PDA

View Full Version : Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?


Pages : 1 [2]

dann
23rd January 2005, 04:21 AM
In my answer to toddjh yesterday 01-22-2005 11:47 I refered to a thread started by Lavie Enrose, but I forgot to link to it: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49214

RussDill
24th January 2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by dann
They need the security guards exactly because the job exposes them to these risks!
[/quote

Eh? I was explaining how theft is more dangerous than legal prostitution.

[quote]
Yes, they would, wouldn't they?


Yes, so why would stealing from the rich be some sort of motivation, your argument makes no sense.


Oh, the poor things! (I thought they usually commit suicide when they are about to be exposed or go bankrupt = having to go to jail or live under the circumstances that they expose all the poor people to ...)


Hence, white collar crime is not some easy choice that people just love to engage in.


That sounds like a good idea! (Who are "we" by the way? Don't tell me! You do have influence!)

My point exactly, its non-sensical, no one has such an ability. There are always going to be people who choose prostitution over the other options available to them

RussDill
24th January 2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by dann

That is so hard to do when it already belongs to him. (But most important: the motive disappears.)


No, it does not belong to him, it belongs to the community, and he must share it with everyone. If he wants it to himself for the full benifits, he must steal it.

RussDill
24th January 2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by dann
Yes, and then you probably know how many people computer programming has helped make redundant over the years because new programs have eliminated their jobs!


Yes, many extremely boring, repetative jobs have been eliminated. The cost of many goods and services has gone down by a huge factor, which means extra money in the economy, which means more jobs.


And you are probably also not unaware of the fact that a lot of computer people are often laid off. At least I know that it happened to a lot of people over here not so many years ago.


Times change, companies change, happens especially quickly with engineering. In fact, most jobs when you take them are for a specific length of time, ie, 18 months. Its not a big deal, you go get another job. In fact, most people view it as a plus, because you are always doing something new.


And I think that a lot of your jobs are moved abroad too, for instance when employers discover that Indian programmers are much cheaper.


That is the way a market economy works, if someone is more efficient at doing something, then they should do it. Surely this is also the goal of a communist economy, give the job to the individual who will do it most efficiently. Can you not see that everyone benifits by everyone doing the job that they are best at?


Please remember what the argument was! We were presented with a very naïve model of what happens when companies rationalize their line of production which is what I pointed out with my examples.


Yup, and it means that companies and consumers save money, which means they have extra money to spend, which means more jobs.


No, it isn’t. What I said was: ": technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!"


Cite a technological improvement that workers and consumers have not benifited from? If so, would this same innovation harm a communist system? If so, why one and on the other?


I think there are 800 million starving people in this world.


Countries are willing to give enough food aid to feed everyone. However, many countries, like north korea, don't distribute it to the people who need it for political reasons. If they can use the food aid to feed their military for instance, they don't need to spend money on food, and can buy bullets instead.


I don't know how many poor. (Two billion? Three?)


Corruption breeds poverty. There is a very good example of this where I live, mexico.


And if you ever were present at a board meeting you would know for a fact that technological improvement doesn’t take place because the workers are going to benefit from it.


Being a worker present at board meetings that directly benifits from technological improvements kinda makes this point moot.


That is not what stockholdes want!


Eh? technological improvement makes a company more competative. A more competitive company makes more profits. A company that makes more profits can experience more growth.


In many ways the average life of the average person has improved over the years, and in many ways it hasn’t. All over Scandinavia there appears to be an epidemic of work-related stress, for instance, because people are driven too hard by their employers or feel that they have to work too much to hold on to their jobs.


Yes, the suicide rate there is very high. Oddly enough (for your theories), it is pretty low in the US. I think knowing that your capabilities aren't limited lowers stress.


Well, over here we have a lot of people who never find a better (or any) job, and remain unemployed for the rest of their lives.


Doesn't your government offer job education programs? Do these people both enrolling?


It’s very often extremely difficult for people in many professions to be hired again if they are in their late forties when they are laid off.


Probably because their profession is no longer usefull, pick a different profession. Get some continued education. After the transistor was invented, everyone who worked in vacuum tubes had to find a new profession. It would have not made sense to force the transition to not occur.


If you don’t believe me, try reading a book like Richard Sennett’s The Corrosion of Character. (And BTW, I can also recommend this thread started by Lavie Enrose. It may refer to conditions in Canada, but they don’t seem to differ much from conditions in Denmark or the USA.)


I recommend adam smith.


Yes, in the discussion about prostitution I’ve pointed out that one thing only can eliminate it: eliminating the thing that makes people become prostitutes: poverty. And how do you eliminate poverty? Eliminate the thing that causes it: the market economy!


So you are saying that povery does not occur in communist countries? We'll keep you around, you are pretty funny. Also, there have been many examples pointed out where the other alternative exist, but people choose become prostitutes.


Then we do agree, at least on this issue, I think. I wouldn’t say that absolutely nobody at all could become at prostitute without being poor. I heard of one person who claimed to have done it for research. But then again: That would require that the phenomenon as such already exists - and it wouldn’t without poverty.


There are many people who would rather do prostitution than jobs that pay less and require more work. There are many people who would do prostitution just to earn extra money on the side of the job they already have.


Well, some do: swingers clubs. But they do cater to a minority. Your example suffers from the idea that poverty could be eliminated and this elimination co-exist alongside abundance of wealth. That could never be the case in a market economy where the Martin Sheens of this world will never run out of poor people to cater to his ‘needs’.


Why not? Poverty in this country has virtually been eliminated by the standards of other nations. Poor people here are having trouble making car payments, as apposed to other countries where people have trouble finding a meal.


As I’ve already pointed out: No, I don’t speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! No dichotomy! But the occupation as such is not necessarily disgusting. And as the photo was supposed to demonstrate to you: I wouldn’t even mind doing it myself – for free - at a party,


Clearly, you've never been a waitress for any period of time, and have no clue the difficulties the job entails. I would not define what you did at the party as "waitressing".


as in this case. I don’t mind having sex for free either – actually, it’s the only way I’d have it – but the idea of having to do it for a living is repulsive to me, as it is to most other people,


No one is forced to do prostitution, just as no one is forced to do drugs. It is always a choice.


and it is also the reason why drugs are a necessary ‘tool’ to many in that trade, but that is something that has already been covered more than once in this thread.

I don't see any drugs in legal prostitution.

RussDill
24th January 2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by dann
Yes, and so she has to pay a lawyer which of course will help her not having to be a hooker, right?! She doesn't even have the money to pay the rent. You don't know what you are talking about and you make absoulutely no effort to find out!


No, you are clueless. You don't have to buy a lawyer to prosecute a crime. The state prosecutes crimes.


Yes, they’d be a utopia, duh. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t even try!


Then point to a time that a communist country has been a utopia, other than when it was being sent billions of dollars.


And whoever said that anything had been “purposely overlooked”? As always, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Then please, stop avoiding the issue, why would any explotation be occuring at a legal brothel.


Then you should tell the inconsiderate people who give it to them.


Somehow, I don't think that is a solution.


No, I’m saying that these measures being required is no indication that this is a good job.


eh? Who listed them as merits for it being a good job?


They are not required for the same reasons for prostitutes as for pilots of MDs!


Health screeing tests are required for the same reason for prostitutes and MD's. So they don't spread disease. Drug tests are also required for the same reason as all three, because drugs cause risky behavior.


There’s a big difference between on the one hand performing brainsurgery and flying a plane and on the other giving a blow job.


Wow, the jobs are different, what a surprise, however, the reasoning behind the screenings are similar.


Or do you think that drugtests for prostitutes in Nevada are required because they perform such a difficult job that so many lives depend on?


The health and safety of the customers depend on them being clean from drugs. Just as with doctors and pilots.


Or because the authorities are afraid that they’ll fall out of the bed thus injuring the johns?


People on drugs are prone to violent acts, and also are prone to contracting many diseases.


No, it isn’t! It isn’t even a surprise to me that prostitutes are required to do drug tests and health tests. Nor is it a surprise to me that they need security guards and bouncers. It is no surprise to me at all! (And, yes, I am saying that these things indicate that this is not a very pleasant occupation!)


So...then being a doctor is not a pleasent occupation either.


You would be sceptical, yes. I can’t help that. You probably wouldn’t believe Cuban statistics anyway, even if they had any. (You don’t usually have a lot of statistics about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist!) An eight-year sentence would certainly discourage prostitution, yes. The interesting thing, however, is: When was this sentence (re?)introduced? And why wasn't it needed in the meantime?


Wouldn't you be distrustful of a government locks people away for printing or saying negative things? If the government line is "we don't have a prostitution problem", you don't go out a publish statistics that say otherwise, it gets you locked up.


See answer above! I’d be surprised if you could come up with any other argument than your general, very vague disbelief in Cuba abolishing prostitution in the 1960s, ‘70s and 80s. But then again: considering the 100.000 prostitutes in Cuba in the 1950s it was a very impressive achievement indeed!

Again, its because anyone who doesn't tow the government line gets locked up and you don't hear from them.

RussDill
24th January 2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by dann
No, it works every day all over the world. People are made redundant, and a lot of them never work again.


No one is ever made redundant. Jobs and skills are made redundant. Some jobs never exist again. If someone is willing, they can reeducate themselves and get a different job, maybe in a different field. If a large percentage of people who's job's were made redundant never worked again, then the majority of people would be unemployed.


NO! By my standards, this would be very, very good! - if we weren’t talking about a market economy.


Why is it different? In a communist economy, the a few people select what gets made. They choose the people who can do it most efficiently. The only difference in a market economy is that everyone democratically decide what gets made. They choose the people who can do it most efficiently.

The end result, in an ideal world, is the same. However, in a communist economy, the select few with this amount of control, not only tend to make mistakes, but are corruptable.


It is only the logic of the market economy that says that when machines save work, people don't simply work less, but some people don't work at all and therefore starve.


If a machine saves time in a communist country, people don't simply work 4 hour days. The rest of their work day is spend doing something. And why make them commute from job to job in the middle of the day, just dedicate fewer people to wheat production.

In a market economy, these extra workers would innovate and create wine. I do not think communist planners would necessarily do this.


I assume that the wheat production remained the same as before? With 70.000 workers 100.000 tons of wheat are produced, and the number of workers reduced from 100.000.
The naivety of your example here becomes evident: The workers who were made redundant start growing wine, just like that! No, they don’t! They’ve been made redundant, penniless, and therefore they have no money with which to buy land, trees, fertilizer and tools – or even wheat to feed themselves. Well, no, of course, in your example a group of employers, owners of land, trees, fertilizer, tools and extra money for wages are simply waiting somewhere in the wings for a group of workers to be made redundant!


Yup, that is how a capitalist economy works. There are investors, both large and small, who would seek to also gain from such a venture. In this case, the wheat growers would loan the wine growers tools and food while their venture got started. The wheat growers that chose to loan would get a certain amount of "reward" wine in return.


It would be interesting to know what the purpose of the production is: Accumulation of money? Feeding the population? Feeding the owners of the means of production?


Whatever the consumer wants. The consumer votes with their dollar. Accumulation of money by a producer would be fruitless, money alone does nothing, they would spend the money at somepoint, or invest the money in other ventures. Feeding the population would not be a goal, that would be giving it away for no return. Feeding the owners of the means of production would be great, but say you are producing more than you eat.

The idea then would be to barter or trade your production for things other people are producing.


If the purpose is to feed the population, then everybody is happy, because everybody can now get enough to eat and reduce their working hours by 30%. Instead of working 30 hours a week, they now have to work only 20 hours. They could spend the extra hours partying.


They don't have any wine. They want wine. What can they do to get wine? The extra time in their day is not long enough to manage their own vineyard.


At that point it might occur to them that by working an extra hour a week, they could use the extra wheat to brew their own beer, which would undoubtedly liven up their otherwise rather boring wheat bread parties!


Then they all have their own brewery, and switch their labor from wheat to beer daily. It would be more efficient if they had a set of individuals that were dedicated to brewing beer.


Then let’s take a look at your anti-Cuban article:
[B]
As we all know: In all the other Latin American countries the economies are flourishing as a direct result of their governments’ adherence to a successful capitalist economy! Yeah, right!


Why say, "yeah right", The economic improvements are very self evident.


As we all know the quality of health care in Latin America is top notch. And not a single one of them, with the exception of Cuba, would ever dream of ‘maintaining an out-sized military machine ad security apparatus’.


Cuba is not even fighting an ongoing military campaign, many countries in latin america are.


The reason for this, of course, is that all subsidies from the World Bank, the US Government etc. demand that the donated money is always used in a way that benefits the poor! Yeah, right!


Why say "yeah right", why is this an unreasonable demand?


(It is particularly evil when Cuba insists on maintaining an army, in spite of the willingness of its powerful neighbour to defend Cuba against all enemies, right?!)


Cuba is in no danger of invasion. Maybe a removal of an oppresive dictator, but thats about it. In fact, castro is starving his people to finance an army for one purpose, to defend one man, himself.


Then apparently Cuba must have a bigger budget. Or maybe it’s a question of Cuban doctors being as cheap as they are!


Cuban doctors are cheap to tourists because the cost and standard of living in cuba is so low. Of course, that also means that the locals cannot afford these "cheap" doctors.


Of course, in any other Latin American country but Cuba substandard health care wouldn’t really bother anybody, would it? Substandard health care or even no doctors at all in a Peruvian or Guatemalan village would just be a sign of the people there not being able to pay for a doctor’s services, supply and demand.


In most of these countries, ie, brazil, emergency health care and immunization is part of a government program


It wouldn’t bother anybody that the rich get all the medical care they can buy – sometimes by taking the next plane to the USA.


A growing economy can only sustain so much, but the health care in these countries improves every day. A similar situation cannot be said about cuba.


Whereas in Cuba, with free health care for everybody, the writers of this article see nothing but signs of exploitation of the poor!!!


I didn't see anything about "free health care for everybody" I see a two tier system that serves the rich and those that pay, and shun the poor.


Yeah, right. It would surprise me if health care in Cuba didn’t suffer cut backs along with everything else in the 90s, but surprisingly enough it’s still there and still so efficient that I have heard of Cubans living in Denmark who went back to Cuba to be examined by the doctors there because they were not content with the examinations they had received by the hospitals here.


Because it is a two tier system. The health care that a tourist receives and pays for is not the health care that you get if you are poor and living there. The health care that a tourist receives in cuba is entirely based on capitalist ideas. If the health care you can get in cuba when you pay for it is better than any other place, it is only because you pay for it.


That is not even all! The Cubans had to sell out of other resources as well. The wonderful beaches of Varadero were turned into a holiday resort exclusively for tourists, off limits to the Cubans, except for the ones who have to work there. You can imagine what that feels like in a country priding itself of the achievement of its revolution, one of which being that the beaches that used to be the private property of the rich, including a lot of norte americanos, were now open for everybody, black or white.


You mean they don't have a black only beach, and a white only beach anymore? What about drinking fountains, public pools, buses, and restrooms, those are still segregated, right? The more you talk, the dumber you sound.

Having the beaches open to tourism wouldn't be so bad if the cuban people actually benifited. The money instead goes straight to the government, and the people never see these profits. I know that those in mexico are more than happy to open their beaches to tourists who are loose with their money, because the people actually benifit.



Things like that have, of course, caused a lot of resentment, but the Cubans have stood up with it only because they have understood the necessity for these measures in the Special Period, “the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually”. Yes, a thing like that does take a lot of reorganization – and luckily the Cubans seem to know that this is something that they have to get through. They are not at all fond of “this two-tier medical system”. But the three-tier medical system in other Latin American countries going from luxurious health care for the rich and none at all for the poor is not an alternative that they would like to reintroduce. They didn’t like it in Batista’s days, and they don’t like it now.


And if they would drop their tyrannical government, they could actually enjoy the economic fruits of tourism, their economy could actually grow.


That the “Cuban Communist Party elite” is an elite the same way that the elite in the USA or in any other North or South American country is an elite


No, because they have earned nothing, not even the respect of the people. The "elite" here are either famous, rich, or in politics. Those who are famous or in politics have earned the vote of the people. Those who are rich have also earned the vote of the people, by producing something that people want and will pay for.


that is: with the privileges of the rich in those countries, is too absurd for ordinary Cubans to believe: They are able to see how party members and leaders live! And since hospital workers are also ordinary Cubans, it would not remain a secret for very long if health care for an elite was very different than for the rest of the Cubans. The Cuban revolution was fortunate enough to have Che Guevara as one of its leaders, and Che set a very good example when it came to the ‘party elite’ hoarding elitist privileges for themselves! (I can recommend the book Ernesto Che Guevara – A Revolutionary Life, by John Lee Anderson, an American, I think. It contains enough examples to show that, no, Che Guevara was not a god, he was not a Mother Theresa, he was a revolutionary and a human being with good and bad sides, but if there was one thing he could not stand, it was the leaders of the revolution being privileged in comparison with ordinary people.)


In such a society, it is a slave/master relationship pure and simple. No individual can work hard, and become a member of the elite, because they are not a member of the party, it is a caste system. My girlfriends parents immigrated from south korea, they had no money, they worked hard, and now own and operate two tutoring centers and would be a member of what you consider the "elite".


Yes, indeed. Cuba is so poor that all the money in one sector is at the same time needed in all the others! But in order to build up the economy these are some of the very drastic measures that they are forced to take.


The biomedical research is a capitalist venture. The people will not be given the fruits of this venture, it will be sold to the highest bidder, just as all of the best of cuban health care.


Yes, that is what you would expect to hear from defectors, isn’t it?


Ok, how about we here it straight from the cuban people. Oh, wait, you can't, because if they say anything, they will be imprisioned. Everyday we have people coming here on rafts. In fact, the percentage of hatians in southren florida is huge. How can you trust a government that locks up those that disagree with them?


And as doctors, that is as some of the people who have benefited from Cuba’s free education, they will be able to use this education to earn a lot of hard currency in the USA.


No, to be a doctor in the US, you need to go to medschool in the US, and do your residency in the US (at least, if you come from a country with different health standards, like cuba). Becoming an MD in the US is a very long, rigourous, and expensive process. However, many cubans do come here, and go through that process with their hard work. Also, I am skeptical of anyone being educated in cuba to become a doctor other than the elite.


The difference being that the hard currency will go into their own pockets and not towards helping the Cuban economy back on track.


Rewarding someone for hard work *is* the way to keep an economy on track.


That is the way that a market economy functions, so let us forget about the thousands of Cuban doctors who work abroad and don’t defect, even though they have the chance.


Would you defect if you were a member of the social elite? If the rest in your country were essentially slaves? A moral person would. A greedy person would not.


Because they know what they are working for, and what the purpose is of the sacrifices they make. Again the MD Che Guevara serves as an inspiration to them!


Then the money and equal health care would go to the people, it is not.


I suppose that they did not mention the US blockade in that context. And as I’ve already pointed out: The Cubans know about Cuba providing health care for foreigners for money! They are the ones working there!


The blocade does not apply to medical supplies or doctors.


Cuban economy hit an all-time low in the middle of the 90s, so that would be a very good year to use for unfavourable comparisons.


Then give me more recent numbers


I still don’t think that Cubans in general would want to become Dominicans. Even the “group of Cuban doctors” probably knew enough about the conditions there to make them decide to defect to the USA instead.


The dominicans have better health care, they'd much rather be american anyway. About ONE TENTH of the cuban population has managed to leave cuba and enter the US.


Yeeaaah, riiiight!!! We, the US regime, do not deny anybody medical supplies. All we require is the right to guarantee that Cuba won’t use our antibiotics to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction! And the Cubans have no reason whatsoever not to believe in our good intentions!


The article specifically cites that medicial supplies that can be used in torture cannot be sent. IE, anthrax has a specific medical purpose, but we will not send it. Cuba has a history of torturing disadents, why would we be a party to that? Why is it unreasonable to require that?


Whom we’ll trust the same way we trusted that Hans Blix guy, that is, as long as they report only what we want them to report!


The actual role of the UN inspectors in international intelligence was very small. The vast majority of intelligence was carried by agencies. Most countries had intelligence that agreed.


And, of course, there is no such thing as companies dealing with Cuba being punished, is there?


eh? If someone sells or imports to cuba from the US, there will be recourse. If someone from another country does, it doesn't matter.


Just too bad that hospitals in Cuba happen to be governmental institutions!


Because it is understood that the governmental institutions are corrupt and have other priorities that are larger than the health of the people. This is something that we've learned the hard way about aid to countries with repressive governments. Don't give the aid to the government, it won't go to the people.


Which is probably the reason why the USA have recently placed new restrictions on what and how much family members are allowed to send to Cuba.


No, there are new restrictions on how often famility members can visit cuba (once every three years) and how much they can spend in a day (US$183).


Nooooo! I wouldn’t dream of saying a thing like that! What I’m saying is that I’m so happy for you! To be able to live in a country that provides so many horny women, who dream of nothing but to sleep with ten stangers a day, with the opportunity to get paid for doing so and thus live a life of luxury. Where else but in the land of opportunity would they be able to fulfil their dream like that! It is just so typical that the Cuban communists deprived women of this privileged opportunity as soon as they took over after the US favourite pimp Batista!


What is great is living in a country with economic freedom, it leads to economic prosperity. In what other country can you pay for education on your own, graduate, and buy your own 1500sq ft home at 23? Neither of my parents had the money to assist me, but it doesn't matter, what matters is hard work, that is why it is called the land of opportunity.


And you and I, RussDill, we can both be proud and happy to live in countries where we won’t see some rich guy, say, the leader of a party or a corporation, receive better health care than the welfare mother of two living in the slums.


I'm sorry she won't be getting the plastic surgery to correct her protuding ears that she so desperately needs. However, she will go to the same hospital, and receive the same standard of care if she has a medical emergency.


We both know for a fact that a thing like that will never happen in either Denmark or the USA where we have one-tier health care systems where nobody is treated any different from all the others, no matter what their position is!


Again, elective surgeries will not be provided to those who cannot pay. But, the same standard of care in the event of a medical emergency is provided. Routine health care is different, they will have to wait longer, boo-hoo.


No corruption and the same kind of health care, education and nutritional meals for everybody!


In what country has this *ever* been true?


We are happy not be ruled by a Communist elite, but by decent politicians who would never dream of doing anything improper.


For fear of being voted out of office, or in many cases arrested and jailed. Communist elite don't have to worry about this.


Even your presidents wouldn’t stoop so low as to pay some prostitute for a spell of casual sex.


No, but there was one who did some improper things with an intern, and lied about it in court. Actually, many presidents had a mistress, ie, JFK, but just the one lied in court and was disbared (licence to practice law stripped)


In spite of their position they would much rather make do with a simple chubby intern. Just like everybody else! Now that’s a real-life Cinderella story! Unlike Castro and his ilk, men like that deserve our true respect and our daily sacrifices!


The polititians here gain respect, and are in no position to demand sacrifices. Castro can demand any sacrifice he wants, whenever he wants, and can jail anyone who disrespects him. If anyone ever made the cuban equivelent of michael moore film, they would quickly be jailed and never heard from again. Here, they are not only treated by equals by the government, but they also get rich off their films.


This, of course, is the only reason why you would like to see the health care system of Cuba replaced by the one they have in Haiti, isn't it?! And who knows? If Bush succeeds it might actually happen …


Bush succeeding at bringing democracy and freedom to cuba? That would be a dream come true for millions of cubans. Of course, it probably won't happen for at least another 8 years.


In the meantime we’ll have to await the film Sicko about health care made in the USA (not due till 2006):
http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0412/22/health-40252.htm


Another film packed with lies by the beloved moore. He's free to make any film he wants, and say whatever he wants. In fact, I'd fight to protect that right. And actually, there is no problem in pointing out shortages in any system in the US, its encouraged. In the meantime, I'll ask you to find any communist government that has a better health care system.


I can also recommend the book Adventures in a TV Nation, especially the chapter about the 'health care competition' between Cuba, the USA and Canada (a very funny example of censorship in the USA): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060988096/qid=1106425945/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-1509374-2484022


repeat after me, the US has no censorship. Anyone saying so is a crackpot.


And if you want to read up on the US blockade and its effects on health in Cuba, look here:
The Effect of the US Blockade on the Health of the Cuban people: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/inemheal.html


The US will continue to refuse to support a repressive dictatorship. The blockade is only their because Castro refuses to do what is moral and just, and would rather imprison and torture his own people purely on the basis of their political views.


Cuban medical purchases from the USA still a fantasy: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html#health

BTW, I'm sorry, but I will not trust any news articles coming from cuba. Any writer in cuba is always mindful that they can be imprisoned by what they write. Would you trust the words of a man with a gun pointed to his head? All the information that I have says that medical imports to cuba are legal and do occur.