Showing posts with label expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expression. Show all posts

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Freedom House study reveals optimism in Cuba about economic reforms


The Freedom House report on Cuba released today finds that Cubans see real economic change there, and more Cubans now would rather work for themselves than hold once-prized state jobs.


When Raul Castro announced radical changes to the economic structure of communist Cuba, the country was in a semi-daze.

Many Cubans were excited about the prospects of economic change, particularly opening access to self-employment. But, as state jobs were slashed, many were also worried about going it alone after a lifetime of stable, if paltry, government salaries and subsidies.

But a new Freedom House survey released today shows a radical change in perceptions. Forty-one percent of Cubans say the country is making progress, compared to only 15 percent who felt optimistic about the country’s future when Freedom House last conducted field research in December 2010. In fact, today more Cubans say they would prefer to work for themselves than for the government, the survey shows.

Less than a year ago, Cubans were “very skeptical about change. They doubted real change would happen,” says Daniel Calingaert, deputy director of programs at Freedom House and co-author of the study. This survey was carried out in June, after reforms were implemented formally at the Sixth Communist Party Congress in April. And now, Mr. Calingaert says, Cubans see “change is real.”

This economic opening is the “most significant positive change to have taken place in Cuba since communism was introduced half a century ago,” the new survey concludes.

At first glance, Cuban optimism could be a good sign for the Castro government. But it could also pose additional challenges. Cubans who have tasted economic freedom say they want more, and a bit of stability has also allowed them the luxury to think beyond the day-to-day economics of feeding a family. “It’s opening people to new possibilities,” says Calingaert. “There is more interest in individual freedoms.”

Indeed, one of the more surprising findings is that, when asked what reforms they most wanted, Cubans said increased freedom of expression and the freedom to travel (28 percent). This is a radical change from the most recent study, when economic reform topped the wish list of respondents.

The Cuban government has a long way to go on the freedom front. Most Cubans continue to get their news from the government. The poll showed that only 40 percent of Cubans surveyed knew what happened to Egypt’s leaders, while only 36 percent knew how the revolution in Tunisia ignited.

Here are some of the survey’s specific major findings:

  • 79 percent say they have noted visible change in the past six months in Cuba, including more self-employed on the streets.
     
  • 63 percent of respondents favor the reforms introduced under Raul Castro. The report quotes an ice-cream vendor: “Imagine, I can make more money selling ice cream than I ever did as an accountant for the government.”
     
  • 49 percent say that it is better to work for themselves, compared to 44 percent who say a government job is better.

That is not to say that Cubans aren’t wary of changes ahead of them. For example, the field research culled commentary from Cubans voicing concern about unsteady incomes, having enough funds to start their own businesses – especially those without family in the US to help – and growing resentment among less successful entrepreneurs.

“The changes are causing a sense of insecurity and resentment among some Cubans, as might be expected in a country where citizens were almost entirely dependent on government for their material needs and had no experience of market competition,” the report says. “Such insecurity and resentment accompanied the shift from communism to market economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. While the insecurity and resentment presents a challenge for reform in Cuba, it is also a reflection of how profound are the changes that are currently underway.”

By Sara Miller Llana

Source: CSMonitor


  • Go to Home Page
  • Tuesday, July 12, 2011

    Oh, Che Can You See?


    Recently I finished a book, Son of Hamas, written by Mosab Yousef.  Yousef was a Muslim who became a revolutionary for the cause of Christ.  His hatred for Israelis, which was fostered by his religious culture in the Palestinian areas of the West Bank in Israel, consumed him.  This prince of Hamas, however, encountered the Prince of Peace in Old Jerusalem.  A Christian invited Yousef to attend a Bible study.  From that invitation, Yousef's path led to a belief in Jesus Christ as the only source of true peace.

    At the end of the book Yousef lamented that Christians are not more involved in confronting the Islamic culture.  As he is risking his life to expose the dark workings of Islam, Yousef challenged Christians to do more to share the truth.  Simply praying about the situation can often be a cop-out.  Thinking about that challenge a moment I questioned: "What exactly does he want me to do?"  Then it occurred to me.  Although Yousef's context is confronting Islam, where I can passionately demonstrate truth was something I had to figure out for myself.  How can I effectively put my faith into action in America?

    Yousef's challenge to Christians came to mind as I was at the gym on the running track.  On the track I noticed someone (whom we'll call "Joe") wearing a T-shirt with Ernesto "Che" Guevara's image on it.  This cult of personality saddens and sickens me.  Guevara was a thug and a brutal murderer, and yet he is revered as if he were a war hero by many on the political left.  As I try to live by my motto scripture -- "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but, rather, expose them (Ephesians 5:11)" -- I knew I needed to say something to him.  I approached Joe as he was stretching on a mat.

    "I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I noticed you are wearing a T-shirt with Che Guevara on it."  Right then, I could tell by the look on Joe's face that others must have shared with him their opinions of Che.  He immediately put up the defenses.

    I tried to be as respectful as I could, yet remembering that "speaking the truth in love" still requires "speaking the truth."

    "Do you know who Che Guevara was?" I inquired.

    "I know he was a revolutionary," he offered, and then added "and I don't appreciate my free speech being questioned."

    "No, I'm not saying you shouldn't wear the shirt; I'm just trying to see if you know who he truly was.  Do you know any specifics of what he did?"

    "No, I don't know any specifics, but I know he was controversial," Joe admitted.

    "Well, Che was a very wicked man..."

    Joe interrupted.  "That's a matter of opinion."

    I continued.  "His revolutionary principles are completely antithetical to our American ideals.  He is not a man to be celebrated." 

    Joe again interrupted.  "That's a matter of opinion, and, if you please, I need to get back to my workout" -- a 15-minute workout that so far consisted of stretching, a few laps walking on the indoor track, and stretching again.

    I respectfully concluded, "I appreciate your taking the time to hear me, and maybe next time you will do more research."

    Here was a grown man, wearing the image of a mass murderer on his T-shirt.  All he cared to know about his idol, his hero, was that Guevara was "a revolutionary" and "controversial."  When confronted with my conclusion that Guevara was a wicked man that should not be celebrated, Joe only offered the relativistic refrain "It's just a matter of opinion."  He was not open to knowing the specifics.

    Relativism sounds wonderful and accepting.  "You can have your opinion and I can have mine."  But what is relativism, really?  Generally speaking, relativism is a philosophy that asserts all points of view are equally valid.  A relativist will likely aver that there is no absolute truth or that absolute truth is unknowable.  Both of those statements are self-refuting.  How can one absolutely believe there is no absolute truth?  How can one know the truth about truth being unknowable?

    The problem with relativists is they don't accept the consequences of their philosophy.  If truth really is relative, then why should a relativist get angry when I punch him in the nose?  His objection to my punching him is simply a matter of opinion, right?  I can have "my truth" and he can have his.

    Sure, everyone is able to have an opinion.  They may even be entitled to that opinion.  But, not all opinions are created equal.  The problem with opinions is that "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."  The truth of John Adams' words resonates in our world that rejects absolute truth.

    Let us look at the facts that should have informed Joe the "Che-ophile's" opinion of Ernesto Guevara:

    • One murder is captured in Guevara's own diary in January 1957.  Guevara admitted that he shot Eutimio Guerra on suspicion of passing on information: "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain. ... His belongings were now mine."  Does "social justice" include execution without a trial and then theft of the estate?
    • Guevara murdered Aristidio, a peasant, simply because Guevara suspected him of treason to the revolution.  The killing of the poor, dumb cart horse named Boxer in Animal Farm comes to mind.
    • Guevara ordered the executions of hundreds of people without trial as the head of the La Cabaña prison.  Many were executed simply because they were Christians.  Refusing to serve two masters, many Christians died on Guevara's orders as they shouted "¡Viva Cristo Rey!"
    • Guevara ordered the murder of 15-year old Carlos Machado, his twin brother, and their father simply for resisting the revolution's confiscation of their family farm.
    • Guevara embraced hatred as a tactic necessary in his revolutionary struggle.

    For which one of these points was Joe displaying his pride in Guevara?  Relativism and blissful ignorance go hand-in-hand.  Hard-to-accept truth has simply become "a matter of opinion."  To the left, Guevara is a hero of the oppressed, a symbol to rally around for "social justice."  Many youth and other leftists celebrate Guevara's "revolutionary" and "controversial" nature without even the slightest curiosity of the truth of his ignominious life.

    The great danger with blissfully ignorant relativism is that if a majority of society falls for specially marketed, iconic, charismatic "revolutionaries," the entire nation suffers the purges and atrocities for the blessed revolution.  The Che T-shirt wearers in Cuba made it easier for the revolutionaries to execute the country's Machados and steal their farms. 

    Relativism crumbles as the light of truth exposes its deceptions.  Finding truth takes work.  Intellectual laziness is why there are so many liars and so many deceived.  In reality, relativism isn't about the existence of truth.  Truth isn't relative.  A person's will is relative.  Relativism really is a belief only in the truth one chooses to believe in.  All unpleasant, inconvenient truth is disregarded.  The philosophy of relativism is only created to excuse people's choices.  In Joe's case, relativism simply masks his intellectual ignorance.

    So, today, I took up Yousef's challenge and performed my Christian duty to expose the darkness of relativism.  I wasn't about to let Joe carry his blissful ignorance on his T-shirt unchallenged.  I don't know if Joe is blissfully ignorant or deliberately so.  I just know that I was called to bear witness to the Truth.  I hope I shined the light on Joe's darkness and that he embraces the light by researching and he sees who Che truly was...and then burns his Che T-shirt.

    By Christopher S. Brownwell 

    Source: American Thinker


    You Don't Know Che by Steve Pichan



  • Go to Home Page
  • Sunday, May 15, 2011

    Viva La Internet Revolución in Cuba

    Egypt.

    After seeing how mobile and social networking technologies led to popular revolutions in places like Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year, is it possible that we’ll soon see a similar type of revolution in our own backyard? On May 9, Raul Castro and the Cuban Communist Party released over 300 new measures designed to loosen control over the state. For the first time in more than 50 years, Cubans will be allowed to buy and sell houses and new automobiles, as well as travel abroad as tourists more freely. More importantly, Cuban dissidents are increasingly turning to the Internet to share their thoughts about everyday life in Cuba.

    For now, the ability of everyday Cubans to leverage the Internet as part of a grassroots revolution is marginal at best. With only 10% of its citizens having access to the Internet, Cuba is the country with the lowest Internet usage in the northern hemisphere. Connections are slow, and at a rate of $2/hour, the Internet is incredibly expensive in a country where the average income is $20/month. Moreover, the sale of computer equipment is strictly regulated, Internet access is widely filtered, and e-mail is closely monitored. The Cuban authorities carefully control the news that reaches its citizens and ruthlessly cracks down on "counter-revolutionary" journalists. Sounds a lot like Tunisia or Egypt, right?

    Despite these obstacles, a brave band of Cuban bloggers led by Yoani Sánchez have already made progress. Sanchez, named by TIME Magazine as one of the Top 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2008, has created an Internet-powered dissident movement that continues to attract new adherents. Last summer, the New York Review of Books brilliantly outlined how these brave voices are trying to effect change on the island nation by cobbling together makeshift Internet connections and relying on supporters outside of Cuba. (In some cases, the extent of censorship is so great that these bloggers have never actually even seen the blogs they have created!)

    The loosening of rules on buying and selling goods in Cuba is a nice first step. Certainly, similar types of thaws under the Soviet regime eventually created the pre-conditions for Gorbachev’s perestroika and the end of Soviet-style Communism. However, real change needs to leverage the power of mobile technology and social networking connectivity –- and that requires bandwidth.

    There's good news on this front as well. The current issue of Monocle points out that Cuba’s Internet capacity is set to increase by 3,000% thus summer (no, that’s not a typo!), as the result of a new 1,600 kilometer-long fiber-optic cable between Cuba and Venezuela. That’s a lot more bandwidth capacity to carry photos, voice and images of life in Cuba. By the time the cable is finished, it will stretch from Cuba to Venezuela to Jamaica.

    What remains to be seen is whether the increase in connectivity will represent greater freedom of expression and change the dynamic of the public debate over Cuba. Over a nice round of Cuba Libres and music by the Buena Vista Social Club, U.S. policymakers should consider whether the current U.S. embargo – in effect for almost a half-century – is actually doing anything to bring about democratic freedom to this island nation. Many Cuban bloggers actually make the point that the embargo hurts – not helps – their cause. At the end of the day, making the Internet and mobile technology more widely available to the average citizen in Cuba could be far more effective than a nationwide embargo in preparing people for revolutionary change.

    Dominic Basulto

    Source: Big Think


  • Go to Home Page
  • Saturday, March 19, 2011

    In spite of release of dissidents, Cuba continues "to stifle freedom of expression"

    The Cuban authorities are continuing to stifle freedom of expression on the island in spite of the much-publicized recent wave of releases of prominent dissidents, Amnesty International warned ahead of the eighth anniversary of a crackdown on activists.

    Hundreds of pro-democracy activists have suffered harassment, intimidation and arbitrary arrest in recent weeks as the Cuban government employs new tactics to stamp out dissent.

    Of 75 activists arrested in a crackdown around 18 March 2003, (‘Black Spring’) only three remain in jail after 50 releases since last June, with most of the freed activists currently exiled in Spain. Amnesty International has called for the remaining prisoners to be released immediately and unconditionally.

    “The release of those detained in the 2003 crackdown is a hugely positive step but it tells only one side of the story facing Cuban human rights activists,” said Gerardo Ducos, Cuba researcher at Amnesty International.

    “Those living on the island are still being targeted for their work, especially through short-term detentions, while repressive laws give the Cuban authorities a free rein to punish anyone who criticizes them.”

    ”Meanwhile, three of the prisoners detained eight years ago still languish in prison and must be freed immediately.“

    In one recent crackdown the authorities detained over one hundred people in one day in a pre-emptive strike designed to stop activists marking the death of activist Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died following a prolonged hunger strike while in detention.

    On 23 February, the one-year anniversary of Tamayo's death, according to the Cuban Commission of Human Rights and National Reconciliation, the authorities placed over 50 people under house arrest before freeing them hours later.

    Activist Néstor Rodríguez Lobaina, was recently named a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International after being detained without trial for over three months.

    The president of the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy was arrested after organizing an activists' meeting inside his own home.

    ”Cubans are still at the mercy of draconian laws that class activism as a crime and anyone who dares to criticize the authorities is at risk of detention,“ said Gerardo Ducos.

    ”In addition to releasing long-term prisoners of conscience, to properly realize freedom of expression the Cuban government also has to change its laws.”

    Seventy-five people were jailed in a massive crackdown against the dissident movement around 18 March 2003 for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

    Most of them were charged with crimes including “acts against the independence of the state” because they allegedly received funds and/or materials from US-based NGOs financed by the US government.

    They were sentenced to between six and 28 years in prison after speedy and unfair trials for engaging in activities the authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba. These activities included publishing articles or giving interviews to US-funded media, communicating with international human rights organizations and having contact with entities or individuals viewed to be hostile to Cuba.
    From: MercoPress


  • Go to Home Page