The Larva = The Legend

(Non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño is the only other of Puerto Rico's governors who directly compares to Our legendary first-elected governor Luis Muñoz Marín.

That statement offends statehooders, who hate the idea of a jíbaro with a better understanding of "their" U.S. of part of A. than they have ever had.

That statement offends commonwealthers, who hate the idea of anyone comparing to El Vate, though his concepts and plans have been proven sterile and the end results a proven dead-end.

That statement offends independentistas, who hate th-- Aw, who cares what those four people think?

Now before We get off on the wrong tangent, there's only one specific way a neophyte wannabe (non)governor with barely 10 months of residence in La Fortaleza can compare to a four-term,  hugely popular (pun intended), internationally-renowned society-changer. And that is:

Neither man had to worry about getting re-elected.

In the case of LMM, it was because he had no real challengers. In the case of LTLF, it's because he has no chance.

Now I wrote about this with former (un)governor Aníbal "The Jellyfish" Acevedo before he was charged (and subsequently cleared) of electoral fund fraud, stating that he should use this "freedom" from trying to cling to power to make some serious changes in Our Society.

Now imagine what would have happened if he had tried that instead of playing politics-as-usual. Take the government jobs issue, for example. The Jellyfish could have pushed the idea forward--because it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the RIGHT thing to do--and let the statehooders bleat and bray to their jackasses' content...only to have to turn around and actually propose doing it anyway.

End result: a step in the right direction and a political coup for a dying party. 

Then again, maybe it was best for The Jellyfish to just sink slowly into oblivion.

Back to LMM and The Larva. By casting aside all considerations for electoral success, in essence focusing on the job of doing what's best for the nation rather than what's most expedient for a political career allows a leader to make deeply significant changes. In the case of LMM, he did, to a historical degree still discussed. In the case of The Larva, well, We're dissing him daily.

The Larva has approval ratings that match median college ages for undergraduates and they are not even close to bottoming out. His own party despises him, his hand-picked "advisors" redefine loose cannon as "big mouths with rusty iron for brains" and he's chosen "isolation" as his preferred form of dealing with the public, akin to a priest consorting with whores in terms of raising his image in Our eyes.

So why not go for true leadership rather than polls? Why not stand up and educate Us on what's really going on, what the government really is and what this all means to each of Us? Why not take a stand against the entrenched imbecility and lead a charge against it? 

True, LMM had a poor country desperate for change, eager investors greedy for profits and an eventually-friendly Congress to further support his vision and intelligence. The Larva has only shown glimpses of intelligence and maybe--maybe--We are desperate for change. But that's two partial scores in a realm of potential progress versus huge zeros in the political arena he wallows in now. There's no doubt he'd be better off with a small percentage of something instead of zero percent of a whole lotta nothing.

And what would We gain from it? A champion in the government highly-placed enough to make Us fully aware of how Our government treats Us like servants, how they mismanage Our present and future and how they--Our elected Fools--must be reduced and eliminated before they finish Us.

Will We like it? Maybe. Will the Fools? Hell no. But unless someone like The Larva makes the effort, We will continue with petty political pettifoggery covering up the massive destruction of Our future.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

PPPlunder

The elected leaders of a democratic government basically deal with only three "tools" with which to accomplish their goals:

1) Establishing a tax rate, the revenue the government will receive for it to spend.

2) Assignment/management of public goods, such as schools, utilities, roads, etc.

3) Assignment of private goods, such as contracts, incentives, etc.

Now Let's be clear on one thing: the primary purpose of elected government leaders, if not of all government leaders, is to ensure they remain in power. They have no other primary purpose, no matter how much they lie about it. Again: their primary purpose is to ensure they remain in power. And the only tools they have to do so are listed above.

When handled for the larger benefit of the people, tax rates are proportional to the cost of government assignments and management. But this happens rarely, mainly because revenue amounts can vary widely, costs can be easily over- or underestimated and "friction"--a polite term for corruption--adds largely-unseen costs to the system. Then there's debt, which shouldn't happen in well-run governments, but can and does cast an ever-darker shadow of doom over the whole process.

Now what happens in a government where revenue is dropping and is projected to drop even further, costs are rising and are projected to continue rising and the "friction" in the system blocks reforms? What happens when you, the elected leaders, know you can't remain in power if you raise taxes? What happens when you know you can't sustain the public goods or keep assigning the same private goods as before, because they cost too much, you project insufficient future revenue and making the required cuts will obviously cost you power? What happens then?

You change the rules.

You take the power base of public goods--government control--and you redefine and reassign them as private goods, essentially making them profit-based assets. You keep a measure of government control, but now have profits tossed into the mix as a substitute for the revenue you cannot receive (tax base)...and you use the funds to accomplish your primary goal: staying in power.

And you give it a name like Public-Private Partnerships, code for Public-Private Plunder.

You doubt it? Here's the listed Approval Flowchart of the Puerto Rico PPPlunder process:

Summary of Public-Private Partnerships Approval Process

Step #1 Government Entity
Any government entity is authorized to establish a public-private partnership and to award a corresponding Partnership Contract related to any function, service or facility, in accordance with the public policy set forth in Act 29.

Step #2: Public-Private Partnerships Authority (PPPA)
The PPPA Board of Directors determines the need to request a Study of Desirability and Convenience.

Final Decision
After evaluating the Study of Desirability and Convenience, the PPPA Board of Directors will determine whether to proceed with the evaluated project.

Step #3: Naming the Partnership Committee
The Authority will create a Partnership Committee for each referred project that it has deemed appropriate and viable.

The Partnership Committee will be constituted by:

---the President of the Government Development Bank or his/her delegate;

---the officer of the partnering government entity with direct authority in the project or his/her delegate;

---one (1) member of the Board of Directors of the partnering government entity or, in the case of government entities with no Board of Directors, the head of the given partnering government entity; and 

---two (2) officials from any government entity chosen by the PPPA Board of Directors for their knowledge and experience in the kind of project that is object of the Partnership under consideration.

The Committee will evaluate the potential proponents and the proposals submitted in order to select the best one(s).
 
Step #4: Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals
The Partnership Committee will evaluate all the potential proponents’ qualifications and the proposals in order to facilitate the selection of a proponent and awarding of a contract.
 
Step #5: Partnership Committee
Following the approval of (a) proposal(s) that, at the Committee’s discretion, best meets the established criteria, the Committee will hold or oversee the negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Partnership Contract. 
 
Step #6: Board of Directors and Government Entity
The PPPA Board of Directors along with the participant government entity will approve the report and the Partnership Contract through a resolution.

Step #7: GOVERNOR
Following the PPPA Board of Directors and the government entity’s approval of the report submitted by the Partnership Committee, the report will be submitted to the Governor, or to his (her) official representative for the purposes of approval.

The Governor, or official representative, will have thirty (30) days to approve or reject the Partnership Contract.

And where's the legislative outhouse in all of this?

Joint Committee on Public-Private Partnerships
The Joint Committee on Public-Private Partnerships of the Legislature of Puerto Rico is created, to be composed of four (4) senators and four (4) representatives, from among whom one (1) in each House shall belong to the Parliamentary Minority. The Joint Committee shall have jurisdiction to examine, investigate, evaluate, and study all matters relative to PPPs.

Folks, people, Brethren, where do We appear in this process of assigning Our goods and Our services to whoever the government chooses?

That's right: We don't. But We damn well will pay for it, every last bit.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

¿PPPor Qué?

I am loaded with topics for the next couple of weeks, but let Me take on a "newsy" item: the Economic and Fiscal Restructuring Board (JREF, in Spanish) paralyzed the firing of some 11,700 workers, due to become effective November 6th.

Do tell.

In the words of SecState Kenneth "You Know the F.B.I. is On My Case?" McClintock, "(T)he laid-off employees should not view the move by JREF as a setback for the administration, but as extra time for them to 'reorganize their finances for their transition to the private sector.' 

'This should not be a free-for-all for them. This is like a doctor telling a cancer patient he has a year to live instead of three months,' he said in a radio interview Wednesday evening."

Sheesh. And some people call Me insensitive... All I ever said was that I don't care about the jobs lost because it was like amputating a gangrenous limb: amputate  or die. 

Now let Me get this straight: the jobs are rightfully being eliminated because there is no money to keep paying for uselessness, but then they can't be fired on schedule because the ones to be fired need "time to reorganize their finances"? 

Okay, so what you're saying is: We'll keep paying you...until after Christmas.

In the words of the Church Lady: Now isn't that special?

So, let Me see again: The Larva (non)governor Luis Fortuño fires the employees and his hand-picked JREF squad (Secretaries of Treasury, Labor and Economic Development and Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and Economic Development Bank) say "Uh-uh."

Really? They stop him? For what purpose?

Ah, the plot thickens. While everyone else is screeching and howling bloody murder about irrelevancies, the basic question, the key question, is "Why?"

Why are these jobs being saved for two months?

If this were prior to an election year, the answer would be painfully obvious: to court votes. But, 2010 is not a local election year. Nope, that's not it. Let's try again.

Some 11,700 jobs deemed unnecessary are prolonged--at Our freaking expense. The little progress The Larva had made in terms of "imposing" his agenda is thwarted. The barest step forward on the path to possibly rescuing Our government's future--Our future--is turned back. These are not positives, people; there is no upside in these angles.

So where is the benefit? The only possible gain for the executive branch--er, twig--is thus political expediency: they benefit from this self-imposed "setback" because it gives them some extra political clout.

Go ahead, tell Me I'm wrong. Now tell Me specifically why I'm wrong. Tell Me where the benefit is, because there is no way--no freaking way--this suspension of firings was done without forethought, or what passes for forethought in the peabrains of Fools.

It's a fact that The Larva and the legislature are at loggerheads. The moment The Larva said "I'm firing government employees" those Fools said "How DARE you?" and set themselves up as the "good guys" to the milquetoast "bad" guy. Thomas "Tantrum" Rivera and Jenniffer "Gluttonny" González made grunting noises about "evaluating the measure" and "keeping government jobs safe," reinforcing the concept of "Me good, him bad" they'd set up with their erstwhile party president.

And now this, an action taken by The Larva's own people that cannot do anything else than undermine his own rickety position and further weaken his mangled reputation, not to mention make almost impossible any further job reductions in 2010. And Gluttonny is already on record as saying that "The firings will continue." Oh, now that's a change.

Why?

I don't know. But here's a thought: Watch closely what emerges from the legislature and The Larva's twig in the coming weeks. Where do their interests coincide the most? Where is the mutual gain potentially enormous? Where do both sides need to scratch each other's backs to make a killing?

Public-Private Partnerships.

And who moved from the Economic Development Bank to the JREF and then to La Fortaleza recently? The current Larva Chief of Staph, Marcos "Mouth Fart" Rodríguez, he of the fascist bent and foolish beat. 

Think the PPP potential isn't firmly in his mind? In the minds of the Fools?

Think again.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Fired/Frenzied

Ding dong the drug dealer done got dumped. Carlos "NOW I Follow Orders" Chardón, so-called education secretary of Our Island, finally fired the Federal Affairs Director William "Double D" Ubiñas (the "Double D" is for drug dealer and drunk driver.) Some so-called journalists are asking why he was fired; the only question worth asking was why he was ever placed there in the first place.

With the local (mis)education department on the Fed's shit list and local standardized test results so bad they are abominable, even the firing of a convicted drug dealer has the patina of progress. We are failing Our children by having the suckiest education system this side of Hoover sales school; We are failing them by electing--and tolerating--mealy-mouthed pegheads like Our (non)governor and his obese-atriopore of a (mis)education secretary.

Which leads Me directly (in My mind, at least) to the tempest-in-a-teacup that is forming around the notion that the hog farm of a (non)administration misled by Luis "The Larva" Fortuño is about to slap legislation onto the books that is supposedly aimed at bloggers.

Hey, blogueros, chill. Don't be so eager to reveal your desperate needs for legitimization and attention. The bill--as drafted--is aimed at you in the same way the Sun is aimed at you. (Clarification: the Sun isn't aimed at you. Like I said, chill.)

Here's My translation of the pertinent portion of the drafted text, as posted in a local blog, basically a paragraph from a 12-page bill, that has blogueros shuddering with the idea that Terminator 3 is about to be unleashed on their asses:

[CHAPTER 4: Crimes Against A Person and Privacy]

Section 1. -- Damage via Electronic Media

Any person who attacks the moral standing of another person with defamation, insults, written or in images, photomontages in electronic media or by way of the Internet, will incur a fourth grade misdemeanor and will be sanctioned with punishment of prison not exceeding six (6) months or a fine not exceeding five thousand ($5,000) dollars. An additional charge will be incurred for any who falsify, alter or modify real images, but that have been obtained or captured by illegal means or that have been published without due authorization of the affected party.

Now compare that to the following definitions of libel:

Definition of libel 3: Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. This is contrasted to slander, which is defamation through the spoken word.

Definition of libel 4: Libel per se describes statements, which are widely understood to be harmful to a person's reputation. For example, referring to an individual as an alcoholic or criminal, or any description, which would lower the reputation of that individual in the eyes of others. These words are harmful and libelous.

Definition of libel 5: A written, printed, or pictorial statement that unjustly defames someone publicly. Prosecution of libel as a punishable offense puts some measure of restriction on freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

Definition of libel 6: To defame, or expose to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, by a writing, picture, sign, to lampoon. A tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

Definition of libel 7: To publish in print writing or pictures, broadcast through radio, television or film something that is false about someone else which would cause harm to that person or his/her reputation by bringing the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn, or contempt of others. Libel is defamation, which is written, or broadcast and is distinguishable from slander, which is oral defamation.

Definition of libel 8: A malicious publication expressed either in print or in writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Such publication is indictable at common law.

Did you notice a trend there? Is the "electronic Armageddon" version making blogueros go wee-wee in their pants substantially different in content and intent from the other definitions presented?

No. It simply specifies that libel extends to electronic media as well as traditional media.

Whoop-dee-doo. All this is the closing of a loophole that is about a decade behind the times. And the bill is actually addressing electronic crimes of many types, from fraud to data destruction to broadband theft, a sweeping redefinition that takes into account technology that most of the people voting on this bill don't use, don't really understand and don't know what it means.

What is disturbing is that those of Us who do are largely behaving like Chicken Little rather than using Our natural superior and (usually) effortless intelligence to recognize this bill for what it is: a copied patchwork "solution."

Silver lining? At least the Fools are trying to think about technology. And in this case, take a look at what the U.S. of part of A. Senate is rolling out for bloggers. Line up over here to bet on the over/under in years it will take for Our Fools to catch up. I'm in at 3.5.

So, blogueros, pop a Valium or something. The libel laws haven't changed, only now the medium you spend your time with will have to officially play by the rules other media do. If you think that's a problem, then you're de facto supporting lying and deception as "standards."  If to do what We do requires that as a standard, then I'm outta here.

But because it doesn't, because I can stand by everything I write without any--any--hint of anxiety concerning the breaking of any law, I can blog as long as I want on anything I want.

And so should you. Once you calm down.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Triptych III

Panel The First: Following up on My post about teacher's unions serving as craptacular protectors of crap disguised as "teacher's rights" and "education," a New York Times op-ed by Susan Engel adds solutions to the unneeded and undeserved educational puzzle, this time at the college level, where teachers are (mis)trained.

Ms. Engel has a three-part solution:

1) Raise admission standards for education degrees and make it free, as well as adding a three-year contractual service period in public schools. Me like. The incentive for high-GPA students (less smart than they used to be, as the education system has been increasingly failing them) to turn away from medicine, law, engineering and business needs to be a combination of recognition and savings. But in exchange for that opportunity, they have to give back to students. To argue against this is to argue that better teachers happen by chance, not planning.

2) Get the student-teachers to train they way they learn best: in classrooms, with frequent supervision. None of this "four years of theory, one year of dealing with a dyspeptic loser who gave up years ago as a part-time supervisor." Exposure to teaching, like exposure to any other profession, breeds experience and confidence, as well as cementing knowledge. It also culls the losers before they can be career lumps of non-teaching flesh.

3) Give incentives to schools to hire these student-teachers in groups. Ms. Engel suggests in groups of at least seven, but I'd be willing to go as low as five. In any case, the purpose is to open doors to new, willing teachers and provide a support system to battle against the entrenched forces of crap protection. Teaching isn't easy, but when you also have to battle pea-brained retreads masquerading as colleagues, it can be brutal. (Just ask a good teacher; they'll give you horror stories.)

What Ms. Engel suggests is very viable and aims at the future rather than the present, which can reduce resistance. It also makes college attractive at a time when attendance is dropping. And furthermore, it sidesteps the issue of evaluation in favor of "When We get smarter, more motivated candidates, We get smarter, more motivated and more effective teachers."

This should start happening now. And it never should have been needed in the first place.

Panel The Second: On the subject of government employees, what happens when the government employee numbers rise substantially, their pensions get bigger and then they start retiring...and living longer? 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the government coffers are headed for deep doodoo. For a more technical explanation, click here. For a vivid in-your-face example, stay tuned to Puerto Rico Live, the network SyFy would be if were run entirely by zombies. Really corrupt rotting zombies.

Panel The Third: CAPECO, the Caribbean Petroleum Company of Puerto Rico, blew up last week. Busted windows. Big fire. Lots of smoke. Turns out--as expected--that the company had a long history of bad maintenance leading to serious environmental and safety concerns. By the muse and grace of Fortuna's left tit (not be confused with "Fortuño, the titmouse left in disgrace"), no one was killed. The company filed for bankruptcy in December, 2001; the local Treasury got $32 million. But it seems that CAPECO was the beneficiary of a $154 million debt amnesty (of $191 million), given to them under the (mis)administration of Pedro Stupid Rosselló. Then-Treasury Secretary, Xenia Vélez, refused to answer questions about that amnesty she was part of, stating that she is "now a private citizen" and that "her comments would add nothing."

As you might expect, Xenia is a lawyer. Ho hum.

Let Me set you straight, Xenia "Worrier Princess": You will have to answer questions about this matter. For one, you served as Treasury Secretary and the unexplained amnesty happened on your watch, with your approval. For two, you were doing so as a public servant of the People of Puerto Rico, not just as the rubber stamp of a megalomaniac with selective vision. And for third, your status now is irrelevant: what has become obviously relevant is your refusal to step up with candor, dignity and professionalism and do your duty as a citizen and legal representative. If the media had the gonads of a flea, they'd rightfully and righteously keep on your tail until you did the right thing. As it is, it will be up to developing circumstances to be the lever that pries your gullet open.

The Jenius Has Spoken. 

 

Too Many (Horrible) Cooks

Mr. Pereira, My 11th grade Chemistry teacher--correction, fat loudmouth slob aping the notion of being a teacher--was also My 10th grade Biology f.l.s.a.t.n.o.b.a.t. His degree was in Physical Education and he had spent 14 years as a Math teacher before waddling blindly into sciences.

Mr. Rivera, My 10th grade Spanish teacher--correction, hideous lying gnome lacking sense and morals--was a rambling idiot with loose hands, a fact I and several other students pointed out then, others had pointed out before and nothing was done until a decade later when he was forced to resign after being caught physically forcing himself on one of his students. In school.

Mr. González, My 11 grade Geometry teacher--correction, deluded self-obsessed ingrate--was a drunkard who routinely showed up in the classroom reeking of alcohol, often passed out between classes and once pissed himself while trying to argue with Me over his inability to remember My name. 

And before you fling some notion of sour grapes at Me, I finished high school with an "A" average...after being skipped into it at age 13. 

Yes, I had the wherewithal to overcome morons parading in front of classrooms, but the problem isn't merely that many teachers are too lazy and too stupid to do any other work, it's that the worst ones are treated as equally valuable as the best ones. 

And note that two of these dregs of humanity were teaching core courses, the "difficult" disciplines of Math and Sciences. Why? Because they were willing to take a paycheck for doing worse than nothing. And why could they? Because it was nearly impossible to fire them for being grossly incompetent.

How did these guys fare, aside from the statutory rapist? Pereira and González retired. Full pensions. And hundreds, even thousands of students, received idiocy instead of instruction. And the grossly incompetent are still nearly impossible to fire.

A recent article in The New Yorker describes how a group of teachers spend the whole day--every day--sitting inside a "rubber room," basically serving time, but collecting their teacher paychecks. It's government employee Nirvana and it's killing Our educational system. Because where New York has a rubber room, We have...the classroom.

Most of the blame for this can be laid squarely at the feet of teacher's unions, who in their greedy push for power have taken the notion of competence in education totally out of the equation, leaving Us with the cretinous framework of an educational system where results don't matter, but policy does. That's like running a restaurant where the food tastes like reheated crap, but you simply must keep the cooks in the kitchen.

And in Puerto Rico, the educational system has been used to stuff useless wads of flesh onto the public payroll, again favoring imbeciles over students and policy over educational progress. I know We are not unique in that sense, but I wish We were unique in reversing that trend.

Can a teacher's union be a force for positive change in education? Of course it can be, but only by focusing on excellence in education as the goal. As long as a union--any union--is a self-serving leech with two suckers, one draining its membership and the other its patron entity, then a union is nothing more than a posse of thieves with license to undercut, undermine and under-deliver. 

It's way past time for unions to step up and set new standards for overall progress. For the teacher's union in New York, Puerto Rico or Mississippi to do that, it must recognize three basic truths:

1) Excellence in education means adequately and openly measuring everything in the system, including teachers.

2) Some teachers are better than others and some are worst; it's called human nature.

3) For excellence in education, the best ones should get better compensation and the worse ones should be dismissed.

Why teacher's unions insist on denying these points is an indication of how far their vision is from reality. In nearly every walk of life, excellence gets rewarded with more benefits while incompetence gets dismissed. In the classroom, their "system" would have the top-notch students, the failures and the stay-at-homes all getting "C"s and no one being left behind for any reason other than death. Teachers don't want their power to "grade" students taken away from them, but Our right (We pay for their services and have a direct stake in the result, therefore We have the right) to grade them? Nuh-uh.

In My high school, I dealt with a Math teacher who several times tried to cheat Me on My final grade, a Spanish teacher with the gall to try to discuss novels, including Don Quixote, without ever having read any of them and a History teacher who could discuss the topic only as related to her trip to Russia in 1967. 

I called them all on this and much more, the fat slob, the drunkard, the pervert, the cheater, the know-nothings and more, often and loudly. Was I a pain on the ass? You bet I was. Did I deserve their rejection? Uh-huh. But I didn't deserve their incompetence and inability to do even a mediocre job as teachers. None of My classmates did. No student ever does.

Teachers make a lot of noise, usually in protest and pseudo-defense of their "rights." If they really want to make a difference and recover the respect they once enjoyed and that their colleagues in other countries enjoy, then they have to earn it by being at the front of the debate of excellence in education, exemplifying the standard, rather than on the streets behaving like drop-outs.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Update: 19 Nov. 09: The Boston Teachers Union blocks performance bonuses to deserving teachers because the others don't get any. Makes me want to re-evaluate My stance on gun support, too.

Fool's Gold(en Idea)

Somebody tattoo this date on their hindquarters: 30 October 2009. The reason? The Jenius found a Fool's plan to be actually...workable.

Yes, I know, I had to sit down for a few seconds Myself. Got Me a case of the vapors, I must say.

OutHouse member Eric Correa--better known for being the foster brother of now-dead drug dealer and recent victim of shots fired at his house (which is why I don't bother with using "alleged" before "drug")--has filed a proposal to consolidate Puerto Rico's 78 Municipalities into 20. 

I went after this proposal in Jenial hand-rubbing fashion, what with Eric's family connections and bullets already flying around his head, or actually, his house, so that whatever brickbats I hurled at this Fool would (a) have to be sharp (they always are, but I mean, I'd be competing with bullets, people!) and (b) be tinged with some "No, here's how it's done" smackdown thrown in as the usual lagniappe. (Subtle shout out to The Picky Grammar Lady on that one...)

But lo and behold! Eric "The Foster Brother to a Dead Drug Dealer"'s plan is actually not bad. His conjunction of 78 Municipalities into 20 is not perfect, but it has strong elements that make it feasible. Let Me elaborate:

---By using 20 "new" municipalities, the proposal reduces to almost one-fourth the number of "City Hall" staffs needed, which could translate into reducing the size of this level of government by 1%. Nah, I'm kidding. Maybe 3%. Okay, okay, realistically, the consolidation would force the reduction of at least 25-30% of current employee levels, a significant savings for Us the taxpayers. (No, I don't give a damn who loses their jobs because I'm paying for their parasitism.)

---Although the consolidation creates "cities" with a wide range of populations (from about 92,000 in "New Fajardo" to about 515,000 in "New San Juan"), the average size of each new "city" is about 200,000 residents. With projected reductions in employee numbers, this could bring Us into closer alignment with the U.S. of part of A. level of employees-per-10,000 residents, a better fit for Federal funding and state budget models. (No, the U.S. is not the gold standard for great government, but they give Us gold and thus set the [mediocre] standard.)

---The consolidation also makes perfect sense for establishing a unicameral system with 5 Senatorial Districts of roughly 800,000 residents each (10 senators all told) and 4 representatives per District, with each representative "speaking" for about 200,000 residents. No at-large legislators allowed. New unicameral total: 30 Fools.  Current number: Too many.

There are some negatives to the proposal, but they are manageable:

---Some of the geographical groupings are awkward, such as Maricao-into-Yauco (Maricao is closer to Mayagüez) and Cabo Rojo-into-San Germán (Cabo Rojo is larger in population), but these are not insurmountable. If 20 is the magic number, some towns can be re-arranged and that should take care of the problem. 

---However, there is some trace of gerrymandering in the proposal, with some traditional Popular Democratic Party towns kept in "small" new cities while major statehood party centers are glommed into "large" new cities. That can be addressed at the planning stage by using population/proximity as the basis for redistribution rather than political expediency. The odds of that happening are 0.000.00.0% (Yes, I'm being mathematically sarcastic.) And yet, it can be done if a number such as 20 is used as a guide to the number of "new cities," as it forces redistribution within reasonable parameters.

---The bigger obstacle is stupid civic pride and political greed, as possibly shown above, but also by "Not My town!" pseudo-thinking. Here's the appropriate response to that: Screw it. If your town is to be folded into another, I don't care: We need to save money and if sticking your little city hall and half-brained mayor into some sort of county structure will cut Our costs, good riddance to your "independence," bozo. I live in Cabo Rojo and if it becomes "part" of San Germán, cool. I was born in Aguadilla and if another plan suggests it become part of Arecibo, cool. If it isn't 20, then 27, or (as in My unpublished post) maybe 16? Cool. Fewer Fools? Mondo cool! (Yes, I said mondo.)

What We cannot have is a "not My town" mentality that keeps Us on a "damn My Island" path. Consolidate? Good. Counties instead of municipalities? Good. Purposeful action that leads to significant change? Good. Waiting for another workable plan to satisfy Fools and the fools that support them. Not good.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

 

Monkey Business (Plan)

Have you heard the one about monkeys being used as lab animals for scientific experiments? Seems that a company called Bioculture Puerto Rico Inc. wants to set-up a research facility in Guayama (east of Ponce; look it up) that will breed monkeys and test drugs on them, including vaccines like that used for/against the swine flu. In the hullabaloo, PETA got involved and may have duped Oscar-winner Benicio Del Toro into signing a letter pledging to engage in civil disobedience to fight this facility, petitions abound and no one with any real government authority wants to go on record about this matter.

Hoo boy. Where to start?

Okay, Let's start here: I bet the only freaking link you clicked on was about Benicio Del Toro. If that's so: screw you.

Second of all, I usually think of PETA as rabid cretins, but I support them in this effort. No, monkeys don't have rights, but We don't have any right to haul their hairless asses from Mauritius to Puerto Rico for lab experiments. Especially since...

We've got thousands of monkeys running amok in Puerto Rico. Most of them work for the government (shut up: you knew that was coming), but years ago, macaques and rhesus monkeys escaped from a university facility and have been living large on the southwest side of the Island. Where I live.

Coincidence, I assure you.

The monkeys cause severe crop damage, more severe when you consider We have the agricultural production of the Gobi Desert's rock plains. They've been a problem for years and many people--Me included--have come out in favor of hunting them down and exterminating them as a non-native, harmful species.

And before you get on your high horse and abuse it, the monkeys are known to harbor hepatitis and herpes. We know that because that's what they were infected with when they escaped.

But one man's monkey on his back is another's mon(k)ey maker. (Took Me nine seconds to come up with that. Please hold your applause as I'm busy right now.) Look down at the very bottom of this article to find the following quote:  

"The increasing lab demand for macaques meanwhile has encouraged Puerto Rican trappers to intensify efforts to capture feral rhesus macaques and red monkeys. The monkeys were introduced to Puerto Rico to be bred for research more than 80 years ago. The National Humane Review, formerly published by the American Humane Association, mentioned efforts to extirpate them in the 1930s.

Estimating the present monkey population to be about 1,000, the Puerto Rican government has invested $450,000 in the present capture campaign, according to Danica Coto of Associated Press."

By some estimates, the (real) monkey population is in the several thousands, not a mere thousand. Reports of monkey sightings have been made in Cataño, just west of San Juan and site of a recent refinery explosion. (Coincidence, I assure you.) That the government wants to throw money at the problem is (a) about time and (b) as useful as monkeys pissing on the CAPECO fire. The government can't handle its own monkeys, so it should just turn the handling of these monkeys to private industry.

Yes, that's right: Let's legalize capturing monkeys in Puerto Rico to sell to labs. I'll bullet My list:

A) We need to get rid of monkeys that don't belong here. I say We do that with Our politicians, too.

B) Capturing the monkeys generates revenue and produces tangible benefits to farmers, labs and monkeys in Africa, who get to stay home.

C) A monkey's life is less valuable than a human's. Disagree? Okay, who should We protect: the person who can get bitten and savaged by a monkey with herpes or hepatitis or the monkey? Don't say "both" because the monkey doesn't belong here.

D) Best-case scenario is the captured monkeys go back to Africa. Okay, PETA, put your money where your howling mouth is and pay for that. Uh-huh, I thought so.

E) My Plan: Round up 100-110 monkeys, throw them into a session of the legislature and lock all the doors. Last monkey standing wins.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

P.S. And on the subject of animals, dead or otherwise, here's this about tons of dead fish in one of Our lagoons. Coincidence, I assure you.

Vicious Cycle

My Genius Friend Kevin Shockey and I have had numerous discussions about Puerto Rico. One of his many salient observations is that We seem to have "leapfrogged" the U.S. of part of A. in terms of what's happening in Our democracy/society. 

Made Me think. That's a good thing, people. Tell your elected officials to try it sometime.

So I spent a few minutes and came up with this quote, from Alexander Tytler's book 'The Cycle of Democracy":

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. 

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

“From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage.” (Emphasis Mine.)

Now Dr. Tytler wrote this back in the late 18th century, pre-dating much of what We now know as the U.S. of part of A. But it is worth noting that his "Cycle of Democracy" or "Fatal Sequence" is very much in evidence...and Kevin is right: We have leapfrogged Our "owners."

I spent many an hour writing about the slide into fascism that the murderous moron and his hyena cabal were engaging in. Under any measurement, civil liberties in the U.S. have been severely undermined to the point where it can be argued that the U.S. has ceased to be a true democracy.

But.

Looking at the downward part of the Cycle, where selfishness becomes apathy, then dependence and then bondage, where is the U.S. of part of A.? And where are We?

Both countries are past apathy. The evidence up north is voting numbers, where the U.S. consistently brings up the rear in voter turnout percentages amongst major democracies. Here, We eatbreatheexcrete politics, voting like banshees in heat, but can't put two brain cells together to actually think about what the Fools are doing to Us. 

The U.S. can be seen as being in the apathy-to-dependence transitional stage, making noises about issues, but waiting for someone in government to do something, like Obama coming up with some unimagined panacea. (And people getting really angry because he can't or isn't allowed to.)

But We are in bondage. Look at the stages and tell Me, Brethren, that We are in any other stage or between any other two stages. Go ahead: try.

Because We have been selfish--from Fools overloading government offices and budgets for personal and political gain to Us taking everything offered without any thought of morality or consequences--We became apathetic to whatever happened "away" from Us.

Because We were apathetic to what happened to "them," some groups seized control and doled out what the wanted, how they wanted, when they wanted and We came to depend on their indulgences, their "power," which was nothing more then the abdication of Ours.

Because We are dependent, when the government acts against Our best interests--or against Our demented whims--We feel powerless to act, incapable of proper response and thus are nothing more than prisoners of a system We spawned through indulgence and indifference. We are in bondage.

Doubt it? Where's the concerted action after the "huge," "massive," "historical" work stoppage of two weeks ago? Where are the pro-active public campaigns, the targeting of government actions, the widespread grass-roots upswell of laser-focused action?

It ain't there. Like elephants chained at infancy with puny links, We no longer believe We have the strength, will or energy to take action. We can shriek Our pain, but We can't think for Our future. We can scream epithets and tweet inanities, but We can't seize an initiative or target a goal. What We have instead is government trying to "solve" government, the warden and prison guards duking it out behind closed doors while We rattle Our bars with tin cups and yell "Dirty screws!"

And yet...

Briefly: what overthrows bondage?

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Our Brethren, Our Problem

This won't take long...

Apropos of My most recent post, The Insider posted a comment, an excerpt of which reads:

"PPA, OBE, PPP. How about IPOM?

Incentivized Citizen Out Migration

Identify the demographic most draining on the government. Let's say the welfare class, and fully subsidize their move to the United States where they will certainly obtain a better education for their children. Meanwhile the costs associated with holding them in "inventory" for PR are offset by a "foreign" government completely.

Yes, this does sound like some form of governmental "expense category gentrification". So be it. Overall, everyone involved is better off.

The impact of this educational component are also in line with Gil's recent discussion on how education and Puerto Rico's death toll are interrelated.

I made the personal exodus. That is usually not possible for the welfare class who cannot afford moving expenses or even airfare in most cases.

I discussed it in more detail in my blog entry titled "Expatriating the Poor Boriquens to Save the Economy".

It took Singapore 30 years to re-engineer it's economy. Based on how it "felt to be in Puerto Rico", it will probably take about 60 years to get a clue on how to re-vamp education... everything is sssssslllllloooooowwwwwww....

So - at that rate - when your child turns about 65, if he hasn't been shot up in the streets or died from lack of adequate health care, then you can enroll him back in kindergarten.

Or you can move them to Florida where you can find a similar climate, pockets of similar culture, and vast improvements in everything else."

I respect and support The Insider's choice to move away from Puerto Rico; We even discussed it over the phone long before it happened. And We have debated issues related to Our societal ills and foibles over at his blog and in e-mails.

But his solution--exiling Our welfare class someplace else--is wrong. The solution is not to dump Our people in someone else's unwilling lap: the solution is to redevelop Our society so that Our welfare class is drastically reduced, while Our other classes make equally-positive strides.

Yes, dumping the poor someplace else is "easy," but "easy" isn't synonymous with "right." And "easy" is not the way We need to look to create the society so many of Us want and deserve.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Privatization Formula

My previous post brought up "off-budget entities" (OBEs) as government "solutions" and related them--on the surface--to "public-private alliances" (PPAs), the current government enema-disguised-as-panacea.

Let's delve into this, shall We? (The OBE-PPA thing, not the enema thing...)

While OBEs are often, if not always, politically-motivated (why go "off-budget" for ANY public service?) and remain largely in government, PPAs are not often so politically-oriented, simply because they are almost always undertaken with the markets and in full view of voters. There's something to be said for transparency.

I'll use a small-scale example to illustrate My forthcoming larger points. Redding and Shasta Counties, in California, implemented several PPAs. Mary Machado, Executive Director of Shasta Voices, issued a report evaluating the results of those PPAs. Here's an excerpt:

"Machado's report looks at the pros and cons of privatization, giving local examples in which public-private partnerships have worked (Redding Library, Turtle Bay Exploration Park and Big League Dreams) and when privatization has failed (Shasta County public defenders office, Shasta County Mental Health Services and electric utility service for the city of Redding)."

Note what had worked and what had not: Worked: library, park, park; Not Worked: law system, health, utility. The split is indisputable: If it is a central government function, mere privatization does not work.

Now there are several dozen factors involved in this privatization analysis framework, but here are the basics, and from these, one can easily assess whether a PPA is aimed at public success (a "win-win") or political success (a "they win-We get shafted like a Saturn rocket just blasted up Our descending colons"):

1)  Privatization of a peripheral government service: Parks and convention centers are not core government functions; just imagine Disney World built and run by FEMA. (Make up your own jokes here.) When a peripheral government service is privatized, the odds are it will be a success, if for no other reason than the fact that a private company will be more efficient than a government agency. A second major reason is that most people will not use or care as much about the peripheral service when compared to a core service. If We see PPAs aimed at "releasing" peripheral services, We can relax a bit and focus simply on whether the privatizer is getting a sweetheart deal (which I'm sure is the case.)

2) Privatization of a core government service: The core government functions are defense (law system, police, military), infrastructure (roads, utilities, public service buildings), economic standards (treaties, incentives, banking regulations) and government revenue collection to pay for the above (taxes, fees, licenses, patents, etc.) If you can't directly place a government service in these four categories, it is not something the government should be involved in. That includes education. And before you ask, I place health care in "infrastructure," as in the government helps build hospitals and other health centers.

The problem with privatizing a core government service is that the hybrid moron created combines the worst of both parents: political influence and sole authoritative power on one side with self-serving greed and short-term vision on the other. The "You who disagree just shut the hell up" example? Health care in the U.S. of part of A., where a highly-protected (sole authoritative power + political influence) industry seeks ever-increasing profits (self-serving greed + short term vision) over decent patient care.

The result? A lousy expensive hybrid that satisfies only the few that benefit from it in government and insurance companies. We had a similar (but much smaller) example in Puerto Rico when the local government owned the telephone company, which became THE cash cow for the Fools. How? By charging long-distance call rates intra-Island that were higher than long-distance calls to many States. In effect, the phone company made profits--though it was a government service--severely hampered business development for decades (the phone bill was a major expense that limited entrepreneurs and centered offices in San Juan rather than islandwide) and harbored thousands of useless bodies as government "workers," a fact that was made abundantly clear when the company was being sold. 

What did the government do? Stepped in to protect the useless bodies' jobs. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with OBEs, PPAs and privatization: They are aimed at government's goals, not Ours. 

Why would a private company want to take over a government service? Because it is almost always an exclusive niche. How many power companies do We have? Water companies? Port systems? Exactly. So taking them over means a company gains a monopoly that, like all monopolies in a capitalist economy, can only be established and kept with government help. (Don't give Me any "Windows" crap: "Word" has a bigger market share and other options have always been available.) 

So with a monopoly on the table, what kind of negotiation is involved? A give-and-take with the client/public in mind? Or a "share the power and wealth" cacklefest?

But if the government service is one where other entities compete--like the educational system or health care--what incentive will a private company or industry insist upon in order to take on the huge risk? Protection. If not outright monopoly, then clear-cut favoritism. 

In Our case, privatize the Stupid Convention Center? Go ahead, so long as the company that takes over doesn't get free electricity, free water and a tax break longer than three years or gets saddled with 120 workers where 35 will do.

Privatize the power and water companies? Go ahead, so long as the government stays on the regulatory side (performance standards, rate adjustment formulas, strategic development) and stays out of personnel issues and "special projects." Will the rates go up? Sure. But by eliminating the many--very many--subsidies and removing the debt load collection from political chicanery, the rise in rates will more closely reflect market realities rather than political realities. (There are pharmaceuticals here that pay less for electricity than the corner mom-and-pop bakery and municipalities owing millions of dollars dating back years. And don't give Me any guff about "But they create jobs." So do thousands of other entities and they pay their bills, on time and in full.)

Privatize the university system? Normally, I'd say "go ahead," seeing as how I think education in government hands is like science in a Scientologist's maw. But the public university system has followed the U.S. of part of A.'s model and that is the only aspect of education in the States that actually works at a world-class level. The University of Puerto Rico system boasts a Top 5 engineering school (in Mayagüez), serves over 106,000 students and though lurches more often than it walks proud, the system turns out a decent end product. Can a private system do as well? Only if it gets massive concessions regarding tuition, hiring, rent, utilities, legislation (for future projects) and subsidies.

Watch as the discussion about privatizing the UPR centers on "academic freedom" (bullcrap) on one side and "economic adjustment" (bullshit) on the other, but no mention will be made about the end product (students graduating and prepared for the coming economic changes)...until the privatizer asks for massive concessions. Then and only then will Our future college graduates be deemed important: to gain the secured niche.

And if that happens, in the UPR discussion or about another government service, remember the formula: Sole authoritative power + political influence + self-serving greed + short term vision = We are screwed.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

OBE = PPA?

From the Freeman blog, an article by Hans Sennholz, titled "Underground Government."

It's from 1986.

All emphasis is Mine, sayeth The Jenius.

"...(W)hen constraints on government pose a major threat to politicians, government employees, and powerful interest groups that benefit from political largess, government goes underground. When budget cuts threaten the position and incomes of politicians and bureaucrats they react by going “off-budget.” Whether they are committed philosophically to expand the political arena or just defend their economic existence and life style, off-budget operations are an important procedure for achieving their goal. 

The path to underground government is rather short and direct. Government merely needs to establish independent corporations, that is, quasi-public enterprises that are managed by politicians or their appointees and operated “off-budget.” These enterprises (OBEs) may engage in any economic activity from the construction and maintenance of airports, public housing, and libraries, to the development of theaters, stadiums, and zoos. Their spending, borrowing, and other activities are deleted from any government budget. Their debt is not subject to constitutional debt limitation nor is it conditional on voter approval. Government activity may thus be made to disappear by a simple stroke of the pen that creates a corporate charter. The simple expedient of a corporate guise moves political machinations beyond the control and scrutiny of the electorate."

Yes. DO go on.

"The use of OBE’s allows (politicians) to spend and borrow without constraint, to dispense patronage without civil service restrictions, and to bestow favors and benefits on special groups. An OBE is an anomaly of organization: a government entity unfettered by many of the statutory constraints applicable to government, a corporation without stockholders but with a board of directors consisting of politicians or their appointees, a non-profit business that competes with business or is protected from competition as an unregulated monopoly."

Is there more?

"When tax resistance limits the scope of government revenue, politicians and bureaucrats on all levels of government learn to evade rather than accommodate. When state and local governments chafe under constitutional restrictions they go underground. Moreover, the federal government can be expected to encourage the move. It encourages off-budget activity by providing grants-in-aid and extending loans directly to OBEs, bypassing on- budget units of government. Aid may be given by an off-budget Federal enterprise to an off-budget state or municipal enterprise with a handful of politicians and officials deciding the issue. Taxpayers have no voice in such matters."

I'm listening.

"Politicians are the primary beneficiaries of OBEs. Fiscal limitations of any sort restrict their power to engage in transfer activity; OBEs evade the restrictions and ignore voter reluctance at the polls. By making political activity seem to disappear and permitting politicians to resume spending, OBEs enable them to preach fiscal frugality on-budget while practicing political largess off-budget.

OBEs inevitably give rise to special-interest groups that can be depended on to lend vocal support. Bankers, in particular, have a vested interest in the growth of off-budget enterprises, receiving income not only as investors in OBE projects but also as trustees on behalf of bondholders and as financial advisers to the entity. Bankers may act as underwriters of bond issues which OBEs, in contrast to government agencies, usually place on a noncompetitive basis, granting higher profit margins to underwriters. Attorneys always join the parade, acting as “bond counsels.” They derive generous income from reviewing indenture specifications and issuing opinions on the deductibility of bond interest from Federal taxation."

And the other shoe?

"Taxpayers must bear, in one form or another, the cost of OBE loss and failure. But even when OBEs manage to operate in the black, they crowd out competing borrowers and allocate capital and labor to political uses rather than to economic employment. They withdraw scarce economic resources from urgent want satisfaction so that political interests can be served, and channel capital from more productive to less productive employment, which depresses labor productivity and lowers labor income. No matter how efficient an OBE may be, it amounts to malinvestment and maladjustment because it is a creation of politics. After all, if an economic project is expected to be economical and profitable because consumers will patronize it, it will be developed by individual enterprises. If businessmen shun it and private investors avoid it, it is likely to be uneconomical."

And finally...

"Political power intoxicates the best hearts. No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with much political power. Constitutional government is built on this very knowledge; it is cogent evidence of the distrust of human beings in political power. It rests on a deep conviction that individuals vested with authority must be restrained by something more than their own discretion—by bills of rights, laws, rules, regulations, and mandates by the people they govern.

Off-budget government escapes most such restraints and opens the gates of political power. It escapes the constraints because changing thoughts and values are either moderating the common distrust of political power or the distrust is failing to restrain the growing powers of government. The deep conviction that government must be restrained is giving way to the belief that government must be able to engage in any economic activity its agents deem necessary. It is yielding to the ancient notion that political rulers are endowed with extraordinary powers. Unfortunately, they are not. But they are ever eager to ignore the traditional constraints and follow their own caprice."

Watch the local Public-Private Alliances (PPA) discussion in the coming weeks. It will get louder and with greater rhetoric. Note also the increased emphasis on "rescuing the workers," on "building for the future" and on "becoming more responsive to the people." You'll hear it...and it's all crap.

And note also that what was said in this piece about OBEs applies quite well to Our local form of "Let the Fools run rampant" indifference. The more fools Us if We let them get away with it again.

The Jenius Has Quoted.

Smackdown Smorgasbord

Current Larva Staph Chief--er, Chief of Staff--Marcos "Mouth Fart" Rodríguez stated that the government he and his "boss" Luis "The Larva" Fortuño run (into the ground) are "monitoring blogs and e-mails of students who participated in the stoppage of October 15th."

Really.

So I sent the Staph Chief the following fax [787-721-1472]:

Hey, you. Since you're so intent on monitoring e-mails and blogs, in direct contradiction to what We as a society and government stand for, I want to make it easier for you to read what one of Us thinks. (And I assure you, only one of the two of Us is really thinking on this matter.) Please direct your attention to Gil The Jenius, at http://gilthejenius.blogspot.com. You might want to have a dictionary handy as some of the concepts you will encounter there will be presented in their proper definition and context. (Have someone explain the context to you.) I hope to see you on My Blog. Toodle-oo!

I challenge other local bloggers to the same. There is NO way this will EVER work on Our Island if We simply challenge it head on. Let's blow this Mouth Fart away, so to speak.

On another topic, take a look at this local government fiscal report on La Fortaleza salaries covering up to March 15, 2009. (It might be easier to scan it if you download it.) Of the 21 Fortaleza officials listed on page 2, 16 are listed with "before" salaries and "after" salaries reflecting their acceptance or rejection of a voluntary pay cut. For those 16, the "before" average salary was $10,146; the "after" average is $9,843. A month. The "average savings"? $4,848. A month. 

That saved about 1.84 average government jobs. (You do the math.) Woo. Hoo.

This is what some of Us have been talking about when We say that cutting government jobs is a secondary step to cutting government salaries at the executive level and in "consulting" contracts. On salaries alone, scroll down at the organizational chart and you will see an average executive salary exceeding $80,000.

There are two arguments usually thrown about in the counter-debate; (1) You have to pay higher salaries than the private sector in order to attract "talent," and (2) These executives earn their pay.

Here's the shot between-the-eyes for each one:

#1: Poppycock. Talent will be attracted by other factors more than by salary. That point has been proven in numerous studies in the past several decades. What keeps talent away from government jobs is corruption, bureaucracy and stagnation. What kind of "talent" is attracted to that job description? 

#2: "Earn"?! Let's see. The Electrical Authority numbskull makes $170,001 a year. Ask Us if he earns it. The Water & Sewer Authority imbecile makes $169,999.96. Ask Us what We think he should really earn. Look down that list and you will see way too many people in way too many positions making way too much money. They don't "earn," they get paid.

And this is just the tip of the shocking, sewage-filled iceberg. Yes, The Larva asked for volunteers to cut their own pay to reduce costs. What he should have done was tell them there would be 20% pay cuts across the board and if anyone wanted to bail, fine. From La Fortaleza alone that could have helped save 12-16 jobs. Multiply that by the scrolling list of overpaid hacks and you could easily see 200-300 jobs saved. Cut theft diguised as "consulting contracts" and you could actually save thousands of jobs.

And yet, indisputably, We HAVE to cut jobs. But to do that, The Larva needs buy-in, public support, a broad-based acknowledgment that he is trying. At least after that, the horribly mishandled job cuts that followed would have (barely) had a defensible position, i.e., "We have started making serious cost cuts, but the problem is far too large to handle that way." Instead, We have a gob making $10,319 a month saying that the government needs to cut 130,000 jobs...and that blogs and e-mails are now surveillance targets.

And while I'm at it, here's the list of the Fortaleza drones who refused to take a 5% pay cut while their boss took a 10% cut:

Miguel Hernández, Esq., Legislative Advisor. (What can he say? "They're winning, boss!")

José Meléndez, Municipal Advisor. ("Do you know how many mayors hate you?")

José Otero, Finances and Economic Development Advisor. ("Uh, can We ask for a bailout?")

Ana Mayol, Federal Affairs and National Policy Advisor. ("Have you considered becoming a Democrat?")

José Valenzuela, Energy and Environment Advisor. ("With more blackouts, tourists won't be able to see the garbage."

Juan Rodríguez, Chief Information Officer. ("The party color is now being described as a "blue screen of death.")

And Special Notice to Velmarie Berlingeri, La Fortaleza Administrator who trumps all these parasites with a $12,161 monthly salary AND a $5,250 Christmas bonus. What does she say to her boss? "You'll get the tapes when I say you'll get the tapes."

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Pareto's Rule For Not Caring

My apologetically-belated Thanks to Firuzeh Shokooh Valle, of Global Voices Online, who does a wonderful job focusing on the Caribbean and for picking up two recent Jenius posts, one on problems We face and My recent comments on the local strike.


You might want to look up the Pareto Principle before going on...

Now look at this recent headline from the Latin American Herald Tribune: "80% of Puerto Rico Murders Called Drug-related."

At 11:50 p.m., in the Sabana Seca sector of Toa Baja, some 15 miles southwest of San Juan, dozens of shots were fired. When the shooting spree ended, seven people lay dead, twenty wounded. One other person died later. Amongst the wounded was a pregnant young lady, in her eighth month. The bullet killed the baby.

In the bloodthirsty nature of the ghoulish "media," it was immediately labeled a massacre and with the notation that the updated number of murders in 2009 now stood at 709.
709 murders. By mid-October. Our average annual murder rate for 2006-2007 was 733. We exceeded 800 murders in 2008. We're on pace to exceed that in 2009. For 2006-07 We would have ranked 7th in the world in murders-per-100,000 residents; for 2009 We could rank as high as 4th.

Why is this happening? Drug trade is a major culprit. The other, as I have highlighted before, is indifference. We--those of Us outside the drug-fueled violence--simply don't care. And yet We pay a high price for this indifference that We also don't care about.

The drug trade contributes to major expenses that We have to underwrite, namely prisons and health care. An example is in the LATH article which places the average cost of an addict in prison at between $28,000 and $30,000. On that basis alone, isn't there a cheaper way to save lives?

Of course there is. Cease Fire. Put the money into education, not through the money-grubbing hands of local department officials, but directly into schools, through community involvement. By involving the larger community, from civic leaders and corporations to churches and former gang members, high-violence schools have been able to turn around their poor graduation rates and significantly improved their community.

The payoff? Again, I'm way ahead of the curve: a 10% increase in graduation rate can reduce the murder rate by 20%. A mere 10% increase in the number of high school graduates is something even We can achieve, even with a brainless government, lazy teachers and outright theft in the educational system.

But We do face two major obstacles: a convicted drug dealer maldirecting the local Education Federal Affairs office and Our massive indifference. The first We will get rid of, if he doesn't do it himself on his way to becoming a crime statistic. As for the other...We have Our work cut out for Us, that's for sure.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

Money & Self-Image: Puerto Rico

"Money and success don't change people; they merely amplify what is already there.”

"(The Brookings Institution) estimated that the value of the possessions in a typical rural house was no more than $75, a monthly credit card payment for many Puerto Ricans of 70 years later."

The first is an insightful Will Smith quote; the second is from an article describing the 1930s in Puerto Rico. They belong together to describe what We see today in My Brethren.

The Puerto Rican reality of My grandparents and parents was not My reality and is certainly not the reality of My son. Back two generations,  jobs were hard to come by, wages were low, food was scarce, the government was a distant phantom and people faced it all with a sense of acceptance.

But beginning in 1947 and mutating in 1968, scarcity gave way to adequateness then even excess, wages rose, food became abundant and the government...well, the government went from phantom to vampire. What had been a government-led economic transformation of the first order between 1947 and 1968--and had shown signs of developing a powerful private sector engine--was derailed by a new government idea for jobs: government-fed. 

Call it the curse of jíbaro statehood, the bankrupt notion that the U.S. of part of A. would accept Puerto Rico as a state and that in doing so, We would become high-living princes in a wonderful kingdom. Then-governor Luis Ferré hawked that concept like a panacea, unaware or uncaring that there was no disease for it to cure...if it ever could cure anything. The only thing jíbaro statehood was Ferré's complete lack of vision, substituting empty rhetoric for substantial insight.

The whole purpose of this blind man's bluster was to somehow reposition the weak statehood party as an option--a political option--to win again, to convert a fluke election result into a viable one. And to that end, lacking a true economic strategy, Ferré proceeded to engage in three distinct activities with horrendous long-term effects on Us all:

1) Handed out government jobs to create electoral goodwill, or in blunter terms, handing out jobs to buy votes. 

2) Allowing greater government official latitude to counteract opposition party control. Like Pandora found out, what you let out to act freely will not be good to you.

3) Tied economic growth to federal government interests to both "pave" the way to statehood and expand local government influence as opposed to courting private sector growth.

As an "economic" solution, handing out government jobs was like slicing chunks of flesh off the goose that lays the golden eggs: it weakens the goose until it dies. Because it was easier than actually thinking and planning, every governor since has used the same witch's brew formula to both counter the other party's idiocy and "prove" economic growth. The expansion and Byzantine confusion they partnered to create led to increased corruption, to the point where even the Feds decided that it was better to cut Us off at the knees--again--than to continue to have Us as a close "partner."

And what do We have 40+ years later? A government supported by the uninformed greed of sycophants and mindless flag-wavers that cannot sustain itself, cannot correct itself, cannot function with itself and now cannot even lie to itself anymore. Thus, government employees fired, more employees who need to be fired, the mutated compact broken, leaving the uninformed flag-wavers whining and the brainpower needed to find solutions long-squandered in utter disuse.

What was deemed "passive acceptance" in the 1930s became"whiny demanding," for what was once "I will accept what you give Me if you choose to" became "I will take what you do give me when you give it to Me." The low self-worth shift from "if" to "when" is the shift from a sigh to a screech, from "someday" to "now" and from "sharing" to "scarfing." We went from barely having enough food to barely having enough to make interest payments. We went from "what I need" to "what I want now" and from "wishes" to erroneously-called "rights." And We did all that by simply having what We were enhanced by more money and by the underhanded conniving of those We supported time and time again.

Now We need to reconsider, to reorient Our vision of what We have to what We truly have and to seriously think about what We really want to have. It's not 1968 all over again, for then  We let one man and his shaky party lead Us astray. It's now 2009 and the job lies in all Our hands, not in that of a muddle-headed (non)governor and the shaky party he doesn't lead.

It's up to Us. Nothing new: it always was.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Money & Self-Image: Prelude

Here's a shorthand version of what Puerto Rico was like in the 1930s: "Using a physician's estimate of how much food various types of workers needed each day for basic nutrition, a study was done of purchasing power in Puerto Rico. It found that the weekly cost of a minimal diet was $3.19 per person in 1932. But in most industries, the average weekly wage was $3.00. Even before paying for housing or clothing, workers were falling behind."

In the same article, it is noted that roughly 94% of a worker's annual wages were spent on food. 

Ninety-four. Percent. And about 82% of Our people were below the poverty line. Then the Great Depression got worse.

Get the picture? Puerto Rico was a deep pit of economic despair, physical misery and political vacuity. The haves had practically all and they weren't "Us," they were "U.S."

Fast-forward nearly 40 years, to the fateful elections of 1968, glossing over a political alliance forged between a former Socialist and a wartime president's cabinet, the emergence of a new post-war investment attitude and the creation of an economic compact for short-term growth that worked beyond all expectations. By the late 1960s, Our economic situation had gone from the pits to the patio, consumption had ceased to be a lifestyle malady and had become a lifestyle and although the "U.S." still had Us lock, stock and over the barrel, We had begun sharing in Our very own pie.

The ex-Socialist leader had become Our first elected governor and had won again and again and again, and though clearly capable of winning several more terms, he stepped away from power, only to be dragged back as Senate President. And the party he forged started to split, then cleaved apart, as practical idealism inevitably descended into populist greed.

Into the breech stepped the statehood party, offering up a candidate with business experience and a streak of art patronage, a man who waged his political campaign as if it were a hobby for not even the most bitter of the ruling party's critics gave Ferré a big chance at victory.

But win he did, by a very slim margin. And suddenly, the man for whom the political campaign had taken a back seat to his business interests was thrust into the position of running Our Island. Unprepared for such a role, aware that his victory was due more to a split in the opposing party than a true mandate for change and seeking to position his unsteady party on a new visionary path, Ferré pushed the concept of statehood as hard as he could, ran a loose ship that packed the government barge with political rats, tried to buy votes with the concept of a "Christmas bonus" that fills the eye while undermining the economy and proceeded to get his butt handed to him in a thunderous defeat in 1972.

And yet, if you want to point your finger at the person and time that forged the Puerto Rico We have today, as the prelude to the present, you'd be very hard-pressed to choose another person and another time.

A discussion to come.

The Jenius Has Spoken.