no tomamos en serio ese crecimiento de la desigualdad como una característica estructural del capitalismo hasta que apareció el importante trabajo de Thomas Piketty hace dos años”.
Según Zigedy, los economistas no marxistas Krugman y Reich han modificado su interpretación de las causas del crecimiento de la desigualdad durante las últimas décadas. Krugman, afirma Zigedy, describe un capitalismo desarrollado actual que se asemeja al capitalismo que los marxistas vienen describiendo desde hace más de medio siglo.
Hace décadas, los economistas liberales sostenían que el aumento de la desigualdad era resultado de que había sectores de la clase obrera que no reunían los requisitos tecnológicos o carecían de las habilidades exigidas por el “cambio tecnológico basado en la habilidad” (SBTC, por sus siglas en inglés). La educación era vista por ellos como el gran nivelador, estabilizador de la riqueza y el avance de los atrasados.
Pero con la actual ruptura de la correlación ente nivel de educación y compensación, todos rechazan el SBTC como explicación adecuada y clave para detener el crecimiento de la desigualdad. El aumento del número de graduados universitarios abrumados de deudas rompió esa ilusión.
Así, Krugman sustituye la explicación tecnológica para el crecimiento de la desigualdad, por algo que es eje central del estudio de Reich, el poderío monopólico. Es la concentración del poder económico en manos de pocos jugadores corporativos lo que lleva al aumento de la desigualdad económica. Según Krugman y Reich: “… es evidente que nuestra economía se asienta mucho más en los monopolios y oligopolios que en la competencia atomística.”
Zigady pregunta ¿Por qué Reich y Krugman tardaron tanto tiempo en llegar en esta consideración a la que Lenin arribó hace más de cien años? Escritores marxistas como Paul Baran y Paul Sweezy dedicaron hace casi cincuenta años un influyente libro al capitalismo monopolista.
Así, los economistas no marxistas y sus aliados políticos hasta hace poco desdeñaban el concepto de poder de monopolio, que los marxistas han hecho pieza central de sus análisis.
Pero Krugman y Reich revelan otros acoplamientos cruciales: entre el poder político y el poder económico (poder monopólico) y los del mercado con el poder político. Ellos observan que el poder monopólico es sostenido, protegido y ampliado por actores políticos, así como que los actores políticos son seleccionados, alimentados y guiados por el poder de monopolio. Esto crea un preocupante problema para aquellos que buscan la reforma del capitalismo.
En palabras de Krugman, la conclusión a que llega Reich es que la creciente riqueza en el segmento poblacional superior incrementa su influencia política mediante contribuciones de campaña, cabildeo y recompensas. La influencia política, a su vez, sirve para reescribir las reglas del juego en la sociedad. El resultado es una especie de espiral, el círculo vicioso de la oligarquía.
Para los marxistas, la concentración engendra necesariamente capitalismo de monopolio, que posteriormente se funde con el Estado, creando una síntesis que convierte a las normas del Estado en policías en el terreno económico encargados de maximizar la viabilidad y el éxito del capital monopolista.
Nada demuestra mejor ese maridaje que los rescates de las mega-corporaciones (“supuestamente demasiado grandes para quebrar”) ante las crisis y el evidente incremento del dominio del capital monopolista en el sistema político de dos partidos que rige en Estados Unidos.
Enero 8 de 2016.
USA and Cuba: one year later
USA and Cuba: one year later
by Ricardo Alarcón
Published on December 19, 2015 in Opinión, Política, Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
December 17 marks the first anniversary of the announcement that Cuba and the United States would reestablish diplomatic relations. Presidents Raul Castro and Barak Obama did it at the same time from Havana and Washington, respectively. They both admitted that it was barely the first step of a process toward the elimination of a hostile policy maintained for over half a century but failed in the end, as the White House resident himself acknowledged.
Since then, Embassies were reopened, some senior officials have visited Havana, several minor or relatively important problems have been solved, and representatives of both governments have held meetings to discuss a thick agenda of essential topics, including the economic blockade —still in place— the permanent occupation of Cuban territory in Guantanamo, and the subversive projects that remain in operation to undermine the Revolution. As long as Washington makes no radical changes in its policy —lifting the blockade completely, returning Guantanamo to Cuba and ending its interference in our affairs— calling such diplomatic relations “normal” would be a bad joke.
There is a question, however, that seems to be a favorite on the American side and to which several of that country’s most read publications have devoted their attention: the claims filed there for alleged losses suffered by corporations and individuals as a result of Cuba’s nationalization laws of 1960.
This issue would have to be discussed together with Cuba’s own claims for the damages caused by fifty years of economic war and aggression which are incomparably greater and have had a serious impact on the island’s population. An official document that used to be secret, but no longer is, recognizes that the purpose of the policy was to make the Cuban people “suffer” by “hunger and despair”. Approved in the spring of 1960, the text was written before the Cuban nationalizations, and its words are literally consistent with what the Geneva Convention calls the “crime of genocide”.
The revolutionary laws always included the right to fair compensation by the former owners. All those foreign companies that respected Cuba’s sovereignty and accepted our legislation benefited, without exception, from such laws, and have kept normal links with us through business and new investments. It was also the case, by the way, with individuals living in Cuba who adopted the same attitude.
The North American companies were the only ones excluded, owing to their government’s rejection of the Cuban legislation and their economic attacks.
Still, there is an aspect of this issue that the U.S. media are carefully ignoring. It’s been a long time now since those who were expropriated in Cuba received special and privileged treatment that allowed them to get compensation for what they supposedly lost to the revolutionary measures.
Starting in 1964, and ever since, regulations were amended and unique laws were adopted exclusively for that group of people that made it possible for them to obtain compensation for their losses by means of substantial tax deductions. No other American taxpayers were granted similar benefits.
As far as taxes were concerned, it was an exceptional treatment only comparable to what migrants receive under the Cuban Adjustment Act, which also came in handy to individuals who in 1960 had not yet become American citizens but also enjoyed those advantages and helped create the myth of a successful Cuban-American business sector.
It was the Cuban people who never got any compensation whatsoever. The blockade has been not only the main obstacle to the island’s development, but also the main cause of that people’s suffering. It’s a genocidal policy, the longest genocide in history. The United States has an obligation to lift it now, immediately and unconditionally, and they must try to compensate their victims if they wish to have relations with their neighbors worthy of being considered “normal”.
Movie Filmed in Cuba Nominated for Oscar
Movie Filmed in Cuba Nominated for Oscar
The film had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival, where it was a great success
Author: Cubasi | internet@granma.cu
December 21, 2015 11:12:23
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Hector Medina stars in the film
Film “Viva”, set in Cuba and directed by Paddy Breathnatch, was chosen by the Irish Academy of Film and Television to represent the country at the Oscar Academy Awards as best foreign language film.
In this regard, Aine Moriarty, President of the Irish Academy, said: “The Irish Academy is delighted that this wonderful film by Paddy Breathnach and Mark O’Halloran represents Ireland at the Oscars. It reflects the creativity and diversity of points of view of this Irish team while shooting a Cuban story that is so tender, intriguing and visually captivating.”
The film had its world premiere at the Telluride Film Festival, where it was a success. In October, it will be presented at the Busan Festival.
Written by Mark O’Halloran, the drama follows Jesus, an 18 year old Cuban who is lost and trying to find his true identity. Unsure of himself or his future direction, he works at a drag queen club in Havana. There he pursues his dreams of becoming an actor, while earning money through prostitution.
He finds his oasis at home listening to the albums his mother and grandmother left him; or even watching the boxers who train next door. Then, something comes to his life that will challenge his direction and his freedom: his missing father, a famous boxer, who returns after spending 15 years in prison for killing a person in a street fight when Jesus was a child.
The cast includes Hector Medina, Jorge Perugorría and Luis Alberto Garcia.
In the end, Obama didn’t have what he needed to have
CUBA-USA:
IN THE END, HE DID NOT HAVE WHAT HE NEEDED TO HAVE.
By: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
September 11, 2015.
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Historical coincidences are always interesting and especially in connection with September 11 there are quite a few.
Today, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner signed a “Presidential Determination” exercising his authority to keep Cuba, until September 14, 2016, under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
In doing so, he makes a mockery of his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who recently said in Havana that the United States and Cuba were not enemies or rivals, but neighbors. It also gives a sample of little political acumen by signing this determination on 11 September, when he could have signed it on the10th, or the 12th, to avoid coinciding with other events that occurred on September 11th, in which the United States has been involved.
On a September 11, another US President, from the same oval office where the Nobel Peace Prize Awarded works, took the Presidential Determination to launch a coup d’etat against the constitutional government of Chile. This resulted in the death of thousands of Chileans, including President Salvador Allende, and thousands of others who suffered humiliation and torture. The United States never described all those atrocities as human rights violations by the perpetrators of the coup; because, of course, it participated in their commission.
On another September 11, the events that resulted in the destruction of the World Trade Center, known as the Twin Towers, occurred. The then-President was at that moment visiting a school and when he heard the news, took the Presidential Determination to spend more time talking to the children and going over their notebooks, as if he had been prepared for what was taking place. We all know the story that has been spinned around these events, including the plane that struck the Pentagon, the remains of which were never seen, and the one that was going to attack the White House that disappeared without further explanation.
Also on a September 11, in New York City, terrorists who were residents in the US shot dead the Cuban diplomat Felix Garcia. The terrorist who was accused and convicted of the crime is already free; perhaps as a result of another Presidential Determination.
Mr. Obama, history judges men by the determinations they make at a given moment. If they act rightly and courageously according to justice, or if they act wrongly and capriciously, as if justice and the world were meaningless to them.
In the context we are describing, it is impossible not to remember Comandante Juan Almeida, who died on a September 11 and who –in the middle of a fierce battle against the forces of the Batista dictatorship, indeed supported by US determination– famously shouted: “Nobody here surrenders, cojones”.
Mr. Obama, our national poet Nicolas Guillen, in one of his famous and well-known poems, repeated something very consistent with the Cuban Revolution, when he wrote that “I now have what I had to have.”
In your case, by taking this Presidential Determination to keep Cuba under the Trading with the Enemy Act until September 14, 2016, you have shown that you do not have what you needed to have.
TEXT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 11, 2015
September 11, 2015
Presidential Determination
No. 2015-11
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
SUBJECT: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act
Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) note), and a previous determination on September 5, 2014 (79 FR 54183, September 10, 2014), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to terminate on September 14, 2015.
I hereby determine that the continuation for 1 year of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba is in the national interest of the United States.
Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2016, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba, as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515.
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
Tourism and Revolution Must Go Hand in Hand
TOURISM AND REVOLUTION MUST GO HAND IN HAND
ByManuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the US government is working to reach a deal with Cuba by year’s end that would allow tourists to fly on scheduled commercial flights between the two countries.
The agreement would allow airlines to establish regular service between the U.S. and Cuba as early as December, marking the most significant expansion of bilateral tourism ties between the U.S. and Cuba since the 1950s, when Americans regularly traveled back and forth to Havana without the limitations imposed by Washington from the 1960s.
The Obama administration –says the Journal– is also exploring further steps to loosen travel restrictions for US citizens to the island nation despite the still in place unconstitutional decades-old ban imposed by Washington.
Only Congress can lift the U.S. travel and trade blockades imposed against Cuba following the popular triumph in the island. Nevertheless, says the Journal, Mr. Obama has executive authority to grant exceptions to them. He announced several last December –such as allowing Americans to use credit and debit cards in Cuba and expanding commercial sales and exports between the two countries.
The WSJ recalls that U.S. laws authorize citizens to travel to Cuba with special licenses only for specific purposes, including business trips, family visits or people-to-people cultural exchanges.
The negotiations are partly centering on how many flights a day would be permitted between the two countries and whether Cuba’s state-owned airline, Cubana de Aviación, can serve the U.S. The WSJ sources were not certain about this last issue.
Many U.S. airlines, including American Airlines and Jet Blue, are eager to serve Cuba and have been pushing regulators to authorize scheduled service.
Four shipping companies in Florida (90 miles from Cuba): United Americas Shipping Services, Havana Ferry Partners, United Caribbean Lines and Airline Brokers, announced receipt of US Treasury permission to operate ferries between the two countries, while noting that they still need additional permits including that from Havana.
The reestablishment of diplomatic relations, which culminated on August 14 with the official reopening of the US Embassy in Havana, has been one of the catalysts for the accelerated growth of visitor arrivals to the Caribbean country.
Between January and July of this year (2015), 88,996 people from the United states traveled to the island, despite the fact that the blockade does not allow them to do so as true tourists because Washington does not authorize them to visit beaches or other fun and recreation centers so they do “not bring their money to Castro “.
The rapprochement between the two countries has increased world interest in Cuba. The island in turn is developing different strategies to strengthen the tourism industry, improve the quality of hotel services and expand its capacity.
To attract foreign capital, the island has adopted a new Foreign Investment Act. Meanwhile, increasing ties between the private and state sectors in the Cuban economy, bring an important complement to meet the growing demand for rooms, restaurants and other services.
The Italian publication specializing in tourism issues in the Caribbean Travel Trade Caribbean (TTC) wonders in its latest issue if the “wave” of potential US tourists expected in Cuba would be good or bad for other Caribbean islands more dependent on the leisure industry.
Cuba, which continues its socialist project with the same drive as before, argues that the eventual normalization of its relations with the US will not damage the economies of tourism-dependent Caribbean countries.
The Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association welcomed Cuba as an integral part of the Caribbean and called for the development of cooperation with Cuba in all aspects of tourism. It also called on governments of the region to adopt a new program for tourism development involving high-level discussions with the US and Cuban authorities with a view to developing a Tourism Initiative in the Caribbean Basin to promote in an “economically viable, secure and stable way” this industry in the region.
But Cuba’s tourism infrastructure will have to be strengthened before the full impact of “the wave” occurs in the industries of other Caribbean destinations. Cooperation between countries in the region will be the best antidote against the problem; and the Cuban revolution has demonstrated many times its ability to face great challenges.
September 12, 2015.
What is Meant by “Normalization”?
====================================== CUBA.- EU.- QUE SE ENTIENDE POR NORMALIZAR Por: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe En los últimos meses, sin duda alguna, una de las palabras que más se ha escuchado ha sido normalizar. Cuando utilizamos los diccionarios para buscar el verdadero significado de esta palabra, encontramos que la misma significa “Someter a norma. Poner en buen orden.” (Diccionario Manual Ilustrado VOX de la Lengua Española); “Regularizar o poner en buen orden lo que no estaba. Hacer que una cosa sea normal.” (Diccionario Océano Práctico de la Lengua Española). Normalizar puede tener un efecto beneficioso o perjudicial, según la norma a que se someta el hecho. Lo normal es que la madre sienta cariño por sus hijos. Que el maestro se preocupe por la instrucción y educación de sus alumnos. Que una mujer en estado pueda tener un parto feliz. Que un estudiante aplicado pueda terminar su carrera universitaria. También es normal que si usted prende un fosforo cerca de la gasolina, esta entre en combustión o explote. Si usted utiliza un auto y no se preocupa por asegurarse de que cuente con el aceite y el agua necesario, lo normal es que el motor se destruya. Si a un enfermo usted no le suministra la medicina y los cuidados necesarios, lo normal es que muera. Considero que estos ejemplos son suficientes para establecer que la normalización de una situación puede estar determinada por la relación existente entre dos países o personas. Lo normal es que un amigo ayude al otro. También puede considerarse normal que un enemigo trate de destruir al que considera su enemigo. En ambos casos se actúa de forma normal. Esto puede influir en el concepto de lo que uno u otro considera normal. Estoy plenamente convencido, que la acción realizada por la USAID el día 9 de septiembre, dos días antes de que comenzaran en la Habana las reuniones de las comisiones en pro de la normalización de relaciones, ellos consideran que están dentro de la mayor normalidad. El 9 de septiembre, la USAID anunció que está buscando administradores para sus programas contra Cuba. El salario que ofrecen está entre los 90, 823 a los 139,523 dólares anuales . Las personas que están tratando de contratar deben tener experiencia en promoción de la democracia, derechos humanos, desarrollo de la sociedad civil, desarrollo comunitario y formación de grupos juveniles. Como es lógico pensar, estos son los programas de subversión político ideológica que piensan desarrollar en los sectores mencionados, por eso requieren los llamados “administradores.” En el anuncio de la USAID se plantea que “ Successful candidates must obtain a “secret” security clearance within nine months of accepting the position. Information deemed “secret” is defined as that which would “cause serious damage to national security” if disclosed. Así que estos “administradores” deberán pasar el chequeo de seguridad y obtener el famoso “clearance” pues lo que realicen o conozcan, si es divulgado, puede causar serios daños a la seguridad nacional. ¿Pueden ustedes imaginarse que tenebrosas actividades desarrollará la USAID contra Cuba, que de divulgarse causaría serios daños a la Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos? Entre otras cosas, en el anuncio de la USAID se plantea que Cuba es un país “sin presencia física” lo cual significa que la USAID no cuenta con una oficina en el mismo por lo que la actividad se dirigirá desde Washington, lo que nos hace pensar que estos tenebrosos planes se ejecutarán por los “diplomáticos” estadounidenses asignados a la Embajada en la Habana y el envío periódico de personas con el manto de profesores universitarios, periodistas, académicos, miembros de organizaciones juveniles y otros. Para terminar la oferta de trabajo se plantea que las solicitudes a estos cargos deben presentarse antes del día 8 de octubre a las 9:00 am., aunque de acuerdo a los listados de la USAID estos puestos de trabajo se había informado comenzarían en septiembre del 2015. Todo de lo más normal. La USAID haciendo su trabajo para tratar de destruir al enemigo que se ha apoderado de Cuba. Mientras tanto, las conversaciones siguen adelante. CUBA.- EU.- What is Meant by “Normalization”?
By: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
September 10, 2015
In recent months, without a doubt, one of the words most often heard has been “normalization”.
When we use dictionaries to find the true meaning of this word, we find that it means “Subject to rule. Put in good order ” (Manual VOX Illustrated Dictionary of the Spanish Language).; “Regulate or put in good order what was not. Make that one thing is normal. “(Ocean Practical Dictionary of the Spanish Language).
Normalization can have a beneficial or detrimental effect, depending on the standard to which the fact is submitted.
Typically, a mother feels affection for her children. The teacher worries about the instruction and education of their students.
It is said that a woman can have a happy birth. A diligent student can finish college.
It is also normal that if you light a match near gasoline bursts into flame or explodes. If you use a car and do not worry about making sure that has the necessary oil and water, it is normal that the engine is destroyed. If you are sick you do not receive the necessary medicine and care, it is normal to die.
I believe that these examples are sufficient to establish that the normalization of a situation can be determined by the relationship between two countries or people.
Typically, one friend helps another. It is also considered normal for an enemy to try to destroy whomever it considers its enemy. In both cases such acts are normal. This can influence the concept of what either considers to be normal.
I am convinced that the action taken by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on September 9, two days before the start of meetings in Havana of the committees towards the normalization of relations, is what they feel are normal.
On September 9, USAID announced that it is seeking managers for its programs against Cuba. The salary offered is between $90,823 to $139,523 per year.
The people whom they are trying to hire must have experience in promoting democracy, human rights, civil society development, community development and the training of youth groups. As is logical, these are the political and ideological subversion programs that USAID plans to develop in these sectors, so they require so-called “administrators.”
In the announcement from the USAID, it states that “Successful candidates must obtain a “secret” security clearance Within nine months of accepting the position. Information deemed “secret” is defined as that which would “cause serious damage to national security” if it were disclosed.
So these “managers” must pass the security check and get the famous “clearance” for what conduct or be known, which if disclosed, could cause serious damage to national security. Can you imagine that USAID develop dark activities against Cuba, which if disclosed would cause serious damage to the national security of the United States?
Among other things, in the announcement from USAID it arises that Cuba is a country “without physical presence” which means that USAID does not have an office in the Cuba so that the activity will be directed from Washington, what makes us think that these sinister plans will be implemented by “diplomats” assigned to the US Embassy in Havana and sending periodic persons with the mantle of university professors, journalists, academics, members of youth organizations and others.
To finish the job it is suggested that requests these charges due on October 8th at 9:00 am., But according to listings of these jobs USAID had been reported to begin in September 2015.
All very normal. USAID is doing its job to try to destroy the enemy that has gripped Cuba.
Meanwhile, talks are continuing.
Google translation. Revised by Walter Lippmann.
======================================
10 de septiembre 2015
Terrorist Luis Posada Carriles suffers auto accident in Miami
PHOTO CAPTION: Luis Posada Carriles driving his car in Miami.Neither Enemies Nor Rivals, Neighbors
- English
- Español
CUBA-USA
NEITHER ENEMIES, NOR RIVALS, NEIGHBORS
By: Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
August 14, 2015
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Today, in his speech in the city of Havana, the Secretary of State of the United States Government, John Kerry, exlained the actions the Obama administration plans to implement in relation to Cuba, including the efforts it has done and will do with Congress to try to achieve the lifting of the blockade.
Mr. Kerry delivered some parts of his speech in Spanish, probably to prevent the translation changing what he wanted to convey. He wanted the message to directly reach all present. In Spanish language he clearly said:
“We are neither enemies nor rivals, we are neighbors.”
This was a very important phrase from Mr. Kerry, as well as was his description of the efforts of the Obama administration to achieve the lifting of the blockade.
I believe that within a little more than twenty days –certainly soon enough– President Obama will have the opportunity to take an action that will confirm his efforts for the elimination of the blockade, and also give proof to the idea that Cuba and the United States are neither enemy nor rivals, but neighbors.
On September 5, 2014, President Barack Obama extended the Trading with the Enemy Act for Cuba for another year. This action was part of the continuation of the blockade against our country.
The Trading with the Enemy Act was approved by Congress on October 6, 1917, and gives the President the power to restrict trade with countries considered “hostile” to the United States. Section 5(b) gives the chief executive the possibility of applying economic sanctions in wartime, or in any other period of national emergency, and prohibits trading with the enemy or its allies during military conflict.
Under this law, the oldest of its kind, the Regulations for the Control of Cuban Assets were adopted in 1963, after the blockade against Cuba was declared in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy. Cuba is the only country against which this legislation is in force after it was suspended for North Korea in 2008. Other countries like China and Vietnam were also subject to the application of this legislation in the past.
Although since 1959 the White House has never declared a national emergency with respect to our country, successive US presidents have extended and applied this law to Cuba. In addition to this legislation, the legal framework of the blockade is broad and complex. It includes other laws and administrative regulations such as the Foreign Assistance Act (1961), the Export Administration Law (1979), the Torricelli Law (1992), the Helms-Burton Law (1996) and the Export Administration Regulations(1979).
The action of extending the Trading with the Enemy Act for Cuba is repeated every year. It has become a routine procedure for the White House which, after 50 years, has not given up this outdated and failed policy toward Cuba. Meanwhile, internal debate for a change of policy in the US grows. Once again the US government will be internationally isolated when the overwhelming majority of states vote in favor of Cuba’s resolution calling for the elimination of the economic, commercial and financial blockade, which is presented each year to the United Nations General Assembly since 1992.” (1)
We heard the statements of the Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry, declaring that Cuba is not an enemy or a rival, but a neighbor. It would not be consistent with such statement to see that President Obama –who a year ago extended the Trading with the Enemy Act for Cuba –extends it again for another year, until September 2016.
Now Obama, who has the power to exclude Cuba from the Act, can give a sign of seriousness in his approach and prove he is pursuing a consistent policy aimed at improving relations with Cuba.
Go ahead Mr. Obama, go ahead Mr. Kerry. Show that when you say something, you do not change your minds.
This is asked by your neighbors, not your enemies.
(1) Cubaminrex/ Dirección General de EE.UU.
CUBA.- EU.- NI ENEMIGOS NI RIVALES, VECINOS
Por : Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
14 de agosto 2015
En el discurso que pronunció en la ciudad de la Habana, en el día de hoy ,el Secretario de Estado del gobierno de Estados Unidos, John Kerry, estableció las acciones que la administración Obama tiene planificado ejecutar en relación con Cuba, incluyendo los esfuerzos que realiza y realizará con el Congreso, para tratar de lograr el levantamiento del bloqueo.
Algunas partes del discurso el señor Kerry las pronunció en español, seguramente para evitar que la traducción pudiera modificar lo que deseaba trasladar y que el mensaje llegara directamente a todos los presentes. Claramente en idioma español dijo: “No somos ni enemigos ni rivales, somos vecinos.”
Muy importante esta frase del señor Kerry y su descripción de los esfuerzos de la administración Obama por lograr el levantamiento del bloqueo. Considero que dentro de un poco más de veinte días, bastante cercano por cierto, el presidente Obama tiene oportunidad de realizar una acción, que ratificará sus esfuerzos por la eliminación del bloqueo y además, que Cuba y Estados Unidos no somos ni enemigo sin rivales, sino vecinos.
El 5 de septiembre del año 2014, el presidente Barack Obama prorrogó para Cuba, por un año más, la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo ,lo que es una acción que forma parte de la continuidad del bloqueo contra nuestro país. “La Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo fue aprobada por el Congreso Federal el 6 de octubre de 1917 y le otorga al Presidente la facultad para restringir el comercio con países “hostiles” a Estados Unidos.
La sección 5 (b) delega en el máximo jefe del Ejecutivo la posibilidad de aplicar sanciones económicas en tiempo de guerra o en cualquier otro período de emergencia nacional, y prohíbe el comercio con el enemigo o sus aliados durante conflictos bélicos.
En virtud de esta ley, la más antigua de su tipo, se adoptaron las Regulaciones para el Control de Activos Cubanos en 1963, luego de que fuera declarado el bloqueo contra Cuba en 1962 por el presidente John F. Kennedy.
Cuba es el único país para el cual está vigente esta legislación luego de que en 2008, fuera suspendida para Corea del Norte. Otros países como China y Vietnam también fueron objeto de la aplicación de esta legislación en el pasado. Aún cuando la Casa Blanca nunca ha declarado una emergencia nacional con respecto a nuestro país desde 1959, sucesivos presidentes estadounidenses han prorrogado esta ley para Cuba.
Además de esta legislación, el entramado legal del bloqueo es amplio y complejo ya que abarca otras leyes y regulaciones administrativas como la Ley para la Asistencia Exterior (1961), la Ley para la Administración de las Exportaciones (1979), la Ley Torricelli (1992), la Ley Helms-Burton (1996) y las Regulaciones para la Administración de las Exportaciones (1979).
La acción de prorrogar la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo para Cuba se repite cada año por lo que se ha convertido en un procedimiento rutinario de la Casa Blanca, que luego de más de 50 años no ha renunciado a esta obsoleta y fracasada política hacia Cuba.
Mientras tanto, se acrecienta el debate interno en EE.UU. a favor del cambio de la política y una vez más el gobierno estadounidense quedará aislado ante la abrumadora mayoría de los Estados que votarán a favor de la resolución de Cuba reclamando la eliminación del bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero, que es presentada cada año en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas desde 1992.” (1)
Después de haber escuchado los pronunciamientos del Secretario de Estado, señor Kerry , donde declara que Cuba no es un enemigo ni un rival, que es un vecino, no sería consecuente con ese pronunciamiento que el presidente Obama, al cumplirse un año de haber prorrogado para Cuba la Ley de Comercio con el Enemigo, la prorrogue nuevamente por otro año, hasta septiembre del 2016.
Ahora Obama, que tiene la facultad de no incluir a Cuba en dicha Ley, puede dar una muestra de seriedad en sus planteamientos y de que está llevando a cabo una política consecuente encaminada a mejorar las relaciones con Cuba. Adelante señor Obama, adelante señor Kerry. Muestren, que cuando dicen algo, no cambian de opinión. Se lo piden sus vecinos, no sus enemigos.
(1) Cubaminrex/ Dirección General de EE.UU.
Crisis and Hope in Puerto Rico
- English
- Español
CRISIS AND HOPE IN PUERTO RICO
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
These days, the “For sale” sign on houses can be seen all over the place in San Juan, Puerto Rico and other cities on the island. These signs have been put up by more than 144,000 Puerto Ricans who are leaving the island to go abroad in search of employment. Some of these ads read, as a sort of retaliation against those responsible for their misfortune:
“THIS HOUSE IS FOR SALE, BUT NOT TO AMERICANS”
The current plight of Puerto Rico, however painful, could be the harbinger of a new awakening of patriotic awareness among the Puerto Rican people. This could open the way to their deserved inclusion in the part of America where they rightfully belong.
Puerto Ricans cannot be blamed for their misfortunes in the current crisis when foreign trade, currency, communications, citizenship and nationality laws and procedures, internal and external navigation, migration, labor and wage procedures, the land, airspace, coasts, and borders, ports, forests, minerals, as well as citizen military service and defense of the country are all the responsibility of a foreign power.
Since the US invasion of the island in 1898, Puerto Rico has successively experienced: military occupation in the first two years, a civilian government with a governor and supreme judge appointed by the president of the United States until 1948, and a native governor of annexationist orientation (Luis Muñoz Marín), also appointed by Washington, with a bicameral legislature restricted to bilingual property owners subject to imperial veto.
In 1952, it became a “Associated Free State” and. to mask its colonial status, Washington gave the island the right to a constitution and the election of a governor and parliamentarians, while maintaining and ensuring the country’s colonial subordination to the United States.
Currently on the small territory of Puerto Rico there are about 15 bases commanded by the US Atlantic Command (LANTCOM). The current state of bankruptcy of Puerto Rico is because –as its governor, Alexander Padilla said– the country does not have money to pay its debt of $73 billion dollars to its creditors. This amount represents 100 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The country has not even been able to honor a partial payment of $58 million to the Public Financing Corporation (PFC) of which it has only managed to pay the amount of $628,000. The colonial government has officially declared itself unable to pay the debt (default), and there is not a glimpse of a solution for now. Neither Washington nor the IMF have ruled on the matter, or have contributed remedial solutions that would prevent the country from becoming insolvent by the end of this summer.
Peruvian journalist Vicky Pelaez, in the Russian magazine Sputnik, expresses the view that “actually, the country’s debt began to grow in the 1970s. “Its economy, since the middle of last century was based mainly on the pharmaceutical industry; but with the appearance of maquiladoras in Mexico and Asia, this sector began to move to those regions in search of cheaper labor and higher productivity.”
“To attract multinational corporations to the island, Washington exempted them from paying taxes and thus further weakened the local economy.” The country, with its policy of mortgage liberalization, was further affected by the mortgage crisis of the beginning of the 21st Century. In 2006, the governor of Puerto Rico, alarmed by its weak GDP growth, made the decision to suspend the tax exemption for corporations. This led to the exodus and closing of companies.
The country went into recession and the migration of Puerto Ricans, mainly to Florida and New York, grew alarmingly. Today, 45% of the total 3.5 million inhabitants of the island live in poverty, and 83% its of children live in poor areas.
Puerto Rico suffers the consequences of classic colonialism, in which a foreign country makes decisions for it and has the military and political capacity to manage the public and collective life of another country.
But the news coming from the island reflects a deepening awareness that the elimination of the US colonial system –which has been in place over the past 117 years– is the only road to achieving independence and the full exercise of its national sovereignty. These will bring about the recognition and international support indispensable for the country’s development.
August 22, 2015.
LA CRISIS Y LAS ESPERANZAS DE PUERTO RICO
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Por estos días proliferan por doquier en San Juan de Puerto Rico y otras ciudades de la isla anuncios de la puesta en venta de viviendas fijados por más de 144.000 puertorriqueños que están abandonando la isla para marchar al exterior en busca de empleo. Algunos de estos carteles expresan, como pretendida represalia a los causantes de su desgracia:
“SE VENDE ESTA CASA, PERO NO A LOS AMERICANOS”
La grave situación actual de Puerto Rico, por dolorosa que sea, pudiera constituir el augurio de un nuevo despertar de la conciencia patriótica del pueblo borinqueño que le abra merecido paso a su plena inclusión en la parte de América a que pertenece por derecho propio.
No se puede responsabilizar por desgracias como la actual crisis a los puertorriqueños, cuando el comercio exterior, la moneda, las comunicaciones, las leyes y procedimientos de ciudadanía y nacionalidad, la navegación interna y externa, los procedimientos migratorios, laborales y salariales, la tierra, los espacios aéreos, las costas y fronteras, los puertos, los bosques, el subsuelo mineral, así como el servicio militar ciudadano y la defensa del país, son de la incumbencia de un poder extranjero.
Desde la invasión estadounidense de la Isla en 1898, Puerto Rico ha conocido, sucesivamente, la ocupación militar en los dos primeros años; un gobierno civil con gobernador y juez supremo nombrados por el presidente de Estados Unidos hasta 1948; un gobernador nativo de orientación anexionista (Luis Muñoz Marín), igualmente designado por Washington, con un cuerpo Legislativo bicameral restringido a propietarios bilingües sujeto a veto imperial, y un “Estado Libre Asociado”, instaurado en 1952 para enmascarar el status colonial, otorgando a la Isla derecho a una Constitución y a la elección de gobernador y parlamentarios, pero manteniendo y asegurando la subordinación colonial a Estados Unidos.
Actualmente hay en el reducido territorio de Puerto Rico unas 15 bases norteamericanas bajo el mando US Atlantic Command (LANTCOM). La actual situación de bancarrota en la que ha caído Puerto Rico obedece, ha dicho su gobernador Alejandro Padilla, a que el país no tiene dinero para pagar su deuda de 73 mil millones de dólares a sus acreedores, cifra que representa el 100 por ciento de su PIB (Producto Interno Bruto).
No ha podido siquiera cancelar en fecha reciente un pago parcial de 58 millones de dólares a la CFP (Corporación para el Financiamiento Público) del que sólo logró desembolsar una fracción de 628 mil dólares.
El Gobierno colonial se ha declarado oficialmente incapacitado para pagar la deuda (default) sin que se vislumbre solución por el momento. Ni Washington ni el Fondo Monetario Internacional se han pronunciado sobre el asunto ni han aportado soluciones remediales que eviten que el país se declare insolvente hacia el fin de este verano.
Según criterio de la periodista peruana Vicky Peláez en la revista rusa Sputnik, “en realidad la deuda del país empezó a crecer desde los años 1970. Su economía desde la mitad del siglo pasado estaba basada principalmente en la industria farmacéutica pero con la aparición de las maquiladoras en México y en Asia, este sector empezó a trasladarse a aquellas regiones en búsqueda de la mano de obra más barata y de mayor productividad.
Para atraer las corporaciones multinacionales a la isla, Washington las exoneró del pago de impuestos y con ello debilitó aún más a la economía local”. La crisis hipotecaria al comienzo del Siglo XXI afectó aún más al país con su política de liberalización de la hipoteca.
En 2006, el gobernador de Puerto Rico, alarmado por el débil crecimiento del PIB tomó la decisión de suspender la exención fiscal a las corporaciones lo que provocó el éxodo y el cierre de las compañías. El país entró en recesión y la emigración de boricuas, principalmente a la Florida y Nueva York creció alarmantemente.
Hoy, un 45 por ciento del total de 3,5 millones de habitantes de la isla vive en la pobreza y el 83 por ciento de los niños habitan en áreas pobres. Puerto Rico sufre las consecuencias del coloniaje clásico, aquel en el que un país extranjero decide y tiene capacidad violenta y política para administrar la vida pública y colectiva de otro país.
Pero las noticias que llegan de allí reflejan una profundización de la conciencia de que la eliminación del sistema colonial a que ha estado sometido por Estados Unidos durante los últimos 117 años es el único camino hacia el logro de la independencia y el ejercicio pleno de su soberanía nacional, propiciadores del reconocimiento y apoyo internacional indispensables para el desarrollo del país.
Agosto 22 de 2015.
Condoms in Her Purse
- English
- Español
Condoms in Her Purse
By Mileyda Menéndez Dávila
February 27, 2015 22:07:41 CDT
Updated: Thursday, September 21, 2017 | 11:19:15 PM
A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmann.
CIENFUEGOS: She entered through the door when there were almost no more people. She waited for the last one in line and asked the heavens not to let anyone else in. But it’s almost impossible to find an empty pharmacy in Cuba. Then she left. I wouldn’t be able to stand those prying eyes again when I asked the salesgirl for five pesos worth of condoms.
Like her, many women are ashamed to buy condoms. Despite education and advocacy on these issues, they prefer to risk unprotected sexual intercourse rather than purchase them in a public institution.
Although the product is easy to access, buying it is for many a personal challenge. Adolescent girls worry that people will know or suspect them to be sexually active; unmarried women fear being labeled promiscuous; married women fear being unfaithful; and women over the age of 50 fear being ridiculed.
These are criteria that deny women’s empowerment in sexuality and therefore limit the practice of some sexual and reproductive rights.
In an article on the subject, the Mexican writer Luza Alvarado explains: “The heart of the matter is in the fear that causes us to accept that women are desirous subjects (…). For centuries, women were educated to be a passive object, whose desire was only legitimate when it was placed in function of male desire. That scheme persists in our collective unconscious through prejudice and unwritten rules like “condoms are his business”.
This leaves it up to men to buy them, open them, put them on, avoid spills or breakages and throw them in the trash. Some, however, reject them, claiming that they do not experience the same sensations or that they are harmed. And as they see themselves as without alternatives, they give in to these excuses and venture into a game of Russian roulette whose price can be an unwanted pregnancy and even a sexually transmitted infection.
Studies conducted in Mexico in 2010 reveal that 83 percent of women in that country do not buy or carry a condom because of social prejudice. They fear being considered “easy women”, which contradicts the difficulty of often demanding responsible intercourse from men.
Take care of you (and me)
“The condom prevents the exchange of fluids between the penis and the vagina, which can not only transmit HIV, but also other infections such as the papilloma virus, a frequent cause of cervical cancer,” says Cienfuegos psychologist Yanisuleidy Tamayo Días, who recommends the use of this barrier method even in steady couples.
“Despite the myths, the low number of women diagnosed with HIV compared to men reflects that Cuban women do protect themselves. Most cases occur in married women, who acquire the disease from their steady partners. Several surveys confirm this,” she explains.
That is the price of the cultural stereotypes that still regulate female behavior. It takes a lot of effort not to trust our partner’s appearance or word, but it is necessary to take the initiative in terms of precaution.
Writer Luza Alvarado sums it up as follows: “Every exercise of freedom implies taking responsibility. (….) I feel that if something can prevail over time as a positive and transversal value, it is personal health care, which in the case of sexual life becomes caring for the other, of the community and of society.
“The biggest advantage is that it works like life insurance: if the man doesn’t carry condoms and we both feel like it, I don’t put my sexual health in his hands. It doesn’t matter if it’s casual sex or a more serious relationship, life is what’s at stake and if you take care of yourself you’re taking care of each other, your other potentials and your partner’s potential others… I mean, taking care of yourself is taking care of everyone.”
Also in Cuba, many women are a little apprehensive about the act of buying condoms. For them we bring some tricks, such as asking one or two friends to go with them, buying them along with other medicines, looking for a place where it is a man who dispatches and trying to get a low turnout (early morning or early evening).
The best advice is to always remember that this action shows you as a responsible woman, aware of the risks you take, and that for you to protect yourself is not just an option, but a vital obligation.
Condones en el bolso
Mileyda Menéndez Dávila
mileyda@juventudrebelde.cu
27 de Febrero del 2015 22:07:41 CDT
CIENFUEGOS.— Entró por la puerta cuando ya no había casi personas. Esperó por la última en la cola y pidió a los cielos que no llegara nadie más. Pero es casi imposible encontrar una farmacia vacía en Cuba. Entonces se fue. No sería capaz de soportar de nuevo aquellas miradas indiscretas cuando pedía cinco pesos de condones a la dependienta.
Como ella, muchas mujeres sienten vergüenza de comprar preservativos. A pesar de la educación y la promoción en torno a estos temas, prefieren arriesgarse en una relación sexual desprotegida antes que adquirirlos en un establecimiento público.
A pesar de que es sencillo acceder al producto, comprarlo es para muchas un desafío personal. A las adolescentes les preocupa que la gente las sepa o sospeche sexualmente activas; las solteras temen ser calificadas de promiscuas; las casadas, de infieles; y las mayores de 50 años, de ridículas.
Son criterios que niegan el empoderamiento femenino en la sexualidad y, por ende, limitan la práctica de algunos derechos sexuales y reproductivos.
En un artículo sobre el tema, la escritora mexicana Luza Alvarado explica: «El meollo del asunto está en el miedo que nos provoca aceptar que la mujer es un sujeto deseante (…). Durante siglos, la mujer fue educada para ser un objeto pasivo, cuyo deseo solo era legítimo cuando se ponía en función del deseo masculino. Ese esquema persiste en nuestro inconsciente colectivo a través de prejuicios y reglas no escritas como “los condones le tocan a él”».
Así se deja a los hombres la responsabilidad de comprarlos, abrirlos, ponerlos, evitar derrames o rompimientos y botarlos a la basura. Sin embargo, algunos declaran su rechazo, al alegar que no experimentan las mismas sensaciones o que les hacen daño. Y como ellas se ven sin alternativas, ceden ante esas excusas y se aventuran en un juego de la ruleta rusa cuyo precio puede ser un embarazo no deseado y hasta una infección de transmisión sexual.
Estudios realizados en México en 2010 revelan que el 83 por ciento de las mujeres de ese país no compra o carga un condón por prejuicios sociales. Ellas temen ser consideradas «mujeres fáciles», lo cual contradice la dificultad que implica muchas veces exigir al hombre un coito responsable.
Cuidarte(me)
«El condón evita el intercambio de fluidos entre el pene y la vagina, los cuales no solo pueden transmitir el VIH, sino también otras infecciones como el papiloma virus, causa frecuente de cáncer cérvicouterino», comenta la psicóloga cienfueguera Yanisuleidy Tamayo Días, quien recomienda el uso de este método de barrera incluso en parejas estables.
«A pesar de los mitos, el bajo número de mujeres diagnosticadas con VIH, en comparación con el de los hombres, refleja que las cubanas sí se protegen. La mayoría de los casos se dan en las casadas, quienes adquieren la enfermedad con sus parejas estables. Varias encuestas así lo confirman», explica la especialista.
Ese es el precio de los estereotipos culturales que aún regulan la conducta femenina. Cuesta mucho no confiar en la apariencia o la palabra de nuestra pareja, pero es preciso tomar la iniciativa en materia de precauciones.
La escritora Luza Alvarado así lo resume: «Todo ejercicio de libertad implica una toma de responsabilidad. (…) Siento que si algo puede prevalecer en el tiempo como un valor positivo y transversal, es el cuidado personal de la salud, que en el caso de la vida sexual se convierte en un cuidado del otro, de la comunidad y de la sociedad.
«La mayor ventaja es que funciona como un seguro de vida: si el hombre no lleva condones y ambos tenemos ganas, no pongo mi salud sexual en sus manos. No importa si se trata de sexo casual o de una relación más seria, la vida es lo que está en juego y si uno se cuida está cuidando al otro, a sus potenciales otras y a los potenciales otros de ellas… O sea, cuidarse es cuidar a todos».
También en Cuba muchas sienten cierta aprensión hacia el acto de adquirir condones. Para ellas traemos algunos trucos, como pedirle a una o dos amigas que la acompañen, comprarlos junto a otros medicamentos, buscar un lugar donde sea un hombre quien despache y procurar horarios de poca afluencia de público (primeras horas de la mañana o en la noche).
El mejor consejo es recordar siempre que esa acción te muestra como una mujer responsable, consciente de los riesgos que asumes, y que para ti protegerte no es apenas una opción, sino una obligación vital.
You must be logged in to post a comment.