30 September 2009

Egg On His (& Our) Face

The egg splatted against the "Inversión $8.2 millones" sign to the right of (non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño. Missed him by 2 feet. Lousy throw. The poor marksman, an unemployed man, was carted away while he yelled at The Larva, who rushed to an official vehicle and whined--whined, I tell you--to the press that "You didn't protect me."

Oh, please.

As expected, the man now faces three charges, one of which is something called "assault on a public official" and, as expected, a local newsrag poll revealed that some 68% of the respondents didn't think the man should face any charges. The same newsrag's previous poll had some 68% of the respondents supporting a Constitutional amendment to impeach The Larva.

Oh, please.

I'll be blunt. For a change.

--Throwing an egg is an act intended to humiliate, not harm. It is an expression of anger, disdain, disrespect, contempt and maybe even a sense of humor. Does The Larva deserve any or all of these? Yes. He's a spineless twit. 'Nuff said.

--Does the egg-slinger deserve to be charged? Yes, if nothing else for impinging on the dignity of the governor's office. But it frosts My scrotum to see the dignity (if there is any left) of the office being pissed on by the spineless twit and he doesn't get charged with anything.

--So, Jenius, do you support a Constitutional amendment to impeach said twit? No. Our Constitution is very clear on what constitutes grounds for impeachment and The Larva is guilty under none of it. So far. However, he is guilty of being a spineless twit, a namby-pamby, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual coward who has the unmitigated absence of cojones to whine that the press is "supposed to protect him." Uh-uh. They may not know what their job is, but they know full well serving as your bodyguard ain't part of the job description.

The buzz about this incident, as My Genius Friend Kevin Shockey put it, is full of nuances. Yes, people are losing their jobs and yes, that is tragic. Yes, that anger will increase as unions go out on strike, studnets protest and the whole job-reduction shebang rolls on, for it must. Yes, Our social fabric--never as tightly-knit as We think--is rapidly unraveling. 

But We deserve it, for We created this mess in the first place.

Want to see how? Take the teachers. Please. (Couldn't help Myself. But take them.) They are protesting the job cuts when it is very clear--very, very clear--that the jobs cut so far are to their benefit.

The local excuse for an Education Department has a ratio of 51/49 teachers-to-administrators and the deadweight 49% of the personnel account for 62% of the wages and benefits of the entire Department. (Please explain what that means to teachers; I'm moving on.) So firing these people actually means that teachers will be better off on a budgetary basis. They should be advocating more and deeper cuts to use that money to have a greater impact in the classroom.

But do they see that? Hell no. These frauds who can barely pass an 8th grade reading test are so caught up in the "Let's not work and still get paid" frenzy of political partytime that they can never see the truth: The cuts help the educational system. And furthermore, next to police, they will be the last to go. And We will never get that far.

Not only did We create the educational mess We are in, We created the whole "bloated government" thing as well. And the "welfare parasite" thing. And the "busted economy" thing. And any other "thing" you want to throw into the current cesspool as well. Some folks want to blame the U.S. of part of A. for all this; they're welcome to, but the lion's share of this mess is Ours. And there's no denying it.

We elected vermin and kept electing them until they ran roughshod over Us. We allowed idiots to replace effective solutions with self-interested schemes. We allowed freeloading under the guise of "We earn it," a notion so abysmally stupid it can only be compared to destroying a village in order to save it. We created this cesspool, We have lain in it for decades, and now when the chickens--and their eggs--come home to roost, We refuse to accept Our role in all this and demand more...as if We have earned it.

Many people are concerned over the families and individuals affected by these job cuts and those projected to come. Yes, people are being placed in difficult situations. The common argument is that "This could have been done in some other way." Yes, that's true, but no matter how it was to be done, and it had to be, no one would ever be satisfied. I can't help but point out that if you want to make an omelet, you absolutely have to break some eggs.

Only if We'd realized it earlier, We'd not have eggs tossed at a twit and less egg on Our faces right now.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

28 September 2009

When Jobs = Waste

If adding 100 jobs in Department A will generate 1,000 units of income, but cost 7,000 units of expense, is this a good deal?

And if the described deal got worse over time, where your 1,000 units of income now cost more than 14,000 units of expense, would you keep it going? For 40 years?

Welcome to the empirical experiment in "Jobs = Waste" known as the Puerto Rican Political Economic System. Grab a seat: this is a bumpy ride.

Replace the phrase "units of income" for "tax dollars" and you will have a framework for the disaster I'll discuss here. The basic premise is that government jobs do not really help build an economy and that Puerto Rico's moronic fixation on increasing the number of government jobs--masquerading as an "economic plan"--has led Us to the brink of disaster.

Also known as the Luis "The Larva" Fortuño (non)government.

The late 1960s' estimate of the cost of a government job, when measured in tax dollars, was 1-to-7, in other words, every dollar a government worker received in salary and benefits equaled 7 tax dollars in direct and indirect expenses. This was at a time when the local salary package was about $8,100 a year, so the cost of having that goverment worker was about $57,000.

Obviously, We don't each pay enough in taxes to directly cover that much expense per worker, but that's what tax revenues and other government fees are for: to cover public project and public process costs. 

Now spend the next 40 years adding government workers--who are an expense--while simultaneously reducing the overall tax base and limiting potential private sector business growth. What will that lead to? A bloated government and not enough money to pay for it.

Welcome to the empirical yadda yadda yadda.

Government jobs, that sinecure of mediocre, senescent and feeble minds (sometimes known as "the teacher's union"), are an economic boost on paper only and only with the "lies, damn lies an statistics" factor thrown in. It boils down to three factors:

1) As noted, a government job is a government expense. There is no such thing as a "profitable" government job for the government is not a profit-centric entity. (When it is, there's usually a dictator involved.) There's only "efficient " government jobs and efficiency is never achieved by endlessly increasing the number of workers.

2) Government workers are not production, they are either maintenance or administration. To simplify, the government doesn't "sell" (costs + profit), it serves (cost.) (I'm speaking in ideal, abstract terms. In reality, governments serve themselves and the devil take the hindmost.) For a government to operate well and serve its higher purpose, it must balance costs with revenues, with costs being determined by a limited--limited, people--set of services based on common defense (military, police, courts), common infrastructure (roads, public buildings, airports, ports), common administration (laws, offices, elections) and common revenue collection (taxes and fees). The government only supervises or supports what the private sector builds or operates within the legal framework of the state. That is how an economy is built, not by making the government the job-creator to replace the private sector.

3) The government can become bloated by failing to understand (often willfully) Point #2 and because Point #1 is rendered irrelevant by recourse to "public deficit," "extraconstitutional debt" or "pettifoggery." Hence, welcome to Puerto Rico, the empirical yadda yadda yadda.

Note I did not include "education" in the four services of Point #2. It doesn't belong there. Having the government control education is an excessive and unneeded intrusion, not to mention a demonstrably colossal waste of tax monies. But under the "common defense" factor, the government can (and should thus limit itself) to developing general standards for what will constitute a "well-prepared citizen for national progress" and let citizens--individuals and groups--decide on how best to develop said future citizens. 

The increase in ratio from 1-to-7 all the way up to 1-to-14 is based on the increasingly heavy expenses needed to sustain the overly-complex government bureaucracy, higher wages and benefit packages (especially consultants and legislative greed-bags), a reduced corporate tax base giving incentives away willy-nilly and--here it comes--corruption. A former Ethics Office director estimated the cost of corruption in Our government to be about 10% of the total budget, or about a billion tax dollars a year. Uh-huh. And McDonald's has sold millions of greasy burgers...

Any way you slice it, by shuffling tax dollars around like pieces of confetti, We have proven over four decades that goverment jobs = waste. Human waste. (heeheehee...I couldn't help Myself...) But don't take My word for it:

"Economic growth results from producing more goods and services (not from redistributing existing [government] income), and that requires productivity growth and growth in the labor supply. A government's impact on economic growth is, therefore, determined by its policies' effect on labor productivity and labor supply."

Or take these:

"Before you go away thinking I’m opposed to all government jobs, I understand there are a great many public works jobs that are useful, even essential. Government monies (read: taxes we’ve paid) which get channelled into public projects like highways, bridges, parks, water and sewer services, etc. represent reasonable and proper ways to spend our money. You can even include the paper-pushers who are needed to keep public projects organized, documented and running efficiently. (I speak idealistically, of course, as there certainly is nothing efficient about the current bureaucratic behemoth…)

The point is simple: it’s only jobs in the private sector, in the areas of manufacturing, sales, service, construction and repair, that are the generators of economic growth, health and wealth. The vast majority of the jobs Obama is proposing and trying to create (whether actual agency jobs within the government, or hirings by private companies using government funds offered as incentive to hire) will invariably cost taxpayer money just to create them, and then more taxpayer money to sustain them. The process becomes a black hole – collect taxpayer money, spend it to ‘create’ jobs for which there is no consumer demand, sustain them with more taxpayer money, tax that new job along with the rest of us, ‘create’ some more jobs, raise taxes to sustain all those ‘new jobs’ — I think you see how the very concept requires a constant raising of taxes and draining of resources to maintain the ludicrous cycle of bogus job creation and sustainance."

Oh, yes, there's an Obama reference in that second quote. Maybe it will serve as a wake-up call before the U.S. of part of A. also joins Puerto Rico as an empirical yadda yadda yadda.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

25 September 2009

Shoo The Messenger

Today the innocent excuse We suffer under as a (non)governor, Luis 'The Larva" Fortuño announced the layoffs of some 16,970 government workers, including the elimination of some small agencies created or developed by opposition party governors.

Nothing like fairness, huh?

Oh, why "innocent excuse"? Because The Larva is a governor like saliva is a building material. And apparently no one voted for the guy, so We're all "innocent" for his lack of presence in La Fortaleza.

Let Me go through some aspects of this situation:

1) The Larva didn't have the cojones to deliver his namby-pamby pablum in person--i.e., live--but did so in a pre-taped snoozer of a speech. It is far from debatable that The Larva is not a good leader: he is atrocious, lacking presence, charisma, vision and passion. So you'd think he'd try every method possible to get his point across by at least "facing the people." Nope. Like a slug under salt, he wilted.

2) How bad a leader is The Larva? The numbers say he is right. I repeat: The numbers say he is right. Our tumor of a government is too bloated and too burdensome to continue. It is killing Us. It needs to be slashed or We forfeit what's left of Our future in the debris of a bureaucratic collapse caused by excess spending, excess taxation, corruption and a degrading economy. In spite of this, The Larva comes off as doing something "optional," like he's some sort of narrow-shouldered geeky fiend of evil. He isn't: he's just way out of his (little) league. His only tactic should have been to drum the numbers into Our eyes, ears and psyche, day after day, until the message of "We have to do something with government" became a mental tattoo that his many opponents would have enormous difficulty fighting. Hell, The Larva is a registered right-wing Republican; if anyone knows how to drum a truth--or more often, a lie--into a propaganda fortress it's right-wing Republicans. That The Larva can't even try to do that is a testament to his lack of vision and will.

3) And Let's point out that The Larva is the end-product of overwhelming stupidity, criminal lack of national economic vision and deeply-inbred government corruption. His biggest fault has been that he inherited the Titanic after the deck had tilted 20 degrees. Although The Larva was Secretary of Economic Development at one time and he did have a direct hand in screwing Our economy up even further...

Here's the process in a nutshell: The statehood party that The Larva presides over on paper only, wins in 1968--surprising even themselves--and then-pseudo-governor Luis "The Fuzzy Obstacle" Ferré start padding government offices to "satisfy" jobs growth requirements. (More on this piece of idiocy in My next post.) Every governor after that--along with every foolish Fool in Our Fools' Paradise of Fooldom--pads government payrolls to play "voter keepaway" in every misadministration since.* Our economy is gutted over a 40-year period by blindly pursuing a failed manufacturing base that was disappearing everywhere and We stupidly believe that "government job growth" is actual progress. When the world economy goes bust, Our national nightmare is truly revealed. And The Larva has to deal with it.

Oh hell.

[* Don't give Me any sewage bilge about Pedro Stupid Rosselló reducing the size of government: he didn't. What he did was expand the number of "external" agencies and employees as "contracted expenses" and then quadrupled the size of the farcical "extra-constitutional debt." Basically, he didn't count thousands of new government workers and "hid" their often-generous salaries and benefits through "political" accounting, a.k.a., government theft.]

Verdict? The Larva is not to blame for the situation We face, at least not all of it. We had this coming and We face even more to truly get out of this abyss. But he is responsible for his mismanagement of it, his utter lack of adequacy to deal with this in any cogent and even remotely effective manner. 

I'm not saying We shoot the messenger: I'm saying he's so pathetic that it's best We treat him as beneath contempt. At least that way We can start saying good-bye to him less than year from his "victory."

The Jenius Has Spoken. 

23 September 2009

William Ubiñas Taylor: Convict...AND DUI?

"William Ubiñas pled guilty to DUI this past month of June, 2009...who doesn't believe this, can go to the Toa Alta Courthouse and ask for the record of William Ubiñas Taylor...a convicted drunkard backed by Chardón. P.S. the record is public."

That was from an Anonymous comment left on My post Carlito's Way Ward, apparently concerning the convict occupying the seat of Director of the Federal Affairs Office for the local Department of Miseducation. 

Now this merits some documentation, so let's begin with the office-occupying convict's name: Is it really "William Ubiñas Taylor"? 

Take a look at this recent document, signed by none other than the convict's Behemoth Booster, current unsecretary of miseducation Carlitos Chardón. (Go ahead; I'll wait...)

Maybe you want to download it, so do that here.

Maybe you want to print it, so do that here.

Now what are the odds of two people in Puerto Rico having the same name "William Ubiñas Taylor"? 

What remains to be done is for Me--or someone equally trustworthy--to zip by the Toa Alta Courthouse and simply request said case file, an apparent guilty plea to a DUI charge by one William Ubiñas Taylor.

Could it be that the convict representing Carlitos and The Larva before the Feds is an imbiber-driver? Could one William Ubiñas Taylor have repeated his penchant for pleading guilty? Could it be?

I'm all a-tingle...

The Jenius Has Spoken.

21 September 2009


Wrote a post titled Carlitos Way Ward some time ago. Got some attention then.

Some time later, an anonymous poster accused Me of "persecuting" the convict for personal reasons. It's in Spanish, as was his/her latest response to My response, again accusing Me of acting out a "personal vengeance" against the convict.

I responded again, but this time My response exceeded the character limit for the Comments page. Therefore, in a first for The Jenius, I am posting an extensive writing largely in Spanish. For those who don't "habla the lingo," here's the Cliff Notes version: Maritsu is wrong and wrong-headed.


Gracias por identificarse...en parte. Y curioso teclado en inglés que tiene "ñ" disponible y no los acentos...

El que usted dice que conoce el récord de este tipo hace que su defensa de él sea incomprensible para Mí...aunque entendible al notar que comete el error de achacarle su ofensa a los 17 cuando en realidad él se declaró culpable a los 18. En algunos lugares eso designa un adulto y un adulto se defiende por sí mismo, no a través de sombras. Y como parece que no leyó el documento cuyo enlace aparece en Mi escrito, lo citaré:

"The investigation confirmed that in 1974, while an 18 year old student at Auburn University in Alabama, Ubiñas was convicted in Lee County, Alabama of the crimes of Sale of Cocaine and Possession of Marijuana, both felonies. Mr. Ubiñas falsely denied these convictions on at least four separate documents: first, in applying for a Massachusetts teaching certificate on June 20, 1984; second, in applying for a Massachusetts teaching certificate on June 5, 1989; third, in applying for a teaching certificate from the New York State Education Department on June 19, 1990; and fourth in completing a "Fingerprint Processing Referral" form for the Board of Education in the City of New York in connection with his application for the Superintendency on August 2, l990." [Reporte STANCIK Caso 91-460, 19 de junio de 1991, páginas 1-2, énfasis añadido.]

Déjeme citar la primera parte otra vez, como aparece en la página 4: "On May 30, 1974, Ubiñas pled guilty to the Sale of Cocaine and to Possession of Marijuana, both felonies. The Sale of Marijuana charge was dismissed."

De que eso pasó a los 18 años de edad usted lo usa como excusa. Déjeme orientarla: No lo es. Estamos hablando de un educador--o al menos alguien que recibe un cheque de un departamento de educación--que tuvo el mal juicio de pensar que vender drogas sería una buena idea. Mal juicio de ese tipo no es excusa a los 18...y mucho menos a su edad.

Ahora pasemos a lo que hizo este tipo luego de los 18:

"On April 25, 1991, Ubiñas requested an opportunity to discuss the matter of his prior convictions (sic) with the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Investigation. A meeting was set for April 26, 1991 at which time Ubiñas appeared in this office with his lawyer, John Horan, and produced copies of the Lee County Circuit Court papers concerning his 1974 convictions. During this meeting he stated that he was a young student at the time of the convictions and that he had become involved with the "wrong crowd". He made a mistake but felt that the mistake should not follow him around for the rest of his life. He had simply put the matter behind him which is why he had denied any criminal convictions when he was fingerprinted.

He admitted that he had falsely denied the convictions at the time he was fingerprinted in August of 1990, and admitted further that he had made a similar false statement in applying for his certificate from the State Department of Education. He stated that he had not been asked about prior convictions in connection with the education related positions he held in Massachusetts.

Mr. Ubiñas was again interviewed on June 19, 1991. On this occasion he reviewed the Massachusetts Teacher's Certificate applications and the "Fingerprint Processing Referral" form, copies of which are attached here as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. He acknowledged having answered the inquiries about criminal convictions in the negative and having signed his name to the documents.
" (Enfasis añadido.)

Déjeme explicarle esto: Mintió 4 veces, bajo juramento, sobre su récord criminal, y cuando lo confrontaron con ese hecho, mintió de nuevo diciendo que no había sido cuestionado sobre ese asunto anteriormente...y lo confrontaron con esa otra mentira también. 

Encima de esto, se canta víctima de "malas influencias" y con el sonido de tristes violines en el aire cuestiona por qué esta convicción lo tiene que seguir por el resto de su vida. Esa es fácil: porque cometistes un crimen, so convicto.

En ese momento, este tipo tenía 34-35 años de edad y estaba mostrando múltiples ejemplos de mal juicio de nuevo. Me imagino que eso usted--de nuevo--lo encuentra excusable. Que amable usted...


"Dr. Anthony Cavanna is the Deputy Superintendent of CSD 1, having assumed that position at the time that Ubiñas became Superintendent. He was interviewed on May 7 and May 10, 1991. He stated that he met Ubiñas shortly before the two started in their new jobs on August 1, 1990. On August 30, 1990, while in the CSD 1 office, Ubiñas approached Cavanna and asked him to sign a guaranty for a $2,000-a-month lease Ubiñas was hoping to obtain for an apartment at 377 Rector Street in Manhattan. Cavanna already knew from prior conversations with Ubiñas that Ubiñas was living in an apartment pursuant to a sublease that was about to expire, and that Ubiñas was thus under some pressure to find a new residence.

On August 30, 1990, Cavanna signed the lease guaranty.3 The next day Cavanna asked Ubiñas for a copy of the guaranty but did not receive one. A day or two later, Ubiñas told Cavanna that he would not need the guaranty after all as Ubinas's brother had lent him $6,000 to use in place of the guaranty. Ubiñas told Cavanna that he would have the guarantyreturned to him, but Cavanna never received it.

Diane Keris is a Management Agent with Milford Management, the company that manages 377 Rector Street. She stated that she had required a lease guaranty from Ubiñas after receiving a credit check showing that Ubiñas owed substantial sums of money. She accepted the guaranty signed by Cavanna and considers it binding, requiring Cavanna to pay Ubiñas's rent in the event Ubiñas fails to do so. Keris cannot recall any conversations with Ubiñas in which she was asked to return the guaranty.

When interviewed on June 19, 1991 Ubiñas confirmed having requested the lease guaranty from Cavanna. Ubiñas stated that Cavanna had helped him find the apartment and so Ubiñas had turned to Cavanna when he was told that he would need a guaranty. He recalled telling Cavanna that he was attempting to avoid the necessity of the guaranty by offering an additional security deposit on the apartment. Although that attempt was ultimately unsuccessful he does not recall having any further conversation with Cavanna about the lease guaranty.

The New York City Charter clearly proscribes the transaction between Ubiñas and Cavanna. The Conflict of Interest provisions at section 2604 (6)(14) prohibit a public servant from entering into any business or financial relationship with another public servant who is either a superior or subordinate of such public servant." (Enfasis añadido.)

Déjeme explicarle esto: Este tipo admitió que a menos de un mes de haberlo conocido, le había pedido a su subordinado una garantía por $2,000 mensuales para un apartamento--porque en su verificación de crédito aparecían deudas por "cantidades sustanciales de dinero"--y que subsiguiente a esto, "su hermano le había prestado $6,000", y que a pesar de eso, no había tan siquiera intentado devolver la garantía y así eximir a su subordinado de una posible deuda. 

A ese tipo de persona le dicen "fuerza 'e cara" en Mi barrio...En el suyo parece que le dicen "sacerdote"...

Este tipo de violación ética de la relación jefe-subordinado es evidencia de mal juicio...o al menos lo es para muchos de nosotros. Usted dirá si lo es para usted. Aunque quizás siga insistiendo que mal juicio en el pasado no es un pecado o algo por el estilo...


"On March 27, 1991, individuals associated with CSD 1 told investigators with this office that they, and others affiliated with CSD 1, suspected that Ubiñas used drugs. Allegations of a similar nature, which were made publicly, were reported in April and May of 1991. Ubiñas was described as "behaving erratically", as being "verbally abusive" to his staff, as experiencing sudden nose bleeds, and as having refused to take a drug test when that was requested of him by board members of CSD 1.4

Dr. Cavanna stated on May 10, 1991, that in August of 1990, when Ubiñas was notified that he would have to submit to a physical examination as part of his personnel processing, Ubiñas asked Cavanna whether the examination included a drug test. Cavanna responded that he did not know, at which point Ubiñas asked Cavanna to call the Board of Education to find the answer. Cavanna learned that the examination did not, in fact, include a drug test, and conveyed that information toUbiñas...

...On June 10, 1991, Ubiñas was asked by this office, through his attorney, to submit to a drug test that day. He declined to take the test. Ubiñas explained, through hisattorney, that he declined on the grounds that he was being "unfairly targeted" and that there was "no reasonable basis to support the allegation" that he used drugs." (Enfasis añadido.)

Déjeme explicarle esto: Varias personas que trabajaban a menudo con este tipo notaron comportamiento errático, sangrado nasal y ataques verbales contra ellos, al punto de comentarlo publicamente, alegando uso de drogas de parte de este tipo y el mismo se rehusó a pasar por una prueba de drogas. Es más, pregunta específicamente por pruebas de drogas como parte del procedimiento del empleo que acababa de comenzar. Confrontado con las alegaciones, nuevamente rehúsa hacerse una prueba de drogas, pero asume una postura de "víctima perseguida."

Déjeme explicarle esto: Si este tipo NO hubiese estado usando drogas, su defensa instantánea, inmediata e imbatible--y su camino a mucho, mucho dinero--hubiese sido mear en el primer recipiente limpio a la mano y enseguida entregar esa muestra al laboratorio más cercano. Y mientras esperaba por la certificación de "limpio," podía llamar a uno de los dos abogados que lo trataron de defender de haber mentido para que le prepararan varias demandas millonarias contra sus alegados perseguidores.

Si es que esos dos licenciados lo hubiesen aceptado como cliente otra vez...

Y si la objeción de este tipo a la prueba de drogas era por algún concepto "ideal" de derechos humanos--y su inocencia soportaba una prueba de laboratorio--comoquiera podía haber llevado su caso a los tribunales simplemente para proteger lo que le quedaba de reputación. El que no lo haya hecho, el que ni siquiera lo haya declarado en el Reporte como defensa potencial, da que pensar a muchos...pero no a usted.

Ahora bien, tiene evidencia de sobra, pero a diferencia del buen entendor, con usted tengo que añadir más palabras.


Tuve la desavencia de que un proyecto de tecnologia de Internet que estaba desarrollando con dos colegas cercanos fue llevado--por Carlitos "Way Ward" Chardón, a quien quizás haya oído mencionar--a las manos de este tipo. Carlitos le comentó a uno de mis colegas--frente a otro testigo--que había llevado el proyecto a este tipo "para ver si podía recuperar la inversión que hice con él." Dicho comentario fue confirmado por este tipo en otra conversación aparte sin que ninguno de nosotros haya mencionado el tema.

Durante el transcurso del proyecto--que no duró mucho por las razones que mencionaré ya mismo--este tipo Me comentó en 4 ocasiones y siempre frente a uno de Mis colegas, que "había tenido que rogarle a su hermano por dinero," mencionando en dos ocasiones que "le pedí otros $10,000," cantidad que dijo que había recibido. Como desarrollador del proyecto, pregunté en diferentes momentos para ver en qué se podía haber estado gastando el dinero: el carro Me dijo que era prestado, que no pagaba renta, la empresa de videoconferencia que representaba confirmé que no requería una inversión tan alta y preguntando de manera indirecta a personas en la misma oficina que lo conocían mejor que Yo, no podían decirme en qué gastaba su dinero, pero notaban que sí gastaba bastante.

En varias ocasiones, noté que este tipo se comportaba de manera errática, cambiando de estados de ánimo en segundos, apartándose con frecuencia del grupo reunido en varias ocasiones y regresando con su estado de ánimo alterado, o sea, más tranquilo. Y al caerse el proyecto al él alterarse y comportarse de manera hostíl--algo que Me parece que he leído también en otro lugar--personas afiliadas a este tipo en la misma oficina Me dijeron que "las loqueras" de él "tenían un precio" y cuando pregunté cómo lo pagaba, Me dijeron que "para eso tiene el hermano."

Quizás el mismo que le prestó $6,000 en 1991 le prestaba $10,000 par de veces años después.

Ahora bien, quizás el comportamiento de este tipo se debe a problemas emocionales, físicos y/o mentales que nada tienen que ver con hábitos ilegales. Y quizás sus problemas de dinero se deben a simple falta de disciplina y/o capacidad de planificación financiera. Nada de eso es un pecado y aunque algunos aspectos pueden rayar en mal juicio, no todos llegan al punto de ser indefensibles. Pero eso no es el verdadero centro de este asunto. 

Usted Me acusa de "persecución" de este tipo. Pamplinas. Tengo el perfecto derecho de señalar la verdad cuantas veces quiera sobre alguien a quien Yo considero incompetente para ocupar el puesto gubernamental que tiene. A diferencia de los idiotas de la legislatura, cuya objeción a este tipo fueron mera pro forma, Yo coloco evidencia y razonamiento sobre el tapete para que quien quiera pueda formar su propio juicio.

Y a diferencia de usted, lo hago sin esconder quien Soy. 

Pero dejando a un lado la parte personal, mirémoslo de esta manera, la que expuse en Mi primer escrito: Dado que este tipo es un convicto, un mentiroso probado, un violador de estatutos de éticas y con una sombra laaarga de comportamiento errático en el ámbito profesional, ¿no había MAS NADIE en esta Isla que pudiese ser la cara de nuestro departamento de educación en los tan delicados asuntos de fondos federales? ¿MAS NADIE? ¿De veras?

No es posible. Yo puedo tirar una maldita piedra en el medio del Bosque Seco de Guánica y pegarle a tres iguanas salapastrosas que podrían presentar una imagen más profesional, más digna y menos equívoca que este tipo seleccionado por Carlitos el Politiquero.

Esa es Mi opinión, basado en los hechos y en Mis experiencias. Sé que estoy en lo correcto y que usted--por las razones que le vengan en gana--insiste que no lo estoy. Déjeme explicarle esto: el peso de la evidencia Me da la razón. Usted ni tiene evidencia, ni razón. Y además está equivocada.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

18 September 2009

More Not-So-Random Thoughts

---Our feeble excuse for a legislature--essentially an outhouse of horrors--is pre-empting Our feeble excuse for a (non)governor, Luis "The Larva" Fortuño, in the matter of restructuring the legislature. Forget the fact that that's like a weasel designing the security system for the chicken coop, it's more evidence that The Larva has the political will and muscle of a...well, a larva.

---Puerto Rico dropped in its world ranking of competitiveness, I think from 27 to 39 or maybe from 29 to 37. I don't care. It's a lie. We were never in the Top 30, or the Top 40 or even in the Top 50. We really rank somewhere between Burkina Faso and Piggly Wiggly. We're the ugly step-child of a bastard status that aborted an economic system. Rank that.

---Didja hear the one about 75% of Oklahoma students NOT knowing who the first President of the U.S. of part of A. was? Hey, Okies! I did an informal survey of My own with 20 students covering 4th to 11th grade and 16 of them said "Washington." Now I know that the postal abbreviation of your state is not "OK", but "0K," as in "zero Knowledge." Read a book, people! (And a shout out to Jenius Friend Steve; sorry you live there, man...)

---Asked the same 20 students who the first governor of Puerto Rico was. Only 3 got the answer right. Hey, Okies! Ours was 501 years ago! What's your excuse? (For the record, it was Juan Ponce de León. Yeah, that guy.)

---The Pittsburgh Pirates now hold the all-time record for consecutive sub-.500 seasons, toting up their 17th early this month. Can they avoid losing 100 games this season, too? Don't stay tuned.

---A local survey concluded that online buying had increased significantly in Puerto Rico in the past 2 years, largely to avoid the local sales tax. I wonder who predicted that... 

---Did you know the Central American/Caribbean Games will be held in Mayaguez in 2010? Guess how far behind they are, based on insider estimates? About 9 months' worth. The Games are next Summer, or roughly 10 months away...with 9 behind. And some events are being moved to other venues outside of the Island's western region, thus reducing the economic impact to the businesses that put up with lousy roads, snail-like government support and just plain old crap "for the good of the region." There's a word for that: Suckers.

---The Youth Citizen-Journalist Network is gaining traction up in New Jersey and Virginia, with several cities in other States (none in Oklahoma) slated for development by December of this year. Guess how many schools the YCJN has been authorized to start in in Puerto Rico? Same number as the ones slated in Oklahoma.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

16 September 2009

The 800..and 8

Thanks to Jenius reader José Méndez, I was appraised of the "governor cutting government workers" aspect currently running its course in Rhode Island, where governor Donald Carcieri is trying to stay within budget during hard economic times.

Reader José suggests that maybe Carcieri is taking a page from The Larva, Our very own--you know him, you love him, but you don't really know him and only his immediate family and a stray dog really love him--(non)governor Luis Fortuño. But despite the similarity in general framework, Carcieri and The Larva are dealing with two very different environments.

The basic difference is size. In Rhode Island, State and local workers make up roughly 10.8% of the total employment in the state; in Puerto Rico, it is 26.2%. On that basis alone, government size is not a problem in Rhode Island: it is THE problem in Puerto Rico.

For Governor Carcieri, cutting goverment employees is a direct response to a budget restriction, apparently imposed by a contrarian legislature. True, in the current economic crisis, tax revenues are down, but if the legislative and executive branches agree to work together, government jobs are not cut but shifted to increase the government's positive impact on key economic sectors. With a small base of government workers, redistribution is an option.

In Puerto Rico, We do have a contrarian legislature (of the same party as the [non]governor) and tax revenues are down, but where Rhode Island has roughly 9 private sector workers per government employee, here We have a less than 4-for-1 ratio; We are in essence swamped by useless government employees. There is no shifting them anywhere because they are already there, like mucous in clogged sinuses. The only possible way to deal with them is to start firing them.

Here's another way of looking at this: Per every 10,000 residents, the average State government has 544 government employees (including education workers.) In Puerto Rico, the average is 808.

808. Eight hundred. And eight.

That is 48.5% MORE than the average U.S. of part of A. state.

Here's the population data for Puerto Rico (3,954,037 as of July 1, 2008) and here's the lowest estimate of State and local government employees as of 2007 (319,487). Yes, you have to crunch the numbers yourself after downloading "Place of Work PUMA." Get over it.

Now Rhode Island ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack, with roughly 485 government employees per 10,000 residents. So Governor Carcieri could, if he chose to, look at the other 49 States and get some ideas on jump-starting the economy the local economy while preserving government jobs, which is equal to attracting votes in the next election.

But The Larva here has no role model, for no State has anything like the cluster-screw sewage stew We have allowed idiots to lead Us into since 1970. Carcieri can be attacked for apparently--maybe, possibly--being hasty in cutting government jobs. The Larva inherited a bloated government and can only be legitimately attacked for not cutting enough government jobs and not doing it fast enough.

Can either of them cut government jobs? Here's My prediction: When all is said and done by Carcieri in Little Rhodie and The Larva in Puerto Rico, Carcieri will have effectively cut more jobs than Our (non)governor. Yes, more employees will be cut in RI than in PR.

And that sucks.

The Jenius Has Spoken.


14 September 2009

Black Is The New Target, Part II

Just a couple of days after writing Part I, Colbert King of The Washington Post comes to the same conclusion many of Us have concerning the right-wing/fringe-to-the-center Republican attacks on President Obama.

In his words: "There's something loose in the land, an ugliness and hatred directed toward Barack Obama, the nation's first African American president, that takes the breath away. The thread of resentment is woven through conservative commentary, right-wing radio and cable TV shows, all the way to Capitol Hill."

On the same day, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote:

"Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!...

...I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race...

...But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

It goes beyond personalism to context. Again from The Old Gray Lady, Barbara Ehrenreich and Dedrick Muhammad opine: "What do you get when you combine the worst economic downturn since the Depression with the first black president? A surge of white racial resentment, loosely disguised as a populist revolt. An article on the Fox News Web site has put forth the theory that health reform is a stealth version of reparations for slavery: whites will foot the bill and, by some undisclosed mechanism, blacks will get all the care."

Two remarks: Fox News is shit, and what does the lunatic fringe make of an author team consisting of the word "reich" and a Muslim name?

And how do blacks feel? Several personal reports, some featured in The Daily Kos, seem to indicate that the target isn't one man, but all that he is perceived to represent. The President has the Secret Service, but what do the rest have, as looks and mumblings escalate to open threats and violent actions?

Yes, the economy sucks--for everybody but the hyper-protected ultrarich--but the blame for that lies largely with a murderous moron and his band of rapacious hyenas and even further back to a serial adulterous liar and a senile almost-actor. Blaming the current President for that is still premature, but given what's happening so far with his wavering policies, he's headed for his fair share of the blame pretty soon.

President Obama is facing challenges of a nature no U.S. of part of A. Commander in Chief has ever faced. The loco fringe foams at the mouth because like dogs beaten by Indians (an old Western legend), they rage with hatred at their perceived oppressor. Quoting Dowd again: "For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both."

It isn't just the South, hotbed of clinging to old hurts rather than facing the future. The crazies are from around the country, and many of them don't particularly care if feds take over something or the other: the fear--the stupid, lizard-brain fear--is racial. A black man has the highest power in the land and for them, it feels as if the Universe is spitting in their faces.

So they spit at the President, praying for his death, listen to a dead-brained Mormon hurl the "racist" tag that applies completely to himself or nod as a fat tub of drug-addled goo hopes he fails so that the nation suffer at the hands of this--horrors!--black man.

As the sage once said: Never argue with an idiot: He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You can't argue with racists because they are idiots. They can never rise above being idiots. But you have to keep an eye on them because even a retarded monkey with a loaded gun can do serious damage.

And already has.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

[Update: 19 May 2010: A teacher "explains" geometry by using the assassination of President Obama as an example. In what state? Alabama. Yee. And haw.]

11 September 2009

Books & Kooks

How stupid is the (for now) Misecretary of Diseducation Carlos "Ponderous (Republican) Pachyderm" Chardón? 

Stupid enough to ban reading in a country where reading is as welcome as explosive diarrhea.

The censorinng of 5 books by the Retardepartment is the latest salvo in the war against education characterized by headless leadership, moral defectives and increasingly-failing education policies that are aimed mainly at keeping the graft intact. Just ask the Feds: they're certainly looking into that tendency closely enough.

In the way stenches spread, the banned books, removed from school libraries and assignment lists, have created an even wider miasma of stupidity as (non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño has defended the (soon-to-be-fired) Lumbering Lardcan's decision as "not being censorship."

Memo 1 to The Larva: censorship   n. 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring.

Memo 2 to The Larva: censoring  trans. v.: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable.

Memo 3 to The Larva: You are wrong. Again.

Extending the miasma, defenders of literature--or more correctly, pseudo-intellectual academics--pretend to chastise the action of the Overweight Oaf by by comparing the banning of 5 novels to the Taliban's suppression of culture. The stupidity in that statement is equivalent to the moronic bandying about of the term "Nazi" to refer to some opposing political view or person; it is the melodramatic equivalent of saying you are "hysterical" when you are splashed with a drop of water.

What the King-sized Kook did was censorship--censorship, Larva--but it is a far far cry from the deliberate destruction of irreplaceable cultural treasures that the Taliban has become infamous for. (And along those lines, the Nazis killed--killed--millions of people. Even the murderous moron can't be compared to that depth of evil.) So if you academic acephalics want to blow hot air, how about (a) doing it to encourage more reading amongst My Brethren and (b) actually reading the damn books you purport to pseudo-defend? 

No one gave a tinker's damn about these 5 books until the Zaftig Zero decided that curse words were fucking awful and that sexual innuendo fucked up his karma. Boo-hoo. If you want to--and too many idiots do--you can find a reason to ban any book. Even the Bible. (Don't look at Me that way: there's enormous amounts of violence, sexual innuendo [Solomon, anyone?] and outright incest to curl the toenails of most aardvarks, if aardvarks learned how to read.) But rather than finding reasons to ban books, how about finding reasons to read books? Especially--especially--if you're supposed to be the educators of a nation drowning in its own indifference to reading.

In a "Set the clock to the right time after the Titanic hit the iceberg" kind of way, this whole banning books business is like slapping lipstick on a pig: colorful distraction, but the huge hog still reeks. 

And the Retardepartment does too...

The Jenius Has Spoken.

P.S. (22 Sep.) Well, We just got noticed for this on BoingBoing, My first blog crush. Yes, I just wrote "blog crush."

09 September 2009

Gracious Hosts...Not Often Enough

I live in an area of Puerto Rico that abounds with tourists, both from other parts of the Island as well as from around the world. In My conversations with them, I often ask the foreign visitors what keeps bringing them back to My neck of the Caribbean.

The most common answer: The people.

Now I'm on record as saying that My brethren here often suck at personal service and especially many of those who work in the hospitality industry. But what the foreign visitors refer to is not "the people in the industry," but simply the people that inhabit the areas they visit.

We often forget--or at least, I have forgotten to mention--that Our People are very kind and generous, excellent hosts with a warm heart. It is common to be invited into a home, as a friend of the family or on a social visit, and be treated like royalty. You get offered several things to eat, several to drink and if you say no to everything, you'll get asked what you want so your host can get it for you.

And many times as well, from the first visit, you'll get treated like someone who's visited often...and will do so again. It's not an empty phrase to most of My Brethren the "Come again" farewell you'll hear as you leave.

As the foreigners have discovered.

Why that pleasant part of Our personality is not replicated in Our tourism workers is a major flaw We've had for decades. More than "fewer hotel rooms," it is this sour-puss, "Yankee-or-not-go-home" surliness that has cost Us Our long-held position as the #1 tourism destination in the Caribbean.

Maybe We're hiring the wrong people, but if We're doing that, We're too screwed up to be fixed this century. It seems the problem is one of attitude, a demeanor that implies that treating someone else well--for a salary or a tip--is beneath Us. If that's the case, then maybe We should just stop paying people in the hospitality industry and let the "natural" instincts take over.

Or then again, maybe We should just take a hard look at Ourselves, take in the reality that is Us and work Our butts off to make Our "public" attitude as welcoming as Our "private"

After all, isn't having two faces a bad thing?

The Jenius Has Spoken.

07 September 2009

Black Is The New Target

I've been keeping an eye turned northwards, watching a nation led surreptitiously for 8 years by a handful of vandals with the morals of wharf rats and now under new management, only in this new management, the rats have banded with hyenas and cranked up the vitriol to unseen depths.

The latest squawk from the rat-hyena pack is about President Obama's upcoming speech to school children. In some quarters, parents are protesting vehemently enough against this speech that schools are opting to not show the speech. The protest initially centered on the potential for the President to brainwash--that's what they think: brainwash--their children into supporting socialist causes. Or some such crap like that.

So the White House released the text of the speech, which centers its message on staying in school, getting an education and using the classroom as a center for growth and progress. Even so, the hostility against the speech continues.

Add this to the birther "controversy," alleging the President was not born in the U.S., a (bowel) "movement" so stupid in thought and deed that many of its believers were immediately and totally fooled by a fraud--a non-lawyer who's based in Israel--and by a baldly false "Kenyan birth certificate."

Then there's too many people that believe President Obama is a Muslim, despite his proven affiliation with a Protestant church. Or that he is a supporter of terrorism. Or that he has a "secret Negro army" that turns out to be a fraternity stepping dance group in rehearsal. Or any one of several dozen pea-brained ideas that simply make no effort to look directly at the man, his policies or his plans.

Dan Savage, blogger/columnist, recently said in an interview that the attacks and vitriol by right-wing loudmouths seem to be aimed at one thing: getting the President killed. He said it almost apologetically, as if speaking about cancer in an ICU. However, the cancer is real, the nation is practically an ICU, but the cancer is not based on violence against the president: it's based on his being a black man. It's based on racism.

There is no other explanation so basic or fundamental to the hatred--for it is hatred--aimed squarely at the Oval Office's occupant. This man, barely 8 months in office, has not sent thousands of Our fellow citizens to their deaths in a war based solely on lies. This man has not gutted the Constitution by using fear and illegalities to Swiss cheese its principles. This man has elevated the prestige of the nation around the world by speaking to it as an equal--what it has always been--instead of from the position of cowboy vis á vis horse's ass. (The world being the cowboy.)

President Obama has not been in office long enough, has not done enough, really, to deserve this level of hate, fear and loathing. No, his only "sin"--in the minds of guttersnipe IQs--is being black. Of being a black man in the White House. Of being black and thus scaring the white trash mentality of the nation.

That's why they attack his birth certificate. That's why they attack his religion. That's why they attack him with lies about his supposed thoughts and plans, instead of his actual thoughts and plans. They attack him there because what they want to attack is too obvious--and ultimately insignificant--and they know it. The fact that President Obama has black skin is irrelevant--except to the right-wing hordes that slyly encourage the irrational fear many lowbrow whites have concerning black people.

There are plenty of other reasons to attack President Obama: spending that increases an already grotesquely swollen deficit; the continuation of Guatánamo incarcerations, overseas detention centers and illegal wiretapping; waffling on health care; continuous use of signing statements; overexposure; lack of focus and other topics. These are all legitimate reasons for standing up and declaring "You are wrong." They are legitimate because they involve his actions and policies, not his skin color.

But the right-wing fringe, now a centrist movement of rat-hyenas, doesn't have the brains or moral valor to continue a long tradition in the nation's politics of hashing and rehashing debates. No, they have let dumb fear prod them into acting like a mob, mindless and violent, pursuing a goal that like "the Aryan race" exists only in the fevered imaginations of mental and emotional defectives. 

So they won't let a black man speak to their children, or to the other children who do want to hear what the President has to say. It isn't every day, year or President that speaks to children rather than indifferent adults, but the rat-hyenas are afraid that 10  minutes with Mr. Obama will set their kids on irrevocable paths, like their kids are too stupid to make up their own minds.

Well, they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

No one has to listen to this President or any other. No one has to like this President or any other. But no one--no one--has the right to use race as the hidden weapon of a smear campaign. It belittles the nation and it belittles the people who stoop to such idiocy. Only We see it and they don't. To Us, We see the President through the evaluation of a kaleidoscope of thoughts, words, actions and results; to the rat-hyenas, it's all...black or white.

The Jenius Has Spoken. 

P.S. (9 Sept. 2009): A school in Arlington, Texas declines to show the President's speech, but will bus students to see the murderous moron. Yeah, he is from Texas, but that whooshing sound you hear is the combination of "So what?" and rank racism/hypocrisy sucking the life out of this educational sequence. Last remark: How much do you want to bet that the schools mentioned here are almost entirely populated by white students and white faculty?

P.P.S. (7 April 2010): What you don't see at Tea Party rallies, by someone who's been there time and time again. Yeah, I was right. 

04 September 2009

Trial Of Evidence

"No, that's standard for a federal investigation."

"The whole point was to make sure the evidence would hold up in court. More than half that stuff was just wasted."

"The F.B.I. got the guy they wanted and the extended evidence was just part of the investigative procedure to impress Us."

Really? Let Me have My say...again:

Il Castrao, former unsenator Jorge De Castro, pleaded guilty to 21 charges of fraud.

Il Castrao, the same raving idiot who paraded his skanky rectum through F.B.I. offices and dared them to arrest him several months ago, is now facing up to 11 years in jail.

So: Wanna parade now, Oh Castrated One?

And here's the part that makes the rest of the pox-filled herd uneasy: There are more targets in this investigation.
Now Who mentioned such a thing a few months ago...

Back on October 8, 2008 (look it up) I mentioned that the enormous bundle of evidence collected against the aforementioned skanky weasel--now serving time in jail--would lead to other investigations. Back then I thought it would be a matter of weeks. Instead, it's taken nearly a year. And the target now is former senate president and current secretary of state Kenneth "Uh, What I Mean Is..." McClintock.

Good ol' "What I Mean Is..." has a history of "duh", what with his filing legislation to force all cars in Puerto Rico to use headlights in the daytime because he read (or had read to him) a study that such a practice cut down auto accidents by almost 40%...in Scandinavia. Or his legislation to name Jesus as a central figure in Our government, in direct aping of that other intellectual powerhouseof the apes--er, ages,  Dan "Bird Brain" Quayle?

Or how about his polynomial math skills--babbled to Me in a radio interview--where "What I Mean Is..." argued that eliminating a 6.6% import tax and replacing it with a 7% tax on the same items would actually mean LESS tax and thus lower prices? Burned 9 minutes of My day and amounted to 13.6% more bullshit than I usually encounter in an average month.

Now nailing a skanky weasel senator is not the same as nailing a babbling ex-senate president and current secretary of state. Uh-uh. But it's not like the F.B.I. and other Feds have any reason to play hands-off with any local government official, seeing as how they aimed squarely at an (un) governor and... Oh, he got away.

Which means "What" is in for a tough ride.

The Feds took aim at Il Castrao. They went after Aníbal "The Jellyfish" Acevedo shortly after that, raising welts on Our political psyche. They nailed Il Castrao like tin on an outhouse. In the moment of victory, they say more accusations are coming.

And then The Jellyfish slips away.

Now between you, Me and the box fan in the corner, do you think the Feds have a solid case against "What"...or what? Do you think they would target a high-profile government official, after the debacle in the last trial where their evidence was openly questioned by the judge, and not be a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y  s-u-r-e they have their target peeled, revealed and sealed?

Anybody want to deny the Il Castrao investigation is ongoing for multiple targets?

Anybody want to deny that "What I Mean Is..." now facing trial--of evidence--collected over almost 2 years and possibly more?


The Jenius Has Spoken.


02 September 2009

Slug and Jockey

I was wrong.

To My utterly unmitigated disgust, the Wallowing Walrus We have masquerading so poorly as an education secretary is still in his seat. I predicted Carlos "Voluminous Vegetable" Chardón would be gone by August 31st and here it is September 2nd.

I'm tempted to think the delay in his welcome departure is due more to mechanical or logistical difficulties (finding the right size crane), but it's obvious that the problem is one of timing: even if a suitable candidate (aka "risk-taking, underqualified, semi-dark horse from the private sector") is already waiting in the wings, there's so much offal hitting the rotating oscillator that it's better to keep the Brobdingnagian Bureaucrat where he is until most of it has splattered on some flat surface.

It is beyond questioning--except by morons--that what We have for a department of education is a semi-squished slug competing in the Kentucky Derby. (Translation for the morons: a useless system.) In fact, the U.S. of part of A. is also in the race, running with an albeit unsquished slug, while ponies and thoroughbreds from around the world make like Secretariat and pull away.

Now picture that race, picture the entry We have in that race, and even if you've never seen who I'm talking about, you can see how metaphorically apt My image is in describing how truly horrible Our situation is.

Yeah, I went there. 

Now I don't think there's a jockey out there for Our pathetic entry. The problem isn't the jockey: it's the slug--gish system We have malformed through incompetence, theft, graft, nepotism, demogoguery, partisanship, corruption and outright criminal stupidity for over 40 years. There's not a jockey in the world that can ride a slug to victory against thoroughbreds, but We could do a little better with a better jockey.

At least a jockey that actually knows how to ride and doesn't hire criminals to manage the stable.

Maybe We'll get that, say, in about 2 weeks?

The Jenius Has Spoken.