Could A Yeast Infection Lead To Missing A Period

How long complicity with the dictatorship in Cuba? Mafalda

While pro-Castro Cubans recognized as Pablo Milanes finally begin open their eyes and have the intellectual courage and ethical integrity, to oppose the dictatorship of the Castro and company joining Communist intellectuals such as José Saramago, who abandoned his support for the "adventure" totalitarian after those shootings resonated the year 2003-which added to other murders committed by the regime in this half century of oppression against his people, we need leaders, activists and political sectors of the Uruguayan left remain complicit in the tyranny that have our sister island. Not everyone, of course, but the fact that the Political Bureau of the Frente Amplio has issued a statement supporting a dictatorship no less reprehensible, especially when you consider they are representative political voice of the entire electorate and its frontage ruling class. It is disturbing, definitely see a Democratic Party and the left (who has lived in the flesh what it means to a dictatorship, which means the state terrorism) to support a totalitarian government like Castro. In Cuba there is not only freedom of expression, no freedom of press, not only banned all political opposition as well as the possibility that their citizens can move freely and leave or enter their country whenever they want, not only prohibited to Internet access, not only are political prisoners, not only then not respect basic human rights and freedoms, but more than half a century ago that the top management is the same, without right to free elections and suppressing anyone who opposed the regime (including everything from shooting to processing without minimum guarantees).
By the way, you know what were the crimes that had established political prisoner Orlando Zapata (the "dissident", which is how it classifies those who resist the regime), before the Cuban dictatorship let him die? His main crime was classified as "contempt to the figure of Fidel Castro", adding to other figures "criminal" and "resistance", "public disorder" and "disrespect" from every single fact: to participate in meetings with opposition to the Castro dictatorship. And you know what was the conviction that the "revolutionary, socialist and humanist Fidel Zapata was applied for such" crimes "? A penalty of 36 years in prison. Were quite "benign" because others have been shot without compunction. Well, how someone can be so hypocritical to say that in Cuba, human rights are respected? Hard to believe that those who have been victims of political persecution and political prisoners and those who have been convicted, and condemned "those situations, are now complicit in the political persecution and repression in Cuba, they are intellectual accomplices of the political prisoners there in Cuba. How do you feel when you see these days the images of police beating women Cuban political prisoners? A terrible double standard still survives in many when talking about the "Cuban case" (in this respect, Cuba is always in "Picture This", we have the "Cuban case" as "eternal return" because that has put it there "revolution dictatorial" de Castro, presenting at all times as "alternative" to a "better world" and as the "cradle" of "anti-imperialism." constant is in the center of the storm because there's been putting decades Fidel and company, in its tragic "revolution", which in half a century has not improved or changed anything in the world but has left several dead in his country, prisoners and many lives lived without freedom and misery .)
tragicomic At this point it is critical to maintain that if the Cuban regime is "in favor" of the rule or reason that if there are poor people in the world because democracy is "liberal" does not work (or simply to serve the 'powerful the world ") and then it is okay to have a" viable alternative "based on a" healthy revolutionary dictatorship. " How can such dichotomies do not realize the obvious fallacy that falls? Should we expect to disappear "evil" countries "democratic and rich" and that there are no poor in the world to condemn the violation of human rights in Cuba? How much is the life of people with a dictatorship, is the ideological sign that this be? Do not care about the victims of the Cuban dictatorship because there is "bad" U.S. and because there are still inequalities in the world? Does what happens in Cuba is not serious because in the world there are other injustices? Think in those terms is to adhere to a perverse logic of false oppositions that dehumanizes us. For Indeed, in Cuba the same social inequalities exist in other societies, the poor themselves and the same privileged class in other societies, with the aggravating circumstance that there are also basic freedoms.
The world is clearly better in forms of democracy and freedom in societies where human rights are respected. Can you still believe you have to install dictatorships "revolutionary," if necessary "to solve the problems of social injustice suffered by the world or a particular society? Not appear that the path to a fairer, more equitable, than the dictatorships. For striving toward a better world, it seems necessary, on the contrary, have individuals, citizens, leaders, institutions and political parties that prioritize freedom and respect for the rights of others. There will be no better world while on behalf of any further justifying ideology of tyranny and subjugation of freedoms and human rights (the same that have already been enshrined as universal in 48 'of the last century).
But is it possible to speak of universally recognized human rights, enshrining past-for example, of particular ideological purposes? The gestures are always universal declarations of principles are philosophical propositions about those values \u200b\u200bwhich we believe we should be able to agree to live better. Seems to be recommended for any company to seek progress in terms of social justice to adhere to the principles stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. And to think in universal terms and non-exclusive particular, and on its implementation: not think that statement is fine for the U.S., but not to Cuba, for example. Thus, if in some parts of the world practice the stones to kill the infidel women, if you like to stone women, should condemn such a situation beyond the "respect" for cultural diversity and self-determination of peoples and not caring what sign is the government ideology concerned that permits such violations of human rights, because there are values \u200b\u200bthat are above that cultural or ideological diversity, universal values \u200b\u200bthat are always human constructions and not have to do with the "natural" or with "Platonic essences" - I believe are worth defending on behalf of all humanity (and no one feels a "white bourgeois West" who just wants to impose values \u200b\u200bon the rest of the world. Life and victims are more important than speeches, "justifying "death and the perpetrators). The best of man is exactly as it transcends collective self is given to some defend basic values \u200b\u200bconsidered. There is the greatness of gestures as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I invite you to think about what happens in Cuba to resume reading from such declaration.
Then the fact that Cuba has good levels of education, health and food does not justify anything about the continuing violation that the Castro regime on human rights causes. We can not keep throwing all the time "justification" of this kind, which are false opposition gross fallacies. For example, in U.S. there is a very good level in these items and yet cut its hawkish foreign policies have repeatedly violated human rights. For these sides of the world has heard from some people who lived during the dictatorship because there was barbaric crime and that economic shocks are not passed. So, beware believe that the achievements of some social indicators may have under a dictatorship justified its existence and defense. And freedom, well, not only be having a meal, to go to a doctor or be educated. And of course that people can choose if they want tyranny, but from there to applaud such a fact means the end of all forms of defense of freedom and critical exercise of resistance to injustice. How can we keep looking the other way and do not condemn anything what is happening in Cuba at the level of repression and violation of human rights, because "art" have good coverage and good school performance? Is that all values \u200b\u200bare relative to our ideological sympathy and then it's okay to do human rights "filters" and "justifications" as our ideological parameters? Is it to implement a blind eye depending on who commits the crime is "of mine" or "outsiders" in the blind dichotomy of "good" and "bad"? It seems that some rights are valid only when judging the "bad and powerful ", but are relieved to be met by Fidel Castro and company (by the way, I can hardly believe how some people is more important to Fidel Castro and his ideology, Fidel Castro and his" struggle "against" imperialism "that the average Cuban, that the type of meat and bone, that shot by the regime, that prisoners in Cuban jails for thinking differently, that lack of freedoms of an entire people that actually suffer from the dictatorship) .
left would be good old romantic myths leave his side and finally took the failure of the Cuban revolutionary company and its becoming a mere repressive authoritarianism. Capable to recommend and support the democratic life for the brother people of Cuba, respect for liberties and human rights and strongly condemns all practices contrary to these values. It is sad to see the degree of human indifference and alienation that achieve ideological right-thinking and supportive "buddy" when trying to show that the condemnation of the lack of freedom and authoritarianism prevailing in the case of Cuba is simply part of a speech "neoliberal" or "right." How long we'll keep playing down the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom in the case of authoritarian governments who call themselves socialists? How long we will maintain the blindness to look the other way, and simply appeal to label as "liberal", "pro-imperialist" or "right" people to condemn the lack of freedom in countries like Cuba? How long, when challenged ourselves on the roads continues to take repressive Castro dictatorship, let's consider the "freedom" is a dirty word used by "neoliberal" to follow "dominated"? It is true that human rights are part of an ideology, like all discourse, as any review of the world, but the problem appears to be that the "ideology of the powerful" we want to impose a particular human rights discourse to condemn the "revolutionary experience" in Cuba but that since stores ideological humanist values \u200b\u200brelated to adhere to the idea that it is correct violating human rights in both happen to be "justifiable", or "minor issue "- compared to the" ultimate goal "of trying to reach the highest values \u200b\u200bthat lead to a better world to end imperialism, poverty and all forms of injustice (is curious, moreover, is still visible in Castro and company spokesman of such a task. For years they have given up all ideology and has been the only effective yet fervent speech to the masses you are trying to justify their stay in power and "necessary" crackdown on "dissidents")
will come a time when Cuba is free and people can live and free to decide their fate. That freedom should never be a problem of "different views policies", but a universal value that exceeds the governments and ideologies of time, because we should not judge whether or not someone restricts freedoms if it violates human rights or not as a rich country, poor, or more "related" or not our ideology.
not ever want to load my conscience with the accession to dictatorship of any kind, whether left, right, center, up or down. Many This generation still have the backpack laden with praise at the time what was happening behind the Iron Curtain. When Cuba finally regaining their freedom, when the Castro regime will finally be judged by history, not be a holiday for those who practiced various forms of commitment and complicity. The recent death of Orlando Zapata also theirs. To them, I wonder: how much complicity with the dictatorship in Cuba?

How To Suck The Nipples For Husbands

and philosophy, among Quino and Foucault

Dear, despite his 45 years, Mafalda strip-chart best known of the talented Joaquin Lavado (alias "Quino") has done, continues to be an eternal girl, sweet and inquisitive. And on the radio program Alphabet Soup (led by Paul Silva Olazabal and produced by Gustavo Germain. More info at: http://blogdelasopa.blogspot.com) have devoted an entire week of tributes, culminating on Friday with the idea of \u200b\u200btalking about possible links between Mafalda and Philosophy. And for the occasion we were invited in Philosophy and Mr. Horacio Bernardo writer and the writer of these lines.
I invite you to listen online, here at the files placed a little below-the two central blocks of the program, waiting for your comments and extensions on the theme. And before moving on to audio, they advance excerpts cut from the first operation we had with Horace in the program: Horacio Bernardo

"Quino refers to something that at least to me in my reading is very direct as is Foucault, for example, just talking power, the microphysics of power. (...) Each small act is a political exercise that was talking about Quino. I think that is also present in micro Mafalda. The characters are crossed by micropowers "

" Felipe I think one of the most complex, precisely because it is crossed as powers of two hundred million. What are the micro-powers? For example, school. The school is a place of power, micropower. Then, like any school as Mafalda, for example, and some do not. A Manolito Felipe and dislikes, and get a case .. The family is another area of \u200b\u200bmicropower. Is the set of parents. Mafalda's parents are the most appear, but also reproduces, for example, Mickey's family, the mother will not let him do such a thing, just another "

" The position taken by characters in the wake of these powers that traverse the range defined. For example, Mafalda and Liberty are questioned. Manolito y Susanita swallowed whole cultural model without eating or drinking. In contrast, characters such as Mickey and Felipe are ambiguous. "

Pablo Romero: " If you have at home a little Mafalda can get pretty complicated life. Reflections quite acidic, the permanent questions. And in the case of Mafalda's parents, the father arrives - the tired office worker trying to escape some of the world and is just all the questioning about the world that child, the mother, in turn, leading microclimate that home life, which is rather concerned about maintaining cleanliness and order and the unstructured Mafalda all the time and in turn puts it, somehow, in these lives that can become those of a middle class with few ambitions and a species life miserable. Can you imagine back and meet Mafalda tired after having had a good session of several hours and meet with one of those questions that you posed Mafalda? "

" I'm going to lean more by Miguelito. I think it's the one who has perhaps deeper philosophical. It seems that several of the cartoons appear to some questions that seem a bit silly and abstract, which is what philosophers do: ask questions that seem a bit silly and abstract but are scratching their depth. I also think that is the most selfish and solipsistic. "

This is just one part of a talk half-hour and where, of course, also missed reading some of the juicy strips of Mafalda to justify the arguments. I hope you are encouraged to listen to grabacióny leave comments. Mafalda
still seems better than ever at 45 years ...

Here is the recording of the program-and n If you have any technical problems with playback on this blog, use these two links: http://www.goear .com/listen/899c9cd/mafalda-y-la-filosofãa-pablo-romero-y-horacio-bernardo (1 ª part) http://www.goear.com/listen/0c3985c/mafalda-y-la- philosophy,-part-2-horacio-bernardo-y-pablo-rosemary (2 Part) - divided into two parts:

Part

( double click on the Play icon. It takes about 10 seconds to start the audio )

Part

Store To Get Fake Contacts

President Mujica, a pragmatic liberal chess

The first speech as president José Mujica made in Parliament may have left something of a surprise to most, beyond or not there are explicit and public recognition in this regard. While the more radical left-from-left daily La Juventud to point marked indignation Mujica was "more of the same" and titled its editorial "A desalambrar to desalambrar! but, for international capital, further entangled in outdated and worn out slogans, we need more official media (the newspaper La República) declined to comment on those aspects that could be ideologically somewhat uncomfortable for any militant (and perhaps for many of its voters) of the Frente Amplio, particularly those referring to the more pragmatic edge of liberal stamp and for a macro linked to a vortex of contemporary capitalism as possible within that highlighted the new president. And to further contribute to a state of surprise, the press more closely linked to the right was almost effusively enthusiastic speeches by Mujica, highlighting precisely those aspects of the speech that bothered both the radical left and the left more "official enthusiastically" avoided referring.
For those who have been following the ideological avatars Mujica, however, nothing surprised us presidential address these issues more clearly linked to pragmatism and political liberalism, old bad words in the imaginary have always sustained and promoted by the local left.
Similarly, we were surprised not more of the statements Mujica held in this effect in the controversial book "Pepe Talks" so celebrated by the local right and so eagerly tried to conceal, correct, or ignore leaders and activists of the left (even for the same Mujica at the time, by the way). Although we do have to say that he ended up closing their flirtations and petty intrigues of "bedroom" with some of the most militant, and less moderate-del Frente Amplio, more akin to give this second administration of FA strongly marked a shift towards the old slogans of the left "historic", sitting still in the discourse of class conflict and struggle. In particular, its relationship with the old "bar" former fellow guerrilla adventures and the most Sixties of MPP, but above all, with the minority Communist Party, which despite having little national vote is very strong in the outdated, elitist and unrepresentative of the internal organizational scaffolding Frente Amplio .
But his public goodbye to the bar, its finally clear and decisive approach to the policy of Vázquez-Astori and representatives of a modern left in the center of the political spectrum, who can grow efficiently with all the recipes and rules global capitalist economic and then dump the fruits harvested in social policies, together with a better justice distributive-and his first speeches as president made clear some political strategies and alliances necessary Mujica learned to play brilliantly. Zorro old Mujica has already stated in the book Pepe Talks need to have the favor of the Communist Party, knowing of their weight in the Congress of the internal frontage, but especially knowing that handle much of the shop floor, or the more conservative and bureaucratic sector that has the Uruguayan State. And this is central, because Mujica and raised in that book that his plan was bolder in taking forward the mother of all reforms: the reform of the state. Nothing more and nothing less than the space where they end up failing president after president. And it was clear that this should take a different path of Vasquez, who did not have the necessary political waist to know how to deal successfully with militant bases unionized, and bolted to the state apparatus. Mujica movements were other, typical of a brilliant political chess. Although there are to do, of course, how to finally end the current game.
Today, the minority Communist Party has a ministry (of Social Development) and nothing more, nothing less than the government of the Municipality of Montevideo (since, except a political earthquake is almost impossible not won the FA again quartermaster capital city in May.) And having the city government's own second importance of government in the country. Disproportionate power space for a sector that barely had the votes just for a single senator. Why, then, that excessive condescension Mujica for the PCU? Child policy, the moves "underground" and the political intrigues have historically been characteristic of the PCU (incidentally, always faced the industry since Mujica MPP) and survival motor and militant power, but this time they have faced chameleon-like figure and political skills that have our spectrum of political leaders: the new president of all Uruguayans, the man who time and again has been reconfigured and adapted to the circumstances, the survivor to urban guerrilla times, the survivor to jail and torture of military dictatorship, the man who was able to adapt to the rules of liberal democracy and disdain that before he fought against the radical recycling emerge as a moderate social democrat, with a look at the reality astonishing to old comrades in arms (Zabalza walks around his old comrade in arms, saying Mujica "has no roots"), which leaves her speechless most bitter rivals on the right, those who are unable to carry out management, and sustain a credible discourse about it, which finally represents a political theory and a particular model of government, which synthesizes the best of liberalism and socialism, the waning and erroneous dichotomy that so many still believe the world.

Indeed, part of the subtle play that makes Mujica in their efforts to reform the state and deal with the shop floor is to put the PCU in the IMM. Who better than sector trade union base to face ADEOM excellence, the union more corporate, conservative and radical that exists in the state sector, anchored right in the most important provincial government? Whoever wins or loses you lose this tug of war, will gain the initiative power Mujica deal effectively with the grassroots trade union to perform the intended reform. The IMM can be the political grave to the PCU or ADEOM defeat at the hands of political opponents like himself and therefore, more difficult, it has had to face. Perhaps time
point out that "in those instances historic FA Congress in late 2008 ahead of selecting the candidate" official "- the almost obsessive zeal of the militants' bases-particularly the communists, to close the road to Astori candidate of the FA, by calling him a desire just to own pragmatic and liberal, too according to the prevailing macro-economy, did nothing but pave the way to more pragmatic and politically liberal of potential candidates.
Mujica is a liberal in the classical political sense (and in more than one occasion has defined precisely in these terms) and a man with a vision quite pragmatic about political life that has left both motives (his ideological liberalism pragmatism) of seeing the world from the barren lands of the ideology of conflict and the all or nothing. Indeed, on the latter referred in his first speech as president, well worth quoting his words:

"(...) we believe that this idea of \u200b\u200bcomplementarity between the social parts, is best suited to reality. We believe that the diagnosis of consensus and convergence is more correct than conflict "

" A while ago we all learned that the battle for the all or nothing, are the best way so that nothing changes and everything pond. We want a life policy to the conclusion and the sum, because we really want to change reality. "

Overcoming ongoing conflict theories (with the obvious common questions, meaning that for all at this point I guess it must be clear that life is conflict and there are competing interests at all levels and orders. But the issue is beyond that stage by way of dialogue and agreement and not by way accentuate the disagreement based on non-permanent dialogue with the "ideological enemy"), open spaces of debate and overcome the conservatism (Conservatives are certainly, as you said Mujica, who want "change" slogans from reality "revolutionary" of the conflict and all or nothing).
This, of course, requires end to banish political practices imposed on the screams and the romance of the "heroes of classes." Is needed in any case, another form of "heroism" and "courage", much more difficult to implement. Well, what is needed is dialogue calm, respect for differences, prioritize the way of argument, persuasion based on good ideas, as essential space of democratic maturity. Above all, it takes more than class interest and the ongoing conflict, individuals who think and act beyond, to think effectively in the community property. And as you said in that first speech Mujica:

"None of this is achieved by shouting. Just look at the countries that are ahead in these areas and you will see that most of them have a peaceful political life. With little epic, few heroes and few villains. (...) To achieve this we are convinced it takes a civilized political coexistence

Courage is needed to carry out this great reform of state proposing Mujica and involves face their own political bases. And although so far there has been more than presidential defeat in that area, their intentions and challenges were also scored in that first speech:

"That honesty and courage will be needed to carry out the State planning policies. To agree we have to lower our respective positions and averaged with the others. And that means trouble mandatory cuts in our political bases. That will be a test of courage. "

And there, also this will digest not only the "villains" are corrupt, that the bureaucracy does not match, you have to put aside the moral arrogance that often appears when we assign a priori a label of "good" and possessors of ultimate truths, and learn those lessons that we impose the limits of reality, including the macroeconomy and the limits of finite financial resources. And rang clear and strong words about Mujica:

"For its part the Frente Amplio, and now challenging transitional eternal champion, had to accept harsh lessons, not the voters but of reality. We found that rule was far more difficult than we thought, that fiscal resources are finite and infinite social demands.
That bureaucracy has its own life, that macroeconomics is unpleasant but mandatory rules.
And we even had to learn, with much pain and shame, that not all our people were immune to corruption. "

" A neat Macroeconomics is a prerequisite for everything else. We will be serious expenditure management, handling serious deficits, serious monetary policy and more serious, dogs, in monitoring the financial system. Let me put it in a provocative way: we shall be orthodox in macroeconomics. (...) I once wanted to be in Antarctica, and produce everything within their borders. We were wrong, very wrong. No criminal would learn from those pains and return to a cage and closed economy to the world. "

Also important was his defense of private worker, whom he described as the real affected by the economic crisis that inaugurated the twenty-first century:

" Similarly, the Uruguayan society has protected their public servants far more than private workers. Recall that in the crisis of 2002 and 2003, nearly 200 000 people lost their jobs and nothing was a public official. An estimated 200 000 were other cuts in their salaries, and they were all private workers. "

And not in vain, finally Mujica also said in his speech that:

"(...) to rule starts to create the political conditions to govern."

And in that sense has been moving into the arenas of local politics talented chess player, both to the opposition parties as to the sectors of their own party that often hamper the task.
The day after the primaries, I wrote an article entitled "Between Mujica and Lacalle, Vaz Ferreira vote" and the next day's victory in presidential elections Mujica one entitled "The day after the presidential election." The first argued the importance of the political center and balances, the need to abandon the old dichotomies of ideology and policy seek to overcome the fatal state partidocracia Uruguay. In the second, celebrated Mujica gesture at the time of winning, just calling to find these balances with the opposition and declaring that it would immediately set to work committees aimed at generating further state policies of political parties (specific factual and weeks before his inauguration, with inter-party committees working on four core issues: education, environment, safety and energy). Mujica also said that "could be the one to take a historic step in achieving break the old habit of governing Uruguayan politician without the other, not the loser in this dichotomy of left vs. right. Time will tell. And the political will, of course. " Good to know that things are heading in this direction, which stated that it is vital Mujica rule "to generate changes to the long term," to "create conditions for rule 30 with state policies," more important than one party rule is "a party system, so wise and so powerful, capable of generating sealed tunnel running through the various chairs of the different parties, and there, for those tunnels, are untouched the main strategic lines of the big issues, but those who live politics as a supporter fan from the stands of the stadium, find it almost intolerable restraint so democratic.

is not the time to only "home for all (and less than tragic," or no ") but also" home to all. " There is less removal and replacement added, with a corresponding change of direction and commendable Mujica-tested at the time of his speech to the historic MLN formula that read "There will be a homeland for everyone or for nobody." I wish that "all" can crystallize. It is difficult but not impossible. At least worth a try