Esta es una de esas tardes en que me puse a dejar vagar el remoto y por casualidad encontre la pelicula "The Thomas Crown Affair", mas alla de la calidad mayor o menor de la pelicula hay una brevisima escena en la que la camara caprichosamente "panea" y deja ver por unas centecimas de segundo las Torres Gemela; como estaba con el blog de Generacion Y abierto recorde que en uno de mis ultimos viajes a Cuba varias personas, como mismo ocurre aqui para ser sinceros, me dijeron que tras el atentado a las torres estaba el mismo gobierno americano, que se trataba de una conspiracion para justificar los planes guerreristas de esta nacion.
A decir verdad desde Michael Moore hasta Jesse Ventura, claro que desde opticas distintas y con enfoques diametralmente opuestos, han dicho lo mismo. No puedo ni asegurar ni negar que tengan razon, aun cuando por una logica de negrito emigrado (que generalmente es mas exacta que la de los agudos analistas), me parece muy poco posible que se haya tratado de una conspiracion; pero lo que yo piense no cuenta.
El motivo de este analisis es demostrar cuan manipulados o cuan voluntariamente desinformados pueden estar los cubanos que viven en la isla. Y no pretendo que sean ciegos seguidores del modelo americano ni mucho menos, prefiero que la gente se haga preguntas y ponga todo en constante discusion, pero si lo hacen con unas cosas es necesario que lo hagan con otras.
Por esto me gustaria escuchar en Cuba, junto con esta hipotesis del auto atentado del 11 se septiembre, otras como la de la desaparicion de Camilo Cienfuegos, la bomba en el circulo infantil Le Van Tan. la voladura del avion de Cubana frente a las costas de Barbados y, last but not least: la muerte de Salvador Allende.
Sobre este ultimo tema deseo solo recordarles la grabacion con la voz de Pinochet en que presuntamente da ordenes a sus subalternos de que "ese avion no puede llegar a ningun lado; cuando despegue..." esto lo esuche en una voz que se supone sea la del difunto ex dictador de Chile: ahora, si se hablaba de este avion es porque, como se ha comentado, Allende, al final y no obstante su promesa de morir por sus ideas, habia decidido salvar su pellejo, cosa que no tiene nada de malo y que no degrada a ningun ser humano, pero que no cabe dentro de la apocaliptica vision de la revolucion y la voraz y eterna necesidad de martires que el castrocomunismo padece; hay versiones de que la rafaga de ametralladora que le quito la vida fue disparada nada menos que por Patricio De la Guardia. Quizas nunca lo sabremos, pero me gustaria que todas estas dudas se valoraran con igual intensidad y vehemencia; despues de todo, sabemos que Sorge, uno de los espias mas legendarios que ha dado la historia, fue entregado a los japoneses por el mismo Stalin.
Hoy que se abren espacios en Cuba, gracias al valor y la constancia de personas como Yoanni Sanchez, Guillermo Farinas, Bisset, Las Damas de Blanco, Reyna Luisa Tamayo Danger, y muchos exiliados que desde fuera mantienen viva la llama, seria oportuno aplicar al regimen la misma aguda lupa que se aplica al "Imperio"; seria un bello modo de iniciar a aplicar la "democracia".
miércoles, 30 de marzo de 2011
domingo, 27 de marzo de 2011
The Messiah yielded to reality
A few weeks ago I agreed with the president's reticence to enter the conflict in Libya; for the wrong reasons, but reasons nonetheless, the president had avoided taking a more active role; even his Secretary of Defense, a republican, had cautioned about the dangers of the no fly zone.
Now the president goes back to Obama mode, going where the wind blows, yielding to pressure and, after all, being just one more American president. Despite his promise to be different, his purported despise for career politicians and conventional politics; there's our president, authorizing a "limited" participation in Libya's civil war, promising our presence won;t take more than a few days; which reminds me of yet another democrat promising the US's role in the Southeast Asia conflict would be limited. Hell broke loose and even members of his own party called for impeachment; for many, on both sides of the aisle, the president broke the law and exceeded the power bestowed upon him by the Constitution. He seems to be unable to do things to the fullest unless it is mingling with celebrities and asking for forgiveness abroad; even now. America is in a new war, and the president wants us to see it as a pick nick in northern Africa.
What is more, this administration seems to have been unable to reach a consensus on the "official" reasons to enter this war. Hillary Clinton says we're there because our European allies urged us to get in; the president, from Chile, always distant and aloof, said\ we had a moral obligation to be there since a brutal dictator in power for more than 30 years was brutalizing his own people; well...what will we do if the Saudi Arabian king resorts to brutality in order to hold on to power?. What is there's a rebellion in Cuba and Castro (Fidel or Raul) orders the military to crack down on the Cuban people?; don;t we have at least five examples of brutal dictators butchering their own people?. The messiah sounds more and more like a republican, only that he does not even talk to Congress; he gives his go ahead from Air Force One, always distant and aloof, even if it means putting American lives in harm's way.
I am just a poor black immigrant from Cuba; little do I know about the intricacies of power and politics in the world; I honestly do not know if our role in Libya is in our best interests or not; I have no solutions and no magic recipes; but I have enough brains to know the messiah has yielded to the powers that be, that he is, in his own impersonal, distant fashion, capable of starting a war just like any other former tenant at Pennsylvania 1600
Now the president goes back to Obama mode, going where the wind blows, yielding to pressure and, after all, being just one more American president. Despite his promise to be different, his purported despise for career politicians and conventional politics; there's our president, authorizing a "limited" participation in Libya's civil war, promising our presence won;t take more than a few days; which reminds me of yet another democrat promising the US's role in the Southeast Asia conflict would be limited. Hell broke loose and even members of his own party called for impeachment; for many, on both sides of the aisle, the president broke the law and exceeded the power bestowed upon him by the Constitution. He seems to be unable to do things to the fullest unless it is mingling with celebrities and asking for forgiveness abroad; even now. America is in a new war, and the president wants us to see it as a pick nick in northern Africa.
What is more, this administration seems to have been unable to reach a consensus on the "official" reasons to enter this war. Hillary Clinton says we're there because our European allies urged us to get in; the president, from Chile, always distant and aloof, said\ we had a moral obligation to be there since a brutal dictator in power for more than 30 years was brutalizing his own people; well...what will we do if the Saudi Arabian king resorts to brutality in order to hold on to power?. What is there's a rebellion in Cuba and Castro (Fidel or Raul) orders the military to crack down on the Cuban people?; don;t we have at least five examples of brutal dictators butchering their own people?. The messiah sounds more and more like a republican, only that he does not even talk to Congress; he gives his go ahead from Air Force One, always distant and aloof, even if it means putting American lives in harm's way.
I am just a poor black immigrant from Cuba; little do I know about the intricacies of power and politics in the world; I honestly do not know if our role in Libya is in our best interests or not; I have no solutions and no magic recipes; but I have enough brains to know the messiah has yielded to the powers that be, that he is, in his own impersonal, distant fashion, capable of starting a war just like any other former tenant at Pennsylvania 1600
domingo, 20 de marzo de 2011
CIRCLE THE WAGONS AROUND EDDA
My dear friend Edda, a Chilean lady in Milan, Italy told me of her latest "encounter of the third kind" with one of those who choose to repeat the liberal lies and myths rather than seek the truth. She did not use these terms, I do.
The gentleman in question claims that Castro's hold on power notwithstanding Cuba is better off now than it was back in the 50s; even more, that whatever weaknesses the system may show are but the result of the American embargo; here we go again.
Cuba was discovered during Colombo's first voyage to the New World; it went through centuries of colonial domination until the very end of the nineteenth century; actually, together with Porto Rico, it was the last bastion of Spanish colonialism in the western hemisphere. While no oil or ore were available in the island, it had one of the most important resources at the time: a unique location; it was the key to the Gulf of Mexico and the last stop before all scores of vessels embarked in the long, and most times perilous, journey to Spain. These vessels were loaded with the "treasures" that were drained out of the Americas to replenish the kingdom's otherwise depleting coffers. In fact one of the star positions in the Spanish structure of power was that of Havana's Captain General (Governor General). The new born Cuban "sacarose class", or new money created with the gains derived of the sugar industry, built schools, hospitals, hotels and mansions in order to have in the Americas what the rich had in Europe; if you take the time to visit Havana, even after more than half a century of systematic destruction and neglect, you will find many similarities with cities like Rome, Madrid, and others.
Thus, the striving colony was the typical ambiguity of the time: an urban reality with ever improving infrastructure and rapid development, and a rural life characterized by poverty, a backward model of land property and a rampant inequity between the few rich land owners and the common peasant. Still, for whatever reasons Cuba was the sixth nation on earth to build a railroad system, even before Spain itself, which not only created thousands of jobs for the poor Cubans, but allowed for the introduction of Yucatecos, from Mexico, an later, as an independent nation, of Chinese and Jamaicans
It was this strategic location that prompted the thriving new neighbor in the north, the US, to adopt an opportunistic wait and see posture in the case of Cuba's independence from Spain; while it allowed patriots like Jose Marti to tour the Union and procure most needed funds for the liberating efforts; it also confiscated several "expeditions" planned to ignite the flame of independence in the small island.
When the "mambises", the Cuban born rebels, were a few skirmishes away from victory and had the Spanish army sieged and in total disarray, the Americans "came to the rescue" using as an excuse a most controversial bombing of a US warship that "happened" to be paying an official visit in Havana's bay. The rest if known history: the Americans crushed the Spanish army, and frustrated our independence. A peace treaty was signed in Paris (for some reason most treaties are signed there) giving the Americans control over Cuba, Porto Rico and the Philippines; we left one master only to have a new one; however, there was a stark contrast between the quasi feudal, dying, money hungry Spanish kingdom and the thriving, land occupying, ever expanding United States of America. The former meant slavery and the possession of land and economic resources concentrated in a few hands while the latter represented a new dream of access to the wealth, of capitalistic relations of production and a more "collective" ownership of the great means of production; while as a nation is was a step backward and an embarrassing humiliation, from the economic standpoint it was a decisive step forward.
There were several tendencies in Cuba at the time being the autonomists, the independents and the annexationists the three main ones. The autonomists sought a relative autonomy but to remain under the Spanish rule, the independents sought total independence and the creation of a republic, while the anexationists believed Cuba was better off as one more state of the US.
A few years after the Spanish official demise in Cuba, and also as a result of some opposition within the island, the Americans allowed free elections for the president of Cuba and the new banana republic of Cuba was officially born on May 20th 1902. That date marks the beginning of decades of political instability, several military coups, Caribbean Kumbaya, as well as two American interventions and a "mediation". The rule was that someone, usually a retired general of the "mambises", would secure election banking of his military record, do a couple of smart moves, and later seek another term to steal the people blind, or simply backpedal on whichever good initiative he might had launched at first; however, a rising domestic bourgeoisie spent millions of Cuban pesos and or American dollars building roads, hotels, theaters, hospitals and creating an infrastructure that was to become one of the best in the whole hemisphere.
In 1940 Fulgencio Batista, name to be remembered, won the elections and became president. Please bear in mind that at that moment Europe was at war, the Nazis were murdering Jewish in concentration camps, women had no right to vote in many countries and the communists were banned in many others. Well, believe it or not, Fulgencio Batista called the Partido Socialista Popular ( the Cuba Communist Party) to join his cabinet and draft the most revolutionary constitution ever passed in Latin America, not only granting voting rights to women, but allowing all political parties (Communist included). Batista came and went, others followed, there were booming periods and there were economic downturns. No amount of rich Cuban families were able to wipe out the pockets of poverty in some cities and particularly in the rural areas. Corruption of public servants was rampant. Yet, while each president had his own book and his own crowd to accommodate none of them changed one key issue: the economic ties with the US were sacrosanct. Many claim that Cuba was a mono crop economy, that is true in part, but our dependence on sugar cane brought the following successes, and I defy anyone who wants to challenge them to visit the office of FAO in Rome and look for the statistic of 1958.
Cuba had a little over 5 million people, 3 universities (Havana, Santa Clara and Santiago de Cuba) and several university faculties that did not reach the level of a university as such; it had several "Escuela Normal" where hundreds of thousands of teacher obtained a mid level diploma every year. It had private and public schools, in the rural area they were much less available to be honest and it was difficult to find schools beyond the elementary level. In 1953 Cuba had its first color television broadcast, while color TV in Europe was mainly a thing of the 70s. In 1957 Cuba's sugar output was 7.5 millions of metric tons. Cuba imports sugar now.
The per capita ownership of radio sets, TV sets, cars, refrigerators and other appliances was only third or fourth in the Hemisphere (including the US and Canada). The Cuban Telephone Company, and many other corporations with names in English were just a way to facilitate investments from wealthy Americans, but their main shareholders were Julio Lobo, Gomez Mena, the Sarra family, Bacardi, and many others. In 1958 there were many more Italians applying for permanent residency in Cuba than Cubans fleeing to Italy; nowadays Italy is one of those countries to which we flee (I am an Italian citizen). The Cuban peso was quoted one to one with the US dollar.
Yes, Batista violated the law and seized power in 1952 installing a dictatorship for several years, and there was torture, and flagrant violations of human rights. He turned a blind eye to Mafia infiltration in the business world in Havana, several hotels were partly owned by Lanski, Al Capone, and other thugs. Cuba was a fiscal paradise, the laws were not strictly applied, but so's Monte Carlo, the Cayman Islands and so many other fiscal havens.
So Fidel came to power, in a violent fashion but yet with a lot of support among the people, nobody can deny that; in one of his endless speeches he promised the following:
1- Free elections in six months
2- His was a platform of independence and nationalism (whatever that meant then) with no Communist ideas.
3- Cuba would be self sufficient and wold not have to depend on foreign meddling on its economy (whatever that meant too)
4- Cuba would eliminate prostitution
5- Cuba would no longer be a mono crop economy
Then in the course of these long years he has repeatedly promised so many things like freedom, economic development, nonalignment, etc, etc.
1- Free elections have NEVER taken place since
2- Other than a continuous anti American standing he has associated with the Russian Empire, with the terrorists and with anyone who seize powers by violent means and promises to tilt to the left.
3- Cuba does not produce anything; it now imports sugar, and is not able to feed its own people
4- I don;t have to tell you that Cuba is THE hottest sex destination where European old farts with bulging bellies dripping off their pants can get laid for a buck or two, for a meal or even for a smoke. My beautiful island has become the world's whorehouse.
5- That was the only kept promise, Cuba is no longer relying on one crop, but relies on none.
Now the usual lame, far fetched excuse for this mess is the U S embargo. Not anymore. The US is Cuba's NUMBER ONE source of food now. Bill Clinton allowed two exceptions to the embargo: food and health products. What is more, Cuba's number one source of income are the remittances sent by us, the traitors, the scum, the terrorists; he hates us, but loves our money.
The liberal way has always been that of enjoying the "goodness" of the west and then loath them and renege them; my humble way has always been that of asking: "would you live in Cuba like an average Cuban?, would you like for your country the status quo that prevails in the island, and that has prevailed for over half a century? The answer to both questions in then and again NO; then I ask my third and last question: "Why should I be happy with something you don;t want for yourself?". The truth is that there's an intrinsic racism in the left: if you're black, poor, or any minority you have to be a liberal. The right is made of a bunch of fat cats with no regard for the common man. This stereotyped way of reasoning does nothing but offend my intelligence
The gentleman in question claims that Castro's hold on power notwithstanding Cuba is better off now than it was back in the 50s; even more, that whatever weaknesses the system may show are but the result of the American embargo; here we go again.
Cuba was discovered during Colombo's first voyage to the New World; it went through centuries of colonial domination until the very end of the nineteenth century; actually, together with Porto Rico, it was the last bastion of Spanish colonialism in the western hemisphere. While no oil or ore were available in the island, it had one of the most important resources at the time: a unique location; it was the key to the Gulf of Mexico and the last stop before all scores of vessels embarked in the long, and most times perilous, journey to Spain. These vessels were loaded with the "treasures" that were drained out of the Americas to replenish the kingdom's otherwise depleting coffers. In fact one of the star positions in the Spanish structure of power was that of Havana's Captain General (Governor General). The new born Cuban "sacarose class", or new money created with the gains derived of the sugar industry, built schools, hospitals, hotels and mansions in order to have in the Americas what the rich had in Europe; if you take the time to visit Havana, even after more than half a century of systematic destruction and neglect, you will find many similarities with cities like Rome, Madrid, and others.
Thus, the striving colony was the typical ambiguity of the time: an urban reality with ever improving infrastructure and rapid development, and a rural life characterized by poverty, a backward model of land property and a rampant inequity between the few rich land owners and the common peasant. Still, for whatever reasons Cuba was the sixth nation on earth to build a railroad system, even before Spain itself, which not only created thousands of jobs for the poor Cubans, but allowed for the introduction of Yucatecos, from Mexico, an later, as an independent nation, of Chinese and Jamaicans
It was this strategic location that prompted the thriving new neighbor in the north, the US, to adopt an opportunistic wait and see posture in the case of Cuba's independence from Spain; while it allowed patriots like Jose Marti to tour the Union and procure most needed funds for the liberating efforts; it also confiscated several "expeditions" planned to ignite the flame of independence in the small island.
When the "mambises", the Cuban born rebels, were a few skirmishes away from victory and had the Spanish army sieged and in total disarray, the Americans "came to the rescue" using as an excuse a most controversial bombing of a US warship that "happened" to be paying an official visit in Havana's bay. The rest if known history: the Americans crushed the Spanish army, and frustrated our independence. A peace treaty was signed in Paris (for some reason most treaties are signed there) giving the Americans control over Cuba, Porto Rico and the Philippines; we left one master only to have a new one; however, there was a stark contrast between the quasi feudal, dying, money hungry Spanish kingdom and the thriving, land occupying, ever expanding United States of America. The former meant slavery and the possession of land and economic resources concentrated in a few hands while the latter represented a new dream of access to the wealth, of capitalistic relations of production and a more "collective" ownership of the great means of production; while as a nation is was a step backward and an embarrassing humiliation, from the economic standpoint it was a decisive step forward.
There were several tendencies in Cuba at the time being the autonomists, the independents and the annexationists the three main ones. The autonomists sought a relative autonomy but to remain under the Spanish rule, the independents sought total independence and the creation of a republic, while the anexationists believed Cuba was better off as one more state of the US.
A few years after the Spanish official demise in Cuba, and also as a result of some opposition within the island, the Americans allowed free elections for the president of Cuba and the new banana republic of Cuba was officially born on May 20th 1902. That date marks the beginning of decades of political instability, several military coups, Caribbean Kumbaya, as well as two American interventions and a "mediation". The rule was that someone, usually a retired general of the "mambises", would secure election banking of his military record, do a couple of smart moves, and later seek another term to steal the people blind, or simply backpedal on whichever good initiative he might had launched at first; however, a rising domestic bourgeoisie spent millions of Cuban pesos and or American dollars building roads, hotels, theaters, hospitals and creating an infrastructure that was to become one of the best in the whole hemisphere.
In 1940 Fulgencio Batista, name to be remembered, won the elections and became president. Please bear in mind that at that moment Europe was at war, the Nazis were murdering Jewish in concentration camps, women had no right to vote in many countries and the communists were banned in many others. Well, believe it or not, Fulgencio Batista called the Partido Socialista Popular ( the Cuba Communist Party) to join his cabinet and draft the most revolutionary constitution ever passed in Latin America, not only granting voting rights to women, but allowing all political parties (Communist included). Batista came and went, others followed, there were booming periods and there were economic downturns. No amount of rich Cuban families were able to wipe out the pockets of poverty in some cities and particularly in the rural areas. Corruption of public servants was rampant. Yet, while each president had his own book and his own crowd to accommodate none of them changed one key issue: the economic ties with the US were sacrosanct. Many claim that Cuba was a mono crop economy, that is true in part, but our dependence on sugar cane brought the following successes, and I defy anyone who wants to challenge them to visit the office of FAO in Rome and look for the statistic of 1958.
Cuba had a little over 5 million people, 3 universities (Havana, Santa Clara and Santiago de Cuba) and several university faculties that did not reach the level of a university as such; it had several "Escuela Normal" where hundreds of thousands of teacher obtained a mid level diploma every year. It had private and public schools, in the rural area they were much less available to be honest and it was difficult to find schools beyond the elementary level. In 1953 Cuba had its first color television broadcast, while color TV in Europe was mainly a thing of the 70s. In 1957 Cuba's sugar output was 7.5 millions of metric tons. Cuba imports sugar now.
The per capita ownership of radio sets, TV sets, cars, refrigerators and other appliances was only third or fourth in the Hemisphere (including the US and Canada). The Cuban Telephone Company, and many other corporations with names in English were just a way to facilitate investments from wealthy Americans, but their main shareholders were Julio Lobo, Gomez Mena, the Sarra family, Bacardi, and many others. In 1958 there were many more Italians applying for permanent residency in Cuba than Cubans fleeing to Italy; nowadays Italy is one of those countries to which we flee (I am an Italian citizen). The Cuban peso was quoted one to one with the US dollar.
Yes, Batista violated the law and seized power in 1952 installing a dictatorship for several years, and there was torture, and flagrant violations of human rights. He turned a blind eye to Mafia infiltration in the business world in Havana, several hotels were partly owned by Lanski, Al Capone, and other thugs. Cuba was a fiscal paradise, the laws were not strictly applied, but so's Monte Carlo, the Cayman Islands and so many other fiscal havens.
So Fidel came to power, in a violent fashion but yet with a lot of support among the people, nobody can deny that; in one of his endless speeches he promised the following:
1- Free elections in six months
2- His was a platform of independence and nationalism (whatever that meant then) with no Communist ideas.
3- Cuba would be self sufficient and wold not have to depend on foreign meddling on its economy (whatever that meant too)
4- Cuba would eliminate prostitution
5- Cuba would no longer be a mono crop economy
Then in the course of these long years he has repeatedly promised so many things like freedom, economic development, nonalignment, etc, etc.
1- Free elections have NEVER taken place since
2- Other than a continuous anti American standing he has associated with the Russian Empire, with the terrorists and with anyone who seize powers by violent means and promises to tilt to the left.
3- Cuba does not produce anything; it now imports sugar, and is not able to feed its own people
4- I don;t have to tell you that Cuba is THE hottest sex destination where European old farts with bulging bellies dripping off their pants can get laid for a buck or two, for a meal or even for a smoke. My beautiful island has become the world's whorehouse.
5- That was the only kept promise, Cuba is no longer relying on one crop, but relies on none.
Now the usual lame, far fetched excuse for this mess is the U S embargo. Not anymore. The US is Cuba's NUMBER ONE source of food now. Bill Clinton allowed two exceptions to the embargo: food and health products. What is more, Cuba's number one source of income are the remittances sent by us, the traitors, the scum, the terrorists; he hates us, but loves our money.
The liberal way has always been that of enjoying the "goodness" of the west and then loath them and renege them; my humble way has always been that of asking: "would you live in Cuba like an average Cuban?, would you like for your country the status quo that prevails in the island, and that has prevailed for over half a century? The answer to both questions in then and again NO; then I ask my third and last question: "Why should I be happy with something you don;t want for yourself?". The truth is that there's an intrinsic racism in the left: if you're black, poor, or any minority you have to be a liberal. The right is made of a bunch of fat cats with no regard for the common man. This stereotyped way of reasoning does nothing but offend my intelligence
lunes, 14 de marzo de 2011
La madrugada
Los de mi generacion deben recordar con infinita nostalgia ese espacio de tiempo entre las una y las cinco de la manana que en espanol llamamos madrugada; siempre me llamo la atencion este termino y en especial el modo en que en nuestros paises de America Latina se utliza para eufemizar cosas que van desde el sexo hasta el golpe de estado; asi las cosas podemos ver en la letra de la bella cancion "Juana Mayo" de Ruben Blades, como el denomima a esta prostituta como "ave de la madrugada", pues se asocia ese momento del dia con el idoneo para la actividad sexual.
La gran mayoria de los golpes de estado se han dado en la madrugada; el 10 de marzo de 1952 asi como la salida precipitada de Batista el 1 de enero de 1959; ambos hechos violentos e inconstitucionales mas alla de la mayor popularidad de uno respecto al otro (al principio).
Para los de mi generacion, que vivimos la nostaglia en otros terminos; de hecho nosotros no podemos evocar la isla o La Habana con la riqueza de colores de Cabrera Infante; no vivimos esa Habana ni esa Cuba; no cenamos en la Estrella Oriental o en la Segunda Estrella Oriental, no fuimos al Sloppy Joe, no disfrutamos de los innumerables bares de la Avenida del Puerto; en sintesis: no tuvimos la posibilidad de escoger; de escoger si morirnos de hambre o progresar; si "chiripear" y tener solo para el "amanezco" o crear una riqueza y un futuro. Claro que aquellas madrugadas y aquella nostalgia de nuestros mayores esconde tintes menos brillantes y situaciones mas sordidas; que nostalgia no lo hace?; pero nada comparado con lo que se convirtio en objeto de nostalgia para nuestra generacion.
Para la nuestra lo que quedo fue el gofio de la escuela al campo; ir a Coppelia a tomar helado, luego de una cola descomunal; ir a los "quince" de las chicas de nuestra clase, en mi caso con el mismo pantalon que iba a la escuela por las mananas y una camisa prestada y quedo en especial la madrugada; esa palabra que no se decir ni en frances, ni en italiano, ni en ingles, ni aleman, esa evocacion de niebla y penumbra que nos deja un sabor agridulce en los labios y unas imagenes torpemente dibujadas en la mente.
Para mi generacion la madrugada era el momento en que nos sentabamos tratando de alargar el tiempo con nuestra "jevita" que reclamaba su derecho a marcharse para que su madre no la castigara; en nuestros tiempos aun las madres "vigilaban" a sus hijas, no las regabalan a obesos espanoles e italianos por cinco CUC, ni por un par de zapatos o una bocanada de humo americano y unas latitas con veneno autorizado de color ambar.
En nuestras madrugadas la "pura" de la jevita era tremenda "imperfecta" y habia que hilar fino; pero era lo que nos quedaba; la madrugada para salir, para sentarse en un parque, para ir a un "club" a pagar el consumo minimo y "agarrar", "apretar", "matearse" con la novia en la oscuridad de los "reservados"; la madrugada del viernes era para Midnight Special cuando lograbamos captar las ondas de TV de Estados Unidos y ver a Guess Who, o algun grupo famoso.
Mas adelante la madrugada era para "colarse" en el Riviera por $21.00 y pasar el fin de semana con la novia
O simplemente la madrugada era para hablar con los amigos y discutir de politica en voz baja, a tono muy quedo, porque aun los temas mas inocuos eran tabu.
Con el paso de los anos hemos perdido la madrugada; los anos hacen que al despertarnos luego de una larga noche la cabeza se nos quiera salir del cuerpo y retumbe como la bateria de Ringo Star. No tenemos que compartir nada, ni pagar consumo minimo y los pantalones sobran, pero casi nunca tenemos madrugada.
Por anos me pregunte quien nos devolveria la madrugada; pero ahora ya no me cabe duda. No regresara jamas; la madrugada se fue junto con nuestra juventud y nuestros suenos (realizados o no).
Nos queda solo el consuelo de hacer que haya valido la pena sacrificar nuestra madrugada
La gran mayoria de los golpes de estado se han dado en la madrugada; el 10 de marzo de 1952 asi como la salida precipitada de Batista el 1 de enero de 1959; ambos hechos violentos e inconstitucionales mas alla de la mayor popularidad de uno respecto al otro (al principio).
Para los de mi generacion, que vivimos la nostaglia en otros terminos; de hecho nosotros no podemos evocar la isla o La Habana con la riqueza de colores de Cabrera Infante; no vivimos esa Habana ni esa Cuba; no cenamos en la Estrella Oriental o en la Segunda Estrella Oriental, no fuimos al Sloppy Joe, no disfrutamos de los innumerables bares de la Avenida del Puerto; en sintesis: no tuvimos la posibilidad de escoger; de escoger si morirnos de hambre o progresar; si "chiripear" y tener solo para el "amanezco" o crear una riqueza y un futuro. Claro que aquellas madrugadas y aquella nostalgia de nuestros mayores esconde tintes menos brillantes y situaciones mas sordidas; que nostalgia no lo hace?; pero nada comparado con lo que se convirtio en objeto de nostalgia para nuestra generacion.
Para la nuestra lo que quedo fue el gofio de la escuela al campo; ir a Coppelia a tomar helado, luego de una cola descomunal; ir a los "quince" de las chicas de nuestra clase, en mi caso con el mismo pantalon que iba a la escuela por las mananas y una camisa prestada y quedo en especial la madrugada; esa palabra que no se decir ni en frances, ni en italiano, ni en ingles, ni aleman, esa evocacion de niebla y penumbra que nos deja un sabor agridulce en los labios y unas imagenes torpemente dibujadas en la mente.
Para mi generacion la madrugada era el momento en que nos sentabamos tratando de alargar el tiempo con nuestra "jevita" que reclamaba su derecho a marcharse para que su madre no la castigara; en nuestros tiempos aun las madres "vigilaban" a sus hijas, no las regabalan a obesos espanoles e italianos por cinco CUC, ni por un par de zapatos o una bocanada de humo americano y unas latitas con veneno autorizado de color ambar.
En nuestras madrugadas la "pura" de la jevita era tremenda "imperfecta" y habia que hilar fino; pero era lo que nos quedaba; la madrugada para salir, para sentarse en un parque, para ir a un "club" a pagar el consumo minimo y "agarrar", "apretar", "matearse" con la novia en la oscuridad de los "reservados"; la madrugada del viernes era para Midnight Special cuando lograbamos captar las ondas de TV de Estados Unidos y ver a Guess Who, o algun grupo famoso.
Mas adelante la madrugada era para "colarse" en el Riviera por $21.00 y pasar el fin de semana con la novia
O simplemente la madrugada era para hablar con los amigos y discutir de politica en voz baja, a tono muy quedo, porque aun los temas mas inocuos eran tabu.
Con el paso de los anos hemos perdido la madrugada; los anos hacen que al despertarnos luego de una larga noche la cabeza se nos quiera salir del cuerpo y retumbe como la bateria de Ringo Star. No tenemos que compartir nada, ni pagar consumo minimo y los pantalones sobran, pero casi nunca tenemos madrugada.
Por anos me pregunte quien nos devolveria la madrugada; pero ahora ya no me cabe duda. No regresara jamas; la madrugada se fue junto con nuestra juventud y nuestros suenos (realizados o no).
Nos queda solo el consuelo de hacer que haya valido la pena sacrificar nuestra madrugada
The president, Libya and all that jazz
This one is tough; I usually do not agree with our president's decisions, nor do I agree with his political ideas; however, in the case of Libya I can't blame him.
This is one of those cases when someone is right for the wrong reasons, but I can't say he's wrong just the same. Even Mr Gates warned about the significance of creating a no fly zone in that African nation as well as its implications and possible consequences.
It's sad to see Qaddafi regain inch by inch all the territory he had lost, but yet another front could prove too much for our staggering economy and could, in the long run, become another quagmire. What is worse: for all his cruelty and blood thirst, Qaddafi is still better than the likely alternative. Actually, one of the reasons for his making "peace" with the west and pay damages to the families of those killed in the Pan Am flight bombing was his fear of losing ground to the rising extremism in the region. Qaddafi is no walk in the park, but he seems to be religiously and ideologically opposed to Islamic radicalism, at least the brand Al Qaeda represents.
I know this is not politically correct, let alone popular, but perhaps due to my years in Communist Cuba I find it hard to believe that this sudden wave of urge for change in the Middle East and Northern Africa is solely the result of the new technologies. For all the spontaneous chants and the cries for freedom, which I applaud, there seems to be a bit more to it than meets the eye and it would be wise to know who's behind this before showing all our cards; it sounds cynical and too pragmatic, but hasn't it been the US policy for the last two centuries?
The president dreads to make decisions, that is one of his weaknesses; but a little cautiousness wouldn't hurt
This is one of those cases when someone is right for the wrong reasons, but I can't say he's wrong just the same. Even Mr Gates warned about the significance of creating a no fly zone in that African nation as well as its implications and possible consequences.
It's sad to see Qaddafi regain inch by inch all the territory he had lost, but yet another front could prove too much for our staggering economy and could, in the long run, become another quagmire. What is worse: for all his cruelty and blood thirst, Qaddafi is still better than the likely alternative. Actually, one of the reasons for his making "peace" with the west and pay damages to the families of those killed in the Pan Am flight bombing was his fear of losing ground to the rising extremism in the region. Qaddafi is no walk in the park, but he seems to be religiously and ideologically opposed to Islamic radicalism, at least the brand Al Qaeda represents.
I know this is not politically correct, let alone popular, but perhaps due to my years in Communist Cuba I find it hard to believe that this sudden wave of urge for change in the Middle East and Northern Africa is solely the result of the new technologies. For all the spontaneous chants and the cries for freedom, which I applaud, there seems to be a bit more to it than meets the eye and it would be wise to know who's behind this before showing all our cards; it sounds cynical and too pragmatic, but hasn't it been the US policy for the last two centuries?
The president dreads to make decisions, that is one of his weaknesses; but a little cautiousness wouldn't hurt
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
