Dis Incentives

Local business leaders tell Me that what We're cooking in terms of a new Incentives Law is going to make Puerto Rico the most-attractive business spot in the world. They talk about tax-free this and subsidy-based that and not once have I heard any of them tackle the single most important point in the whole discussion:

Why would Uncle Sam allow it?

I'm talking about the Uncle Sam who's facing a recession and a lame president with the leadership skills and moral compass of roadkill. I'm talking about the Uncle Sam who sees his business leadership base eroding faster than a sand castle in a Katrina-ravaged levee. I'm talking about the same Uncle Sam who didn't give a rat's ass about corporate profits under Treasury Section 936 when it came time to choose between "votes" and "Puerto Rico."

What makes these business and industry leaders think that Puerto Rico is going to be able to craft a set of incentives that leave Singapore, Ireland and the other current investment hotspots in Our dust without having the U.S. of part of A. either (a) Rejecting it under federal statutes; (b) Rejecting it under established commercial statutes or (c) Simply slapping it down at the congressional level and doing it themselves?

I'd call these leaders naive if it weren't for the fact that they aren't: They are ignoring the point because if they stop to think about it, We'd have no apparent solution to Our crisis. And delusion is better than despair.

So the words fly, the banalities are uttered and the 800-pound moose in the breakfast nook snuffles all over the doughnuts and We pretend it's the morning breeze. Should We continue to develop new ideas and potential solutions? Of course. Should We do it in a vacuum, in a bubble of Our limited self-interest that refuses to acknowledge the real world?

No. That's what got Us here in the first place.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Government (Non)Employees

A couple of things that are bothering Me:

---Despite a binding vote, the local legislature--Fool's Paradise--has moved with the blazing speed of snail poo on the issue of unicamerality. The real issue of that vote, early in the current governor's useless term, was not that We wanted to be like Nebraska, but that We wanted a reduction in the number of idiots running amok. As such, the Fools have no incentive  to work on this, Our collective will seldom coalesces for anything other than voting on "talent" shows and the whole exercise becomes one that defines futility.

Here's an idea: Let's shelve the whole unicameral issue and have the Jellyfish governor and the Fool's Paradise request an across-the-board 20% reduction in the number of government employees. THAT will get attention, start a useless debate (useless because them firings ain't gonna happen) and consume another four years of non-action.


---Speaking of government employees, Let's cancel the unions they have. Uh-huh, I said cancel. As in eliminate, terminate and expunge. Why are employees who can't be fired unless they are butt-buddies with another convict in their eighth month in jail "protected" by unions? The government gives these essentially underachieving dolts a level of protection that practically carries their inertia from Day One to Pension, so what are unions doing in the mix? Here's what: Creating another level of widespread graft.

That's it. They have no other function. None. It's all about graft. Unions create a political barrier that is used to extort money and privileges, by politicians, government officials and union leadership. If you think The Jenius is sounding neo-con loony, here's a question: How many judicial cases have local government unions won in defense of their positions?

Here's the answer: None since the 1970s, when the last Employee Protection Act laws were implemented. Coincidence? Hell no. Just the objective (or at least, judicial) confirmation that the local government union is a fiction without a shred of utility... except for quasi-legal and even illegal purposes.

Get rid of the unions and let government employees spend their soft-earned money on other wastes of time and money. Like political campaigns.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Damning Lies

According to a National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse Center study, done in 2005, prescription drugs cause more deaths than a whole slew of other causes:  

Cause of Death                                 Annual Death Toll 2005
Prescription Drugs                                       32,000
Suicide                                                            30,622
Car Accidents                                                26,347
Firearms                                                        29,000
Homicide                                                        20,308
Sexual Behavior                                            20,000
HIV/AIDS                                                     17,011
Illegal Drugs                                                  17,000
Anti-Inflammatory                                         7,600
Terrorism                                                            310

I looove the round numbers, the idea that "Sexual Behavior" is a top cause and did you notice where "Terrorism" ranks? Seems there's more American deaths in Iraq "preventing" terrorism and waaay more Iraqi killed by "protection" efforts than Americans killed by prescription drugs and firearms combined.

Okay, where's the Puerto Rico angle, Jenius? Simple: We made most of those prescription drugs.
So, technically, We're accessories to these deaths, right? And see that "Firearms" number? If I remember correctly, We contributed about 785 of those deaths that year. "Suicide"? We put up about 520 of those. "Accidents"? Close to 730.

"AIDS"? About 230. "Illegal drugs?" Anywhere from 240 to 1,600, depending on whether you count just identified illegal drug overdoses or illegal drug-related deaths, like drive-bys and turf wars. "Anti-Inflammatory"? Don't know. "Sexual Behavior"? Who knows? And under "Terrorism," I wonder if they count the F.B.I. killing a bomb-maimed (his own fault) local criminal fugitive?

Now considering that We're one of 54 States and Territories comprising roughly 1.4% of the U.S. of part of A.'s population, We seem to be on the high end of contributing dead people. (You can ignore My "prescription drug deaths accessory" quip since you already have.) And because the range goes from lies to damn lies to statistics, you'd be wrong, because the study quoted above didn't include Puerto Rico. I did, for comparison purposes.

But in terms of the dead in aforementioned Iraq, We've lost 35 of Our own and counting, 35 out of over 4,077...and counting.

Are We contributing "Our fair share" to the current Iraq war? Nobody is. There is no "fair share." There's only the pain of lies leading to the pain of death.

Lies, damn lies, statistics... and murderous moron lies.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Cloud Humans

Under what circumstances would a cyborgian "human-cloud computing society" emerge?

The general thrust of that question has a few notions implied:

(1) That cloud computing will grow pervasive, if it hasn't already done so.

(2) That humans would want to "meld" with that capacity.

(3) That the "melding" would be possible for long-term interaction.

The basis of My question is that cloud computing is not so much about technology as it is about the services and benefits that technology provides. Because it is based on the idea of gain rather than an idea of "tools", it would seem natural to see people evolving towards wanting to have those benefits all the time.

(Yes, I'm headed into science fiction territory. Not the first time, you know.)

Here's My checklist:

--A society that sees benefits more than technology, i.e., isn't focused on "the newest gadget," but rather on "what's in it for Me."

--A society that is restricted in some way, either geographically, economically or less likely, politically. (Political restrictions usually limit technology severely.)

--High population density leading to increased social interactions and higher levels of competition.

--A society with a sense of "looseness" or--better term--an indifference to rigidity in terms of what's acceptable. Open-minded.

--Economic incentives based on either marginal income, limited opportunities and/or an impetus to get ahead/get out.


Based on that, one could say that My proposed "human-cloud" hybrid would emerge in big cities that serve as technology, economic and social hubs. Think mega-cities such as New York, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, or maybe San Francisco what with Silicon Valley tech-heads and venture capital running loose. But there's another potential incubator: Islands. Singapore comes to mind.

And Puerto Rico.

Before you scoff: Thousands of marginalized youths, mostly competitive males, with access to technology, a burning desire to get ahead to get out and a very "open" mind based more on need and greed than on rationale. Access to the deep pool of information and leverage offered by the cloud would be seen as a godsend, if not a basic right.

How many of them would it take--walking human-cloud go-getters hooked into noteworthy levels of success--before the fringe trend starts converting more mainstream folks into hybrids?

Assuming the human-cloud hybrid is possible, of course. And you know it is possible.

All it takes is the desire to move from clod to... cloud.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Them, Me and Not Us

Another Thank You to Janine Mendes-Franco for picking up a Jenius post again. Someday, I have to meet her.


They gather just outside the fence that separates the Presbyterian church from the school area. Their ages range from late-40s/early 50s to mid-70s. They greet each other lightly, casually and after routine preliminaries, they begin their conversation. And lord love a duck are they a banal bunch.

The heat. Or the rain. Or yesterday's heat/rain. The price of gas. One or two headlines from a local daily, most often some hideous crime. The governor and how useless he is. The legislature and how useless some of them (usually the governor's men and women) are. Taxes. And whatever happened years ago to one of them that has a passing connection to today's insipidness.

They used to greet Me. They don't bother anymore, for I never answered. Now they refuse to acknowledge My presence, which serves Us all fine. For almost two years, their group hasn't varied very much, the parents and grandparents of My son's classmates. They know I always show up with something to read or jabbering away on My cell phone. I sit near them because there is no space far from them. I wish they'd dry up and blow away. They probably wish Me the same or worse.

My disgust with them is based on the bright children they come to pick up. Fun-loving, sweet kids who ask Me if it's My birthday every day (as I claim) or if My hat was in a movie (as I also claim.) They know I'm kidding. The way I see it, school's out! Time to have fun! But the adults around Me are ass-deep in their own ruts, incapable of a new thought, a new idea or a new way of seeing things. They see Me (most likely) as an alien, a clown, a bad influence and/or someone who's clear proof that not everyone who is a parent should be.

Maybe I'm making too much of these brief encounters, these half-hours of mid-afternoon avoidance We engage in. But I bet I'm right, for after all, their kids and grandkids ask Me if I read so much because I'm in college (because "they" say reading is only for those in school, perhaps?), if I show up early because I lost My job (self-employed professionals only exist in movies, right?) and if My son likes being with Me (I kid you not, pun intended.)

Now you tell Me: Is that the kind of question a kid thinks up to ask an adult all by himself?

I don't think so either. "They," the rut dwellers, can't figure Me out. Maybe I haven't nailed them either. But one thing We're sure of: We don't give a damn for each other.

And yet, that probably means We lose more than We might gain, right?


The Jenius Has Spoken.

THE Technology for Puerto Rico

What technology--applied wholesale to Puerto Rico--would have the greatest positive impact?

I asked that question (or one very much like it) in My lunch with Gabriel Pagán, of I Can't Spell fame. In any case, the question posed above is the one I'll answer.

My first ideas on this were that the technology in question would have to cover three basic characteristics:

1) User-friendly: Think "cell phone" versus "computer."

2) Economical: Same example.

3) Capable of "trendiness." Harder to define, but the same example applies. Cell phones come out more often with a variety of options and personalizations, much more so than a computer.

That's when I noticed (as you have) that what We're looking for here is "the new cell phone." It's debatable if the cell phone has had a great positive impact, but an opponent to them would have a very hard time arguing against the value of their ubiquitous presence.

I gave this more thought than I estimated I would. In fact, I may have spent more time with this question than with practically anything else I've posted as The Jenius. (Make of that what you will.) I even confirmed the definition of technology to make sure I would leave no stone unturned.

Those of you familiar with My writings and/or personality would assume I went down a few strange side-streets... and I did. And through it all, I kept coming back to one concept:

Accelerated learning.

You can pick your jaw off the desk now. I mean it: Accelerated learning. Here's why.

---Puerto Rico has a stronger tendency to short-term thinking than long-term. Now that's certainly a human trait, but We generally evince it to a higher degree than most. Accelerated learning, if it hits the tripartite sweet spot noted above, would radically alter Our society. The bad side of short-term thinking is opportunism, which We have in spades and nearly idolize as a lifestyle. That's where accelerated learning makes its largest impact: It makes (can make) opportunism an incentive to learn, instead of an incentive to "slide by." The more you know--or the more you can learn--the more you can take advantage of the circumstances.

---Handled by business, it would take the process of education out of the government's hands, also reducing Our witless over-reliance on that Fool's Paradise. Accelerated learning would move education from "class" to "individual," from "sub-standard" to "results-based" and from "propaganda" to "empowerment." How else would it be successful, if it didn't tailor the service and product to Me, gave Me My money's worth and made Me feel better about who I am and what I can do? The positive benefits of that kind of impact are almost staggering to behold.

---And in the ideal world where accelerated learning comes to be as I envision, the simple truth of "The more you learn, the more you can learn" could lift Us to seek Our true place on the world stage, beyond a pretty face wearing a sash, a pair of hips swiveling on a stage or a sweaty hand raised in victory. A place on the world stage where the mind matters, where thoughts make a fundamental difference and Our talents as a People--all Our talents, not just those to entertain--are made manifest.

Okay, Gabriel, MC Don Dees, Soldier and anyone else who wants to jump in: What's your answer? I'm sure they'll be well worth the effort.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Time for CeaseFire

The local statistic is staggering: Puerto Rico has more murders per 100,000 residents than any State in the U.S. of part of A. 

Spanning the past 15 years, Puerto Rico's murder rate looks more like guerrilla warfare or a putative civil war than just a "crime statistic." The reason it hasn't galvanized a rush to action is because most of the dead are gang members related to the illegal drug trade. They come from the fringes of mainstream society and thus, illogically, their deaths are ignored.

The illogic stems from the incompatibility between the indifference to their deaths as opposed to the vivid reality of their "unperceived" existence. The correlation between illegal drugs and overall crime is beyond discussion and a short drive down any residential street in Puerto Rico shows the reality of that connection: Our houses look like cages. Metalwork all around a house, no matter how elaborate, makes cages.

Current efforts to reduce the murder rate are best described as "lip service," where the lips are frequently applied to some ass, whether it's Uncle Sam's, a Fool's or a media member. And yet, since 1995, the City of Chicago has implemented a successful program called CeaseFire that has dramatically reduced the murder rate amongst gang members. The overall benefits to the communities--and thus the City--are quite likely impossible to define, but are indisputably positive.

The five pillars of CeaseFire are: 

--Street-level outreach: Street-smart leaders, often ex-gang members, being vocal and visible leaders for options beyond gang life and death.

--Public education: Not just schools, but communities posting and conveying the messages of change, growth, responsibility and non-violence.

--Community mobilization: Not just the gang-ridden communities, but all communities, coming together to discover "their problem" is "My problem" and "their future" is "Our future."

--Faith leader involvement: Spiritual guidance can often teach what otherwise would never be learned. Churches have held a healing role throughout history, but must be proactive to make a program like CeaseFire work well.

--Police participation: The gang member's enemy is not the policeman, but the idea that a gang is the best way to thrive. It is the police force, as part of the justice system, that has first contact with gangs. It is through them that the first steps for change are made.

How difficult would it be to adapt the CeaseFire program platform to Puerto Rico? After all, there are plenty of Puerto Rican gang members and gangs in Chicago; it's not like We'd be importing more culture shock. And as a response to the cynics who say "You want Us to rely on Our police, Our schools, Our clergy and Our government to get this done?" I say "Of course. We don't need to change everything at once. One gang at a time can be managed by a few good people. And if you don't think We have at least a few good people in all these institutions, then you're no longer a cynic: You're defeated."

The rest of Us, are not defeated. But We have to put up a better effort.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Change the Rewards

In terms of patient care, here's a basic problem with the modern "medical" system: There's more money in treatment than curing. Therefore the system's rationale rewards long-term "control" of the patient's condition rather than outright elimination of the condition. Consequently there's no real incentive to cure, but there's a huge incentive to "manage".

Now I know there are some conditions, primarily congenital, that cannot be cured. But if there's something We've learned over the past century it's that what often slows down or impedes a "cure" is not based on facts, but on perceptions. And perceptions are highly-influenced by the rewards and penalties already in place.

Every system creates its own framework, establishing rewards and penalties as part of a value balance in order to provide support, management and control of its intended processes. So when the system is subverted--by accident, good intentions or malice--the problem isn't necessarily with the system itself, but with the value balance it provides. 

Using the pharma-medical system as an example, the value balance is obviously "Cure better than treatment and prevention better than cure." If the system's value balance were in direct accord with this basic truth, We would have a radically different health-care system and a much healthier population.

Of course, the factors impinging on the whole pharma-medical-health care system are widely diverse and a simple value balance adjustment is not going to fix the entire system in one fell swoop. But a system is composed of sub-systems and by dropping to the sub-system level and adjusting the value balance there you can eventually fix the entire system. Do the mental exercise and you will see that the only sub-system that needs adjusting and--guaranteed--will intrinsically fix the larger system is called "the individual." You. And Me.

At the individual level, adjusting My value balance away from "Treatment first" to focus "Prevention first" automatically adjusts the entire system to My benefit. What "prevention" the system provides is now a priority in My favor--as it should be--while whatever "prevention" is missing can be properly identified and tended to. Does this place a greater burden on you or Me than the current system? Not at all. It openly places the ultimate control of the system where it has always been: In Our hands.

Will the entire "medical" system collapse under the combined weight of "too many individuals?" No. Good health is not an individual (unique) set of conditions, but a commonality of conditions. Smoking is bad for everyone, exercise is good, low-fat foods are better for you, etc. Achieving a wider range of benefits with less effort means a system is more efficient. The current system is far from efficient; in fact, it is notably far from even being effective.

A system works better--for the common good--when its value balance is aligned with the actual benefits, the ideal benefits, and not the self-serving "benefits" of a mere handful.
That applies to the health care system. And to government as well, where the sub-system boils down to the same point: You. And Me.


The Jenius Has Spoken. 

Brick Wall

---I've been having one of those months where it feels like I'm running hell-bent-for-leather into a brick wall. Several times. With no helmet on.

The worst part is that I keep running at breakneck speed in the belief that the brick walls won't be there. Blind optimism or ferocious will: You make the call. All I know is that My head hurts either way.

---Had a chat with a young mother of two who could have been the mother of three, but lost the baby during the early stages of her pregnancy. She tells Me that the two fathers of her children couldn't put up with her because she's "difficult to deal with." Her example? "Things don't have to be done as I say, but they have to be done as they should be." When I asked her who defines "how things should be" she gave Me a wide-eyed look and said "Me, of course." During that conversation, putative Father #3 was dumped over the phone for going to wash his clothes at his ex-girlfriend's house. Within half an hour I went from reading about the future of media to "reality trailer-trash TV". Pass the mayo, somebody.

---Made Me wonder: Who is the actual father of this woman's children? She's certainly a hard worker, holding down a full-time job while studying to become a respiratory therapist, so she isn't a visible burden on society. But given her situation as a single mother of two, the tendency is to (a) Latch onto a man, any man, so long as he provides something, preferably money or (b) Latch on to the government who does provide money. In effect, govvy is hubby. 

Now you might argue that the kids don't need a father... and you would be wrong. Studies from different fields of academia prove that children are much better off with fathers than without them. But what do these studies say--if anything--when govvy is hubby and daddy isn't "needed"? Wouldn't that constitute a disincentive for men to stick around and be fathers? Wouldn't the women have an incentive to have children 4-6 years apart in order to keep govvy-hubby's money around? Doesn't the whole govvy-hubby movement undermine the family and openly discriminate against men, since after all, the major program is called Women and Infant Children and men--even single fathers--are virtually excluded from receiving benefits?

---Talked to a local organization that wants to "improve the social and economic opportunities of housing project residents." Their plan? Secure funds to help single mothers provide for their children by making them more capable of requesting and receiving State and Federal funds. In essence, teaching the dependent to become (better) beggars.

I suggested that there were ample funds to help improve the father-child relationship and that by strengthening the family, the socioeconomic opportunities would gradually improve over the long-term. The lady gave Me a stinkeye and said, with mustard gas floating over her words, "Men are the problem and women have to solve it." 

"By becoming beggars?" I asked.

She slammed her folder closed and humphed. We shared the same thought: A wasted hour. 

But at least I knew I'd bounced off a brick wall. She just added another brick.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Our Basket Factory

Over at Dondequiera, one of only a handful of blogs in Puerto Rico with brains, wit and charm, MC Don Dees skewers the rantings of Rogelio "Puff Dead-y" Figueroa, erstwhile gubernatorial candidate for the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico faux-party. I can't improve on it, so go read it there.

The motivating factor for both Figueroa's mirages and MC's hammer (hahaha) is Puerto Rico's outright crappy economy. (Crappy in comparison to industrialized nations; We kick Third World ass, but most of Us couldn't define "Third World" in any terms other than "I dunno.") Much has been made of Our tendency to go for a "silver bullet" solution, largely based on laziness, island mentality and overall ignorance.

Let Me explain: 

--Laziness: We want all We can get with minimal effort. See also: Welfare mentality.

--Island mentality: Small country, small goals. What a crock.

--Overall ignorance: "They" are the experts and We don't want to learn.

(No, I'm not in a funk: I'm simply rehashing ancient history.)

The problem with "silver bullet" thinking can be illustrated by the proverbial basket with all one's eggs in it... and having the basket smashed by thugs.  Some of the thugs are Ours, but most aren't. And therein lies the problem, for you see, the eggs may be Ours, but the basket isn't. And unless you have your own basket, or better yet, your own basket factory, the thugs will smash your eggs whenever it suits them best.

If you read through the Jenius, you'll notice I'm all for the basket factory. But that makes Me a distinct minority. I see no reason why 3,600 square miles is some sort of intellectual or achievement limit. Athens was smaller than San Juan and changed humanity. The Vatican fits in some of Our barrios and it dominates 850 million lives. And if technology has shown anything it's that a handful of people can alter almost any aspect of daily life.

So forget Our island's size: It's irrelevant. The true economic solutions need to focus only in a space of about about 550 cubic inches: Our brains. Yes, We need alternative energy sources, but first We need to replace thugs with workers and apathy with enthusiasm. Yes, We need to replace drug companies, but first We need to envision multiple solutions as possible and that unless We act in Our best interests--Our best interests--Our progress will always be limited by thugs.

Of course, what I'm proposing is exponentially more difficult than mere punditry, sophistry and empty stat blather. That's part of the problem, for We are easily taken in  by the low road, the easy path and the cushy solution. We range from "idealistic" brain bubbles to 19th century head burial, but We never seem to look at Ourselves as truly capable and truly worthy of taking Our place on the world stage.

Our economic future is not--and never has been--about of the size of Our shores: It's about the size of Our will, of what We think and what We burn to accomplish. It's about hearts and minds seizing the greatest potential and working to make it a reality. It's about the high hard road because We need to earn Our best future instead of settling for the next handout. 

It's about time.

The Jenius Has Spoken. 

One Man, One Woman, No Vote

Imagine this scenario: In the midst of the largest rejection of a seated president in modern U.S. history, the opposing party's presidential primary is a choice between a black man and a woman. And as that choice comes down to a bitter wire, the possibility exists that the deciding votes to secure either candidate's nomination could come from a faction of delegates--melding both Republicans and Democrats--that cannot vote for either one in the Presidential election.

Don't imagine: It's becoming more likely than most of the U.S. of part of A. would care to think about.

As Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to bash Sen. Barack Obama and the balance of delegate numbers hovers at "insufficient" to secure the nomination, the June Democratic primary in Puerto Rico looms larger as a deciding factor. And in this local primary, you will find the comical spectacle of open Republicans joining slimy paws with Democrats to lobby local support for "the candidate of choice." And at this point, that support leans closer to Sen. Clinton.

Why? Former First Lady of a two-term President, international reputation and let's not discount her skin color. (I've covered a similar notion here.) But at the delegate level, it boils down to "connections": The local Fools have more connections to Sen. Clinton than they do to Sen. Obama, and connections equal power. Local políticos will not turn their back on that power--most of it illusory--unless they have a greater power (or illusion of it) elsewhere.

Does that mean that Sen. Obama courts local delegates with promises, promises, promises? No. It means the Democratic party works its ass off to make sure a nomination is locked up without resorting to Our muddled delegates. The point isn't "who's chosen", but "chosen in time."

It can't be any other way. Imagine the most-watched election in history, one that breaks long-standing political barriers, being framed by a people who live under political barriers such that they can't even vote directly for the candidate they put over the top.

It's one thing for stateside candidates to take Our money: That's the deal. It's another thing entirely to have Our primary votes actually mean something. That's so not part of the deal.

Is this some veiled argument for statehood? Hell no. There is no argument "for" statehood aside from "The U.S. of part of A. wants Us," and that's not happening ever.  What The Jenius writes here is an argument for "Get over yourselves" aimed at Fools and missing the mark not from a lack of perspicacity on My part, but from a lack of intelligence on the part of the well-monikered Fools.

As for the rest of Us, Our choices range from guffaws to grunts. Guess how long I'll laugh...


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Do We Teach Stupidity?

Duh.

Although very tempted to make that the shortest (and sharpest) Jenius post ever, I feel compelled to elaborate. Yes, We teach stupidity. But far worse than that is that We seemingly can't do anything but teach stupidity.

Let's be literal and start with what is laughingly called the educational system. Decades of studies show that despite ever-increasing amounts of money and hand-wringing theorizing ad nauseum, We are getting dumber by the minute. By any measure--self-comparative, cross-comparative or observational--We are institutionalizing stupidity in a systematic way:

---Self-comparative: Take any U.S. educational system academic test from before World War II and notice how often you haven't even got a clue to the answer...but the answer is still relevant today.

---Cross-comparative: The U.S. has dropped from a Top 5 leader in student academic performance to barely being in the Top 20...and is falling behind faster now than ever before.

---Observational: There's a murderous, criminal moron in the Oval Office, surrounded by a few characters that make him look like Little(-Brained) Bo Peep. The rise of the stupid to the top of the pyramid is the system's crowning achievement and Our horrendous failure.

The basic premise of "The Marching Morons," the Cyril Kornbluth science ficton classic, is that the future is framed by five billion morons under the unknowing care of three million intellectuals who keep the whole planet from turning into a barren rock covered with rotting corpses. Here We have an anti-scenario: a cadre of vicious, amoral morons engaged in turning the planet into a barren rock soon to be covered with rotting corpses. 

But why has stupidity triumphed--I use the word in disgusted irony--to such a degree? It's simple: Stupid is what stupid does and it knows no other way. In other words, stupid wins by being stupidly consistent.

Even a blind squirrel eventually finds an acorn is another way of putting it. Stupidity--individualized or systematic (think the murderous moron and the Republican party)--wins over the long run through sheer force of repetition. Just as a small group of fanatical armed goons can take over a country, so can a relatively small group of unthinking fatheads do the same. All it takes is for a majority to accept their existence and ignore their efforts...until it's too late.

And what happens when the fatheads and Fools take over? They try to build others in their same image in a sort of "Frankenstein's monster clones himself" kind of way. Is it a conspiracy? No, it's simply the concatenation of intellectual conformity and indifference, stretched out in time. The stupid don't really outnumber Us, but they do outact Us.

For in the end, teaching stupidity will have and has had a far greater impact than the countless hours of idly discussing ways to overcome, thwart or conquer its existence. It is the fundamental difference between doing and saying. The stupid have done, and continue to do, while We primarily carp in Our free time, lamenting the downfall of Our level of existence and theorizing to Our mind's content. 

Yes, We teach stupidity. Sometimes by omission.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Itemized List

#601 and counting...

Item the First: A senator invites a known drug dealer to participate in a senatorial inspection visit to jails. The visit is recorded by video, photographs, multiple witnesses and the drug dealer's own signature on the Visitor Registry. The whole deal is ratcheted up a notch when the drug dealer is subsequently killed by gunfire in a typical hit and the senator—along with three of his chamber colleagues—intercede to have the hoodlum get preferential treatment at the hospital. Now, given all that, what are the odds that the senator will not be investigated by the hideously misnamed senate ethics committee? (Okay, I gave that away…) Zero. No chance. None. Even when the senator is said to call himself “Macaracachimba,” which loosely translates as “Pinhead with tiny manhood”…

Item the Second: A school in the western region of the Island, famed for its high standards and elite clientele, has slightly less than 1,000 students. What are the odds that amongst those students none are black? This isn’t Mississippi or New Hampshire: It’s Puerto Rico, where darker skin tones greatly outnumber paleness. Except at this “elite” school that doesn’t even have a teacher with darker skin than Daisy Fuentes.

Item the Third: The problem with flipping TV channels at random is that you run into the vast stupidity. In this case, it is a musical montage of bongos and maracas suddenly interrupted by a white-haired lumpy Southern dumbbell named Paula who has the unmitigated gall to host a show on the Food Network centered on Latino-style cooking. What the hell is this spastic fatback doing jumping on a bandwagon and what the f*#% is the Food Network doing by allowing this? There aren’t any Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican or south-of-the-border real cooks and chefs to handle this show? Of course there are, but for some godforsaken reason that pushes beyond the boundaries of stupidity and idiocy, the Food Network figures any old bag can sling mojito.

Item the Fourth: A rising tide of noise is being made about the Federal government’s “persecution” of the governor, Aníbal “Busted Jellyfish” Acevedo, and its subsequent forays into more members of the inappropriately-named Popular Democratic Party. Boo-freaking-hoo, people. Here’s a stat for you: 98.4% conviction rate. That’s the current level of whoopass a Grand Jury unleashes on a suspect. That rate doesn’t happen by accident—hence the conspiracy theories—but the wild-hare maniacs don’t grasp that (A) Evidence is carefully verified in order to stack the deck before the indictments and (B) The game is played by Federal rules, not local. Here’s the kicker: We can’t avoid B, having abrogated that level of dignity long ago, but We can avoid feeding A—by dint of Our own choices. The Busted Jellyfish and his cronies ignored A and now wail like banshees about B. Boo-freaking-hoo, you pathetic losers.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Suddenly

3:28 p.m. -- I'm standing in line at the external branch of Banco Popular, across from the supermarket, at the Mayaguez Mall. There's an elderly woman in front on Me, her left hand clutching several checks and money orders. There are more tellers than clients on this slow Wednesday afternoon. A half-scream makes Us turn.

A man, masked, wearing uniform-like clothes, is clubbing another man over the head with a gun. One, two, three smashes as a woman's scream rises in intensity. The robber turns and flees from the bank.

I am with My son, watching this scene unfold thirty feet from where We stand.

I turn to him, to protect him. To My right, a woman and her daughter are crouched against the wall. The wall isn't their protection: I am. They are hiding behind Me.

I ask My son if he's okay. Wide-eyed, he nods. "What was that?" he asks. I start to tell him and he answers his own question. We watch as the assaulted man is tended to, the screaming woman, the bank officer closest to the beating, is escorted away by her colleagues. She is crying hysterically. The bank tellers, many of whom had hidden in different corners, now emerge to follow protocol. The bank is closing down.

I ask My son again if he's okay. He says yes. I dial 911 and report the incident and request an ambulance. The dispatcher asks Me if it's needed. I tell him I'm looking at a man who was beaten on the skull in a robbery at the bank: Yes, send the ambulance. "One moment," he says and seems to walk away. "It's been reported, sir," he tells Me. "Please send the ambulance," I tell him.

"What's the skull?" asks My boy. I tell him, then tell the nearest bank officer that I requested an ambulance. He looks confused. "We asked for one," he tells Me. The crime victim, a man in his 50s, is being helped into a chair, blood dripping onto his polo shirt from three head wounds. He is dazed and in pain.

My son and I sit down, Our backs to the milling scene as cell phones abound, murmurs echoing around a somber chamber. A woman sits at the desk where I'm chatting with My son. She has tears in her eyes and makes a low-voiced phone call. I call a friend, a local newsdaily editor and tell him the basics. He chuckles as I tell him I didn't knock off the bank.

Police arrive, and suited men who don't look like police. My son asks Me about them and I say they could be Special Investigations or F.B.I. Suddenly, a dozen policemen and policewomen are milling outside the bank. I learn the identity of the victim, and My speculation that the crime was carried out by a stalking thief who followed the businessman from outside Mayaguez is pretty much confirmed. I call the editor again and add these details, noting that the local public TV newsvan and cameraman had arrived.

The bank manager hands out paper cones of water and offers My son candy. His ill-fitting suit is swallowing him up with every passing minute. I tell My son that even in Puerto Rico, all bank robbers are caught. We hear about the crime, oh yes We do, but that all of these vermin get caught just seems to slip through the cracks.

I notice people are being allowed to leave. No statements, no questions. As My son finishes his cherry lollipop (I got butterscotch), We walk past the ambulance. I overhear the driver and paramedic mention they were responding to a 911 call, not the police or the bank.

In My car, I ask My son if he was afraid. "Not now. I was afraid when it happened." He wants to keep it from his mom, but I gently explain that's not correct. She needs to know and he needs to be able to talk to her if he starts feeling anxious or afraid later.

We talk about police work, news, who My editor friend is and why I made one last call to decribe the assailant. "Because you helped Me with the details," I answer. "You saw things that could help catch him." He smiled a little.

Ten minutes later a, at another bank, as We walk out with a crisp $5 bill with the new purple ink that We had gone to Banco Popular for, a woman at the second bank reassures the security guard that the bank wasn't robbed, a customer was, inside the bank. He seems nervous. She repeats the news to him. He shakes his head. "We were there when it happened," I tell them. "It was a customer." The guard nods.

My son slips his hand into Mine as We talk about the purple ink and the intricate design of the five bucks he just made off of Me. I hope I've done well by him.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Time to Do Good

The local Treasury department, a popular source of attention these days, keeps reporting that tax revenue is falling short of expectations. In fact, the government is taking out additional loans from its own bank to keep their vacuum of anti-progress sucking the life out of Us.

Sure, oil is skyrocketing because We're beholden to a cretin, a murderous moron with the morals of crack skank and a posse where he's "the virgin". Sure food prices are rocketing upward as transportation and ill-conceived policies make the fewer crops grown more expensive to move from Point A to garbage dump. And sure, Our bubble-wrapped economy, a form of I.V.-pricked bloated blood-baby feeding corporate and bureaucratic greed may have reached a crisis point, but it's an election year and what can We expect when everything here grinds to a angst-stuffed halt as The Fools cavort like simian lunatics?

We can expect to make a change.

Uh-huh. As you wallow in the black depression these words blanket you with (your choice, I might add) note that the true underlying sentiment to that dark mood is not "But how do I make a change? " but "Let others make the change."

You know I'm right. Shake your head, get miffed at Me, but as the old Archie Bunker poster used to (almost) say: In your heart, you know I'm right.

You don't want to make a change, you really don't. You want the change to happen, to your benefit and without any messy effort on your effort. Messy as in "Actually do anything."

So listen up, hermanos y hermanas of Our Island: Making a change starts with actually wanting a change. Wanting. Not wishing. Not waiting. Wanting. What's the difference between a wish and a want? A wish is someday. A want is now.

And by that single, vital difference, now is the time to make the change. And before you get all pissy again, here's the key: Pick whatever you want to change. You don't have to fix Us across the board, you just have to help fix something. A rutted street? Good. Too many strays in your neighborhood? Good. Making drug addicts move away from your street or the kid's playground? Good. Start a campaign against a crooked Fool? Good. Clean up your favorite beach? Good. Help schoolkids get better grades? Good. Point out good deeds and heroes? Good. Spread some cheer at retirement homes? Good. Join a volunteer group to bring attention to a particular problem? Good. 

It's all good; what makes it excellent is your focused effort. Many small changes add up to monumental change and where We are right now is not the waiting room. But small changes, and large ones, have to begin somewhere, sometime and with someone. You're that someone.

And if you're sitting there asking yourself stuck on "Well what's in it for me?" you're exactly the kind of numbskull Our society has specialized in creating and the primary reason We are stuck as We are now.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

A Prism and a Plan

As Our non-governor Aníbal “Busted Jellyfish” Acevedo plays the limpet, the wings are filled with stage whispers of the willie-nilly kind, namely, that Caguas mayor Willie “Here I Am” Miranda should step in and—chortle—save the party.

Heehee.

Let’s dump this one from the start: Willie isn’t white enough to win. And I don’t mean it in the sense of having a clean political record: I mean his skin color. It’s about the color of good mahogany and not the pale “flesh” tone so favored by Our collective unconscious.

And before you slam into The Jenius for racism, look back at the last 60 years of Our political history and you will notice two things: In a country where roughly 65% of the population is non-white, every governor was pale-faced (and the governess was damn near albino-white) and NO viable candidate was darker than Fred Flintstone.

Dig deeper and you’ll eventually see that all those folks came from upper middle-class or outright upper class backgrounds. Willie? He’s normal. And normal just don’t cut it here.

But say you want to deny this colorful argument and focus on “Willie Wonka’s” wide-ranging development of the city of Caguas, a former urban dumpheap transformed into a sprawling techno-city. “See?” you’d say in your gratingly annoying nasal whine, “Willie can do this for Puerto Rico!”

No. Not really. The difference in Caguas over the past 12 years is the same as the difference between Orlando in 1957 and Orlando in 1969. In ’57, Orlando was a Florida mudhole; in ’69, it was a Florida mudhole with a well-funded, well-focused plan for development. Mickey Mouse himself could have developed Orlando in 1969, but it took a Walt Disney to do that in 1957.

The Caguas Walt was Angel O. Berríos, a head-down, determined, bureaucratic slogger who had something no one else had: vision. To get Caguas there, he knew he had to have the city well-prepared. So Angel set out to prepare Caguas for the future.

But he died. And some time later, “Willie Maze” stepped into the breach and began a tortuous path to making Caguas what it was foreseen to be three decades ago.

Now “Willie Pete” has had some bright ideas, such as the municipal tax (it does free up municipalities from total dependence on the central government) and lump-sum federal funding management (if only because it reduces Our D.C. Dance of Begging). So he isn’t just a factotum carrying out programmed orders.

But a savior? No, that he isn’t. A savior needs to have vision and passion, whereas “Willie Stein” has will, an indomitable thrust that is valuable in itself, but is far from being what his downtrodden and ravaged party needs.

In the end, “Willie Brown” will remain on the sideline, a poignant footnote to the main text of Our election year. And his party will survive because parties come together and are sustained by opinions formed without due examination of their causes, by biases, by rejection of alternate positions based on incomplete knowledge or through unreasoned arguments. In essence, his party will survive by its own prejudices.

The same ones that keep Willie Miranda Marín on the outside looking in.


The Jenius Has Spoken