24 December 2019 ~ 16 Comentarios

El régimen cubano elige un Primer Ministro

Suscríbase al canal AQUÍ

16 Responses to “El régimen cubano elige un Primer Ministro”

  1. Cubano-Americano 24 December 2019 at 6:26 pm Permalink

    Elige???..creo que mejor decir..DESIGNA!!…Ya el hijito anda en aviones particulares y bajando esas imágenes a Instagram…más de lo mismo.

  2. joseluis 25 December 2019 at 3:45 am Permalink

    En una de esas maromas, siempre gana la juventud: por ley de la vida, quizás renazca o crezcan los nuevos dueños de Cuba, dejará de ser de la familia Castro: los dueños totales. Creo que el sistema de Putin, reinará en Cuba. Esa es mi visión.

  3. joseluis 25 December 2019 at 3:54 am Permalink

    En una de esas maromas, siempre gana la juventud, por ley de la vida, quizás renazca o crezcan los nuevos dueños de Cuba, dejará de ser de la familia Castro: los dueños total. Creo que el sistema de Putin, reinará en Cuba. Esa es mi visión. Verán los cardenales y obispos, como la iglesia ortodoxa de Putin.

  4. joseluis 25 December 2019 at 4:12 am Permalink

    Esa es mi visión. Verán a los cardenales y obispos, como la iglesia ortodoxa de Putin.

  5. Cubano-Americano 25 December 2019 at 5:24 am Permalink

    José Lyis..Estoy de acuerdo contigo..los cambios vendrán desde la misma dictadura..Putin dirigió la KGB..la juventud con poder harán los cambios nos gusten o no..esos “cambios fraudes” ya se están dando en Cuba para la fosil nomenklatura y su familia tengan un suave aterrizaje..esta friamente calculado..y lo están delante nuestras narices, no tan lento…le estorba Venezuela por ahora…

  6. Manuel 25 December 2019 at 8:13 am Permalink

    TV, radio, and newspapers are NOT part of social media. The line drawn between the two is slowly thinning as each continues to evolve.

    Social media doesn’t just give you information but interacts with you while giving you that information. This interaction can be as simple as asking for your comments or letting you vote on an article, or it can be as complex as Flixster recommending movies to you based on the ratings of other people with similar interests.

    Think of regular media as a one-way street where you can read a newspaper or listen to a report on television, but you have very limited ability to give your thoughts on the matter. Social media, on the other hand, is a two-way street that gives you the ability to communicate too.

    Are Blogs a Part of Social Media?
    Copyblogger published an interesting article several years ago, making the argument that blogs are indeed social media, despite the fact that people tend to put them in a category all on their own these days. In fact, blogs are one of the oldest forms of social media that dominated the web long before we were friending and following everyone on social networks.

    The key features that make blogs part of social media are their user accounts, comment sections, and blog networks. Tumblr, Medium, WordPress, and Blogger are just a few examples of big blog platforms that have very active community blog networks.

    What Are Some of the Known Issues With Social Media?
    Social media isn’t all just fun and games with your friends, celebrities you admire, and brands you follow. There are lots of common problems that most major social media platforms haven’t totally solved, despite their effort to do so.

    Spam: Social media makes it easy for spammers — both real people and bots — to bombard other people with content. If you have a Twitter account, you’ve probably experienced a few spambot follows or interactions. Likewise, if you run a WordPress blog, you may have gotten a spam comment or two caught by your spam filter.

    Cyberbullying/Cyberstalking: Children and teenagers are especially susceptible to cyberbullying because they take more risks when it comes to posting on social media. And now that we all interact on social media via our mobile devices, most major platforms make it possible to share our locations, opening up the doors for cyberstalkers to target us.

    Self-image manipulation: What a user posts about themselves on social media only represents a small portion of their life. While followers may see someone who’s happy and living it up via their posts on social media in such a way that makes them feel boring or inadequate by comparison, the truth is that users have the power to completely control what parts they do and don’t want to broadcast on social media to manipulate their own self-image.
    Information overload: It’s not unusual to have over 200 Facebook friends or follow over 1,000 Twitter accounts. With so many accounts to follow and so many people posting new content, it’s almost impossible to keep up.

    Fake news: Fake news websites promote links to their own totally false news stories on social media in order to drive traffic to them. Many users have no idea that they’re fake in the first place.
    Privacy/Security: Many social media platforms still get hacked from time to time despite having good security measures in place. Some also don’t offer all the privacy options that users need to keep their information as private as they want them to be.

    What Does the Future Hold for Social Media?
    It’s difficult to predict anything exactly, but if one thing can be said about the future of social media, it will probably be more personalized and less noisy. Over-sharing will be less of a problem and filtering out irrelevant information will become a stronger trend.

    Snapchat is a social media platform that’s really at the forefront of social media evolution. Rather than blasting out updates for all our friends and followers to see, we use Snapchat more as we communicate in real life — with specific people only at specific times.

    Other big social networks like Instagram and Facebook have also taken inspiration from Snapchat for its stories feature, integrating nearly identical features into their own platforms so users have the opportunity to share quick photos or short videos that are only available to view for 24 hours.

    If anything, social media is probably about to move more toward ephemeral sharing for quicker, more intimate sharing without the stress of having to blast something out to hundreds or thousands of followers that stays up there unless it’s manually deleted. The pressure of garnering tons of likes and comments on regular social media posts also plays a huge factor, suggesting that more casual forms of social sharing, such as through stories, could be the social media way of the future.“

  7. Manuel 25 December 2019 at 12:46 pm Permalink

    Philanthropy in the US found its footing during the last Gilded Age, when Scottish immigrant and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie published the 1889 essay known as “The Gospel of Wealth,” in which he professed, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” His philosophy was taken up by many of the country’s wealthiest, and his words still resonate today. Entrepreneur Chuck Feeney has followed Carnegie’s “giving while living” ethos. In 2016, his Atlantic Philanthropies made the final commitment of its total $8 billion budget across 35 years and over 6,500 grants; his funding addressed systemic change in places such as Vietnam, where it installed water systems and modernized health care; Northern Ireland, where it supported the peace process; and the US, where it promoted racial equity and helped identify best practices for dementia care. Atlantic’s strict due diligence still serves as a proxy for other philanthropists: By contributing to organizations Feeney has given to, a donor can be reasonably assured the money will be used wisely. (One other metric is to research if more than 35 percent of the budget is going toward costs—the sign of a poorly run charity. Some highly efficient organizations can bring that number down to 15 or even 10 percent, though often they get much of their “funds” from in-kind donations, which can be difficult to value).
    Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, whose mission for the past eight decades has been “to reduce poverty and injustice, strengthen democratic values, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement,” has been thinking a lot about Carnegie’s pamphlet. He asserts that this current Gilded Age and its resultant rise in inequality requires a fresh take on charity—a time, he has written, “to openly acknowledge and confront the tension inherent in a system that perpetuates vast differences in privilege and then tasks the privileged with improving the system.”
    While he’s a big fan of sponsoring friends when they walk a 10K to end breast cancer, and also of rushing funds to natural disasters, he believes deeply that fixing broken systems is the only way to make lasting change. “This is not an attempt to diminish the impulse to be generous,” he says of his just released book, From Generosity to Justice: A New Gospel of Wealth. “I believe we must continue to do that, but we also need to ask the fundamental questions. If we are walking in a marathon to end homelessness, we need to also engage in the question ‘Why is there so much homelessness?’ We need to get at the root of the problem, which can generate discomfort.”
    This kind of inquiry, he admits, implicates all of us and requires more engagement than writing a check. Working at the local level is important, Walker notes, but working systemically at the local level is paramount. He offers an example: “If you are interested in improving the parks in your city, don’t just give to the one park that you use. Think about what the parks in the rest of the city look like and give to an effort to improve all parks.”
    Likewise, art patron Agnes Gund’s two-year-old Art for Justice initiative provides a good framework: Concerned with mass incarceration, the philanthropist pledged $100 million from the sale of a Lichtenstein canvas to criminal-justice reform. Instead of starting her own nonprofit, she worked with Walker to target some 68 existing organizations that have already proven they can make a dent in changing the criminal-justice system.
    Billionaire Laurie M. Tisch had more varied pet causes, so she set up an umbrella fund to dole out her money. Eleven years ago, the hotel scion was sitting on a bunch of high-profile boards (the Whitney Museum of American Art, Lincoln Center), when she kept hearing about family foundations. “I wanted to do something different, and I didn’t want to raise money again,” she says. Family foundations happen to be excellent vehicles for avoiding taxes and offsetting capital gains, but Tisch says that wasn’t her motivation. With the guidance of RPA, she launched the Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund to hit all her passion points: public art, Jewish life, community building, access to healthy food.
    Because it’s a privately held foundation, Tisch can deploy resources where and when she wants, as long as she adheres to the tax law of giving away a minimum of 5 percent of the fund’s assets annually to charitable endeavors. (This rule is easily abused; see the now defunct Trump Foundation or the Meyer Charitable Foundation, which came under fire after one of its family members used its tax-deductible funds to allegedly pay a $200,000 bribe to the Key Worldwide Foundation, the faux charity tied to the college-admissions scandal.) Tisch says she has given tens of millions to existing organizations and built new structures inside of them—such as her recent initiative to create an arts program for patients and burned-out staff in the public NYC Health & Hospitals system—but unlike Abrevaya and her I Am ALS, she doesn’t start new organizations. “One of my pet peeves is, among people who have made a tremendous amount of money, there seems to be a trend to want to start your own thing—which is fine if you’ve done the research and see that other people aren’t doing it. Just don’t assume no one else is doing what you want to do,” Tisch advises. She looks at numbers, of course, but also makes frequent trips to see firsthand how her projects are doing. “There are some things you can’t measure with numbers, and not-for-profits shouldn’t be run like businesses.”
    Stanford political science professor Rob Reich couldn’t agree more. He has been thinking hard about philanthropy in America. In his book Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better, he takes issue with the hallowed tax deduction philanthropists trade for charitable donations, seeing it as a government subsidy for the affluent. He questions the accepted idea that large donations are motivated by a desire to do good and that it’s perfectly fine for a donor to steer money according to personal preferences. Rather, he sees those massive dollar amounts as a means to exercise power and influence over society, with the government (via generous tax subsidies) endorsing the venture.
    Though he often agrees with the solutions offered up by major donors like Bill and Melinda Gates, he worries they have outsize authority to advance their agendas, whatever they may be. “Gates basically shows up… like a head of state,” Reich recently pointed out in an interview with data scientist Russ B. Altman at Stanford. The difference, he notes, is that “if you don’t like what the Gates Foundation is doing, you can’t un-elect him.” He can see a future where something as basic as the public funding of science research is replaced with private money—a concern if climate-change denier/philanthropist Rebekah Mercer were to be involved.
    But Reich’s views aren’t all doom and gloom. He also has faith that philanthropic organizations are at their best when they can focus on long-term, niche ventures (such as curing ALS) or risky missions that are too toxic for politicians (family planning, for example). In any case, he believes the way this country views charitable donations will undoubtedly change. “In an era of extraordinary inequality, there’s going to be greater scrutiny of what big philanthropists do,” he told Altman. He points to data that shows wealthy donors typically target only 1 percent of their total donations to social-service organizations; by contrast, donors making less than $100,000 tend to give 10 percent of their contributions to such groups. The government treats all donations equally, whether to feed hungry children or to build a fountain at the donor’s alma mater, but Reich says it could tweak the tax code.
    During this season of giving, the Ford Foundation’s Walker suggests that thoughtful philanthropists sprinkle the love around, certainly, but to truly make a difference, take the long view and give to organizations that seek to change systems that no longer work for ordinary people. “Everyone starts with the impulse to make this a better world,” Walker says. “But philanthropy can no longer grapple simply with what is happening in the world. It also has to address the how and why.”
    Moreover, systemic change, whether in education, health care or housing, will almost certainly provide a longer-lasting legacy than erecting a building. If in doubt, see Lincoln Center’s Avery Fisher Hall. Or, rather, don’t see it. Forty-two years after Fisher gave the New York Philharmonic $10.5 million and lent his name to the orchestra’s home, a certain music mogul forked over $100 million for its renovation. The name over the door now reads David Geffen Hall. ■

  8. Cubano-Americano 25 December 2019 at 3:48 pm Permalink

    Están atacando a Israel por 5 ciudades ahora…se metieron con el pueblo equivocado..

  9. Víctor López 25 December 2019 at 4:21 pm Permalink

    Qué terrible…

  10. Manuel 25 December 2019 at 4:47 pm Permalink

    guaido nunca pidio medidas mas fuertes, ahora vendran esas medidas de todos modos, y el quedara como un blandengue:

    WASHINGTON Donald Trump is losing confidence that the Venezuelan opposition leader his administration backed can ever topple Nicolas Maduro’s regime, and the U.S. president’s top aides are now considering new and more aggressive strategies, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Vice President Mike Pence led a meeting on Thursday with other senior officials to reexamine the White House’s yearlong push for a democratic transition in the South American nation, four of the people said.

    Juan Guaido, the National Assembly leader who declared himself interim president of Venezuela with U.S. backing earlier this year, has so far failed to push out Maduro, and American officials are now concerned he may soon lose his official position.

    No military option is under consideration, but White House officials have discussed new approaches including an attempt to partner with Russia, a Maduro ally, to ease out the Venezuelan leader, or raising pressure on Cuba, Maduro’s main sponsor.

    During Pence’s meeting in the White House Situation Room, officials also briefly discussed but ultimately dismissed the idea of cracking down on India’s imports of Venezuelan oil, an important financial lifeline for Maduro’s regime.

    The discussions illustrate Trump’s conundrum in Venezuela, where he began an aggressive campaign to oust Maduro at the end of 2018 under the direction of his then-national security adviser, John Bolton. The president is frustrated that the Venezuelan leader wasn’t uprooted from power as quickly as Trump believed Bolton had advertised, and is also cognizant of the political ramifications, the people said: Venezuelan expatriates are an important constituency in Florida, the state Trump has made central to his reelection campaign.

    Bolton left the administration in September after a falling-out with Trump, and his replacement, Robert O’Brien, has taken charge of crafting a new Venezuela strategy.

    Elliott Abrams, the State Department’s special representative for Venezuela, said that Guaido “remains the single most popular official in Venezuela and the United States remains fully supportive of him and of the National Assembly in their effort to restore Venezuela to democracy.”

    “If there is more the United States can do to support that goal, we will certainly try to do it, in conjunction with the nearly 60 other countries who recognize Guaido as the legitimate interim president,” he added.

    An administration official said the U.S. government is continuing to review the full range of options to advance what it calls a “maximum pressure” campaign against Maduro’s regime, and that the U.S. stands firmly with Guaido.

    The official asked not to be identified because the discussions haven’t been public.

    But after failing to usurp Maduro in a spring uprising, Guaido is losing political capital. Earlier this week, the Venezuelan legislature launched an investigation into potential influence-peddling among opposition lawmakers, and on Jan. 5, the National Assembly is set to vote on whether Guaido remains its president.

    A Guaido spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    While Washington has lines of communication with others in the opposition, Guaido’s defeat would prove embarrassing after the administration rallied more than 60 nations to back the 36-year-old leader’s claim to Venezuela’s presidency.

    Regardless of Guaido’s political future, Trump and his advisers have determined that there’s only one credible U.S. approach: more aggressive efforts to pressure Maduro. The White House has rejected suggestions of a power-sharing arrangement between Maduro and Guaido or mediation led by third countries.

    It’s not clear how the U.S. could bring more pressure to bear on Venezuela directly, especially without hurting Maduro’s opposition. Top officials in the Maduro regime are already under U.S. sanctions, as is the nation’s oil industry, which accounts for about 99% of Venezuela’s export income.

    So the Trump administration has looked instead at raising pressure on countries still doing business with Venezuela in particular Cuba, Maduro’s main benefactor and a longstanding U.S. adversary. While former President Barack Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Havana, eased U.S. travel restrictions to the country and even made a historic visit to the country himself, Trump has gradually rolled back many of those goodwill gestures and tensions have risen over the U.S. campaign against Maduro.

    U.S. officials, meanwhile, say they remain in contact with some of Maduro’s inner circle in hopes of convincing them to change sides, and that more aggressive sanctions are in the offing. Neither strategy has worked. In late April, a planned military revolt against Maduro backfired, forcing opposition lawmakers into hiding, while the sanctions have been criticized for hurting vulnerable Venezuelans.

    (Bartenstein reported from New York. Nick Wadhams contributed to this report.)

    (c)2019 Bloomberg News

    Visit Bloomberg News at http://www.bloomberg.com

    Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

  11. Manuel 26 December 2019 at 4:20 am Permalink

    No es importante si Fidel era comunista desde el 54, o desde el 44, ni por cuales motivos lo fuera; lo importante es que se trataba de una persona que puso sus habilidades al servicio de Moscú, tal como ha hecho su hermano menor, Raul, desde esos tiempos hasta hoy.
    Y esto es importante porque ud no puede ser fiel a Moscú y también a Martí. El hombrecito de Paula no creía en otro poder que en el de las fuerzas nacionales, dedicó su vida a luchar contra Madrid, Washington, no para regalarle el país a otra capital de otro imperio.
    Lo importante es que ese hombrecito quería revolucionarlo todo para ponernos en la avanzada, no cambiar a un grupo de poder por otro, no expulsar a los yanquis para traer a los bolos, no sacar al capitalismo para traer al stalinismo. Esto no es revolución, esto es engaño, traición, crimen, ponga ud el epiteto que mas le plazca, pero revolución déjelo para los suficientemente tontos para creérselo, TODAVÍA!

    …lo que más hay es secuestrados, gente que quedó atrapada encima de aquel engendro y no le queda otra que seguirle dando palos a ver pa donde agarra, cdo le llegue el momento 🙂

  12. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 27 December 2019 at 6:52 pm Permalink

    Calleja es el CEO andante de Alejandro castro y no creo que un hombre como Montaner no este escondiendo eso gratis.

  13. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 27 December 2019 at 6:55 pm Permalink

    Una vez te ajuntas con los corruptos Demócratas, es porque ya te quedastes sin escrúpulos políticos.
    Tan mal economicamente le va ha Montanel?
    Dios me proteja de una vejez así.
    Análisis de la carta de Trump a Nancy Pelosi que todos los medios escondieron.

  14. Adolfo 31 December 2019 at 9:50 pm Permalink

    Que espectáculo tan indigno y despreciable, ver a unos nauseabundos sujetos criminales enfrascados en vulgares riñas por cuotas de poder, a ver cual de estos gangsters se sale con la tajada mas grande de un pastel en avanzado estado de descomposición. Una camarilla de viejos calvos peleándose por un peine.

Leave a Reply