Skip to main content

Of Modern Cuba

From the Writer's Almanac, 2/24/2011

When Fidel Castro stepped down in 2008, people  around the world began to speculate about changes. Raul Castro [Fidel's brother who is in charge now] is very different from his brother. For one thing, Raul does not give big rousing speeches that go on for hours.  He's actually known for his 'inanimate delivery' of speeches. Within  months of assuming the office of president,Raul   allowed Cubans to own microwaves, rice cookers, DVD  players, and cell phones -- all of which had been prohibited when Fidel was  president. Unlike Fidel, Raul does not blame the U.S.  embargo as the root of all Cuba's  economic woes. Instead, Raul admits that it is Cuba's inefficient, unproductive  state-run economy that is the problem, and that the government can no longer  afford the huge subsidies -- in housing,  food, transportation, health care, retirement, etc. -- which the government  provides to Cubans in exchange for paying them extremely low wages. (A medical  doctor, for instance, makes about $25 a month.)  Raul has been making drastic changes to the Cuban economy.  Last September, he announced that the Cuban government is laying off 1 million  Cuban government workers -- that's about one-fifth of Cuba's workforce. Half, he said,  would be done within six months. He is  encouraging people to find jobs in the private sector, and legalizing a bunch  of self-employment service jobs -- such as plumbing and construction, working as  a clown, and working as a button sewer. In the past, people did these things to  make money on the side, since they could not live solely off the earnings from  their low-paying government jobs. But it was illegal -- a black market service.  Now, the government is giving licenses for certain types of employment, which  also allows the government to regulate and collect taxes. For the first time since the  revolution, Cubans can legally employ other Cubans to work for them in a small  business. Cuba's  Revolutionary Constitution defined employing other Cubans for labor as  'exploitation'; they were supposed to work only for the state, which  would provide them with all the perks of a socialism. Other changes since Raul has assumed the presidency: For the first time, Cubans  can get loans from banks and borrow money, and they can now buy, sell, and rent  homes. Raul has encouraged a public debate in Cuba about the  new economic measures, and has said that working in the private sector shall no  longer have a stigma attached to it (before, it had a stigma because of  government propaganda, and because it was mostly illegal). But while he has  encouraged debate about self-employment and his other economic plans, he has  said that Cuba is  'irrevocably' a socialist state, and that Cuba's becoming capitalist again is  not an option. Raul Castro recently did one other thing that seems to  foreshadow more changes: He called a Communist Congress, to be held in April.  There is supposed to be a congress every five years, but the last one was in  1997 -- 14 years ago. When the meetings do take place, they're usually followed  by big policy change announcements. In the same speech he announced the  congress, he said: 'We are playing with the life of the revolution; We  can either rectify the situation, or we will run out of time walking on the  edge of the abyss, and we will sink.'
 Last month, on a Friday in  mid-January, the White House quietly released a statement that said, 'The  president has directed that changes be made to regulations and policies  governing: purposeful travel; non-family remittances; and U.S. airports supporting licensed charter  flights to and from Cuba.'  But -- according to the British newspaper The  Guardian -- only Congress can actually repeal the embargo.

Comments

mtspace said…
Don't underestimate the political power of a microwave!

Popular posts from this blog

Re: Science and Christianity--Can these both be believed?

David Moyer Posted:      I am a Christian Engineer/Scientist and I have no problem with conflicts between the facts of science (as opposed to some hypotheses of science) and the teachings of scripture. I know literally dozens of other engineers and people with doctorates in technical fields including medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, etc. who also see no conflict. I was once a staunch evolutionist and I could easily teach a high school or community college course on evolution. There are some aspects of evolutionary theory/hypotheses with which I have no quarrel. But nearly the entire field is a matter of hypotheses with very little of it proven by the scientific method, because so little of it is falsifiable. It certainly does not deserve to be classified as a theory- that is a hypothesis that has been tests by real scientific methods so often that almost no one can devise another test that might disprove it. Remember, that scientific hypotheses are not proven, but rather

Rob Bell, Christianity Popular and Out of Context...

Good Morning    I have been reading about Pastor Rob Bell - Pastor Bell has written a book in which he asserts that there IS NO HELL - while quoting scriptures out of context [and very fluidly] to make his point - Below is a link to a NY TIMES article about him [TIME magazine made it the cover story a week ago].    This stands out for me as one of the greatest problems for the Dialogue, and society; how to approach examples in which a newer "form" of Christianity becomes popular but in total disregard for traditional and even explicit, foundational, Church teaching...there appear to be, in the mind of many, no Essentials to anything...Will science be next? See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05bell.html

State and Religion

Steve - I agree that there is a need for ongoing dialogue about this - in almost every case when the state has a endorsed a "State religion" problems arise...and even in America, where there is a lot of freedom to choose one's religious practice and to carry it out unimpeded, we still see many trying to use courts and legislative actions to limit or remove one or another group's rights [sometimes even private citizens rights] to practice their own religion peaceably.       I certainly do not have any easy answers: this country was designed to allow tolerance of diverse ideas and views, but our international policies and actions seem to me, at times, to belie that. and internally, many of us are very intolerant of other's worldviews...I hope the Dalai Lama's decision plays out as he hopes... As for the USA, If Christians would take the lead in promoting religious tolerance it might help...I find it hardest to be that person when it comes to my closest associa