Reading Is Judgmental

Jenius Friend--a Genius himself--Gabo Pagán sent Me a tweet that asked: Why are there are no decent libraries on the island?

Yes, I'm on Tweet Street, as--what else?--@GilTheJenius.

My tweet in reply was: 1) Racism 2) Climate 3) Peer pressure 4) Economics. But mainly racism: gringos didn't think We'd use them. So We didn't.

Allow Me to elaborate.

1) Racism: When the U.S. of part of A. invaded Puerto Rico and took it over, the overwhelming impression they had of Us was that We were "backward," "slow" and "lazy." Just look it up. We didn't speak English (how uncivilized!) and generally didn't work 7-8 hours a day because We were pretty much starving. It's amazing how a body needs to rest when it's consuming muscle tissue to survive.

In some quarters, We were called "dirty," "ignorant" and even "savages." One could say it was merely the tenor of the times, the "Victorian mentality" and whatnot, but the basic theme remains the same: they saw Us as inferior. Much inferior. And that judgment was racist.

Note that the U.S. of part of A. created the widespread library system. No other nation in the world had taken the concept to such a level. It was such a key and successful program that the U.S. of part of A. routinely touted it as a reason for its educational system's success, its economic growth spurt and resulting dominance on the world stage. But despite a few minor efforts, like the Carnegie Library just outside of Old San Juan, that library system didn't get launched here.

Why? Racism, in the sense that gringos thought We wouldn't take advantage of it, since We were, you know, so stupid and all. And a few other factors as well.


2) Climate: The tropical humidity of the Island wreaks havoc with books. Not to mention having to bring loads of books across the ocean, a recoverable investment when selling them (as European books were sold), but a big expense when it comes to just placing them in libraries. Now many rapacious-business-tycoons-cum-philanthropists couldn't have cared less about spending a couple of thousand dollars more to establish a library (Andrew Carnegie, anyone?), but to do so in "Porto Rico"? Well I should think not! And if you doubt Me, how many of those "guilt-reducing, nation-building" libraries do We have? Uh-huh.


3) Peer pressure: The limits of Twitter's 140 characters stunted this one, but there's two parts to this: the first is that there was a broad base of self-interested business and political leaders for whom libraries were seen as trouble and a general feeling in Our population that libraries--and by extension, reading--were (and still are) wastes of time.

The first is easy to grasp: Plantation owners and imperialist governments don't want educated folks because uneducated folks are easier to control...or confuse. To these power-holders, libraries were simply time bombs aimed at them. But in Our culture, forged under the reality of a daily struggle to survive, libraries were unknown and thus useless, or known and rejected as useless, for what could a book do to put food on the table today? Any of Us investing time in school, or worse a library, past a certain age was seen, by Us, as lazy. Or worse, uppity, as in "Wanting to be like the gringos." A similar peer pressure affects black students who strive to do well in school, where they are often accused of "going white."

Why We still have that general reaction to reading is probably the single most disgusting reality I feel about My Island.


4) Economics: Very similar to point three, what with power-holders wanting to keep the population under control and point two with the expense of book shipping, but centered on a specific point: the U.S. of part of A. saw Us as an economic project, not a social one. Yes, there was plenty of rhetoric about "Americanizing" Us and "bringing democracy to Porto Rico", but look at Our history and ask yourself: Were the major actions taken done so for Our benefit, or theirs? 

-- Between 1898 and 1917, they took over nearly every plantation on the Island and controlled every major revenue stream. Congress chided the Interior Department more than once for failing to make a strong effort to improve living conditions and education in Puerto Rico, which had worsened since the takeover.

-- In 1917, Congress granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans...for the World War I draft. No other "benefit" of citizenship was extended except for the right to die for another country.

-- Skip to 1947 when the U.S of part of A. finally decides to ramp up Puerto Rico's economy because it really had no other choice: World War II left foreign production in shambles, so increased U.S.-based production was a competitive advantage and Uncle Sam's top-of-the-pyramid presence on the world stage was slightly embarrassed by its "Poorest country in the Western Hemisphere" stepchild. Further proof: they used Puerto Rico solely as a "low-wage laboratory," instead of a "business development platform." And they agreed to a commonwealth status in 1952 that preserved their economic  interests in exchange for nothing on the political side that could affect those interests.

Conclusion: theirs. Delve deeper and the conclusion becomes a single truth.

And what does this have to do with libraries? We ain't got very many, that's what. Yes, schools "have" them, but they are to mainland libraries what rat is to Kobe beef. Our two largest community libraries are in Guaynabo and Dorado (fairly high on the local income per capita sclaes, I must point out), and both struggle to stay afloat. It's very likely that the only active library on the Island is at Fort Buchanan...because the U.S. of part of A. made libraries a part of every permanent base. Even in Puerto Rico.

Could there be other reasons why We lack libraries? Of course. U.S. of part of A. books were almost exclusively in English, but libraries were often used in mainland foreign-language communities as "nuclei" for English learning. Why not here? [I have to say this again: We are the only fucking nation on the fucking planet that has English for 12 years in schools and doesn't learn the fucking language. Stop anywhere on My Island, speak English and you'll see how many of Us are "bilingual." We're as bilingual as hair is edible.]

And there are reports of thousands of books arriving in Our ports, primarily for schools, that rotted on the docks or in warehouses. (That darn humidity!) Maybe that was Our fault, but it seems to Me that if libraries were built and stocked in Montana, New Mexico, Guam and the Aleutian Islands, then it was because someone from "up North" (or "down South," in the case of the Aleutian Islands) made sure the damn things got completed. Why not here?

Are libraries important? Yes, historically. Their importance is fading as the Internet pervades every piece of hardware We can carry or relate with. But their role as springboards for reading, for exploration, for discovery and learning, for confronting fear and ignorance and moving beyond, for context and perspective, needs to be recognized and preserved. Once We had to go "there" to be in a library; now We simply have to press a few keys. That it is easier to access a library doesn't mean We "have" it, for not using something is actually worse than not having it all.

To be clear, what I'm saying is: We don't have any excuses anymore. 



The Jenius Has Spoken.

[Update: 17 August 2011: Again from Genius Gabo Pagán, this poster on the value of libraries and librarians. Excellent.]

Moron Fools

[Jenial Thaks once again to Janine Mendes-Franco for making The Jenius visible on Global Voices Online, what with My post on pay-per-performance for Fools, which leads Me to...]

More on Fools. Or My way: Moron Fools.

Yes, it's brilliant. I accept your wild applause.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll, quoted in Misch's Global Economic Trend Analysis (My pre-dawn chai-sipping read of choice), only 6% of those polled feel Congress is doing a good job.

Six. Per. Cent. SIX. Need I point out that this is a record low?

Think about this for a moment. In what endeavor, process, procedure or system of Our daily lives do We tolerate a 6% "Yeah, We think that's okay" approval? 

There isn't any. Why? Because they are either eliminated as useless or replaced by something that works.

And yet, Congress--emphasis on "con"--keeps sliming along. Replace it? We should, but We don't. Too much money--most of corporate--creating too much inertia. And We can't eliminate it unless We throw outhe whole kit and caboodle, which come to think of it, sucks almost as badly.

So here's an idea, or rather, a series of ideas from Tim Siedell, over at The Huffington Post. Briefly listed, they are:

++ Every president is to be a clone of George Washington.
++ Make the Vice-President a symbolic office with teeth--literally: a T-rex.
++ Give smartphones and apps to every citizen so s/he can vote on every issue. (His corporate slams in this idea are worth the read.)
++ Give $1 million in yearly salary to each congresscritter...and have them wear a webcam 24/7/365.

(Why do I add "365"? To avoid the murderous moron's definition of 24/7 which to him meant working "24 hours a week, 7 months a year.")



Now wait a minute...Tim's on to something here. Cloning? Possible, but George was dull and dull don't cut it on da boob tube. A T-rex as V.P.? Sounds okay, but feeding the brute sounds like a real hassle. Smartphones as daily voting booths? Stupidity and cupidity would rule? Million a year salary? Eliminate the legal bribery called lobbying and I'm okay with it.

But 24/7/365 webcams on congresscritters? Do it. Now. Absolutely. Right to privacy? They aren't called "private servants," are they? National security? Ha! Congresscritters harm Us far more through their corrupt votes and non-votes than any dozen terrorist groups. Too much information? We get barely anything now, and if there's something history has proven, democracies die when information is "spun" all the time (Fox Noise, anyone?) and/or throttled for "security" (Patriot Farts, anyone?).

So let's give Tim a hand and one as well to The Sunlight Network that, back in 2006, challenged Fools at the state and national levels to be totally transparent with their daily agendas. I commented on their Punch Clock Campaign and suggested I'd even help publicize the agendas of local signees of the challenge. None ever did, of course.

But they should. And since they won't do it on their own, I'm suggesting We force them to. Short of the webcam, a daily agenda for transparency. And if they won't go for that, then I'd really push the T-rex idea and teach it to feed on carrion...what congresscritters and Fools are made of, anyway.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

The Jenius' Intellectual Honesty

From The Design Matrix comes this oft-printed list of 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty. The lesson today, class, is to apply these standards to The Jenius. Of course, in your absence, I'm applying them to Myself, so without further ado, here they are and here's how The Jenius fares.

           

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.  I can be accused of violating this principle and the criticism is valid. However, most of My "smackdowns" in this area are directed at government officials and other "experts" who are trying to use their positions to push stupid ideas, (there I go again...) so pushing My argument to the max is understandable. (Subtlety is lost on these moron...oops.) I'll give Myself a (B-) on this one rather than a C becasue I spelled "Jenius" with a "J". I'm humble that way.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.  Fail. I don't do this often enough simply because most of My arguments are aimed at debunking a position and/or highlighting a separate one, not arguing as if in a debate. My blog, My position. But strictly applied, a failing grade nonetheless: (F)

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.  Not a problem, since I insist on defining My terms and where I stand. And because I'm convinced My readers hang on My every thought and thought process. (A)

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. "Weak"? "Weak"?! Are you kidding Me?! Okay, I get the point. Yes, I do acknowledge weak points in My arguments, but not often enough. Not because My arguments are bullet-proof (they are, but bear with Me here), but because I look to define My position in under 800 words or so. Not an excuse: I do better than most. But there's room for improvement: (B)

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.  Not a problem. It doesn't happen often anyway. (A)

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards.  Nail this one. On an Island where blue supporters protect pederasts from their side and red supporters protect wife beaters and both protect their own criminal mafias, the fact that I have one standard applied equally makes Me a rarity. (A+)

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty.  Yes, I use nicknames that often focus on that person's physical traits, (lack of) personality, (extremely limited) intellectual and moral characteristics and whatnot. But those are not My arguments. Calling Pedro Stupid Rosselló a cocksucker is easy: I just did. But proving he is one is (probably) impossible. And yet. I have proven he deserves Stupid. My arguments are against the idea, position, process or action: the nicknames are just My saltiness in the wound. (A)

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.  I quoted this one in full because it's central to intellectual honesty. I simplify arguments by removing the spin and placing them in clear contrast. For example, I've written that if Group A uses military might to remove Group B from their legally-owned homes and businesses, Group A is wrong. Now make Group A "Israel" and Group B "Palestinians." The argument is simplified, clarified and the answer DOES NOT change just because now We're discussing "Israel". Our (non)government claims a 93-mile pipeline for natural gas will fix Our energy problems, reduce Our dependence on oil and improve Our infrastructure. All that is spin. The pipeline cuts needlessly through private property, threatens the environment, replaces oil with more volatile (pun intended) gas which does not guarantee savings or better infrastructure. Spin is another word for lie: The Jenius doesn't spin. And if My argument leaves something out, I'm known for going back and taking another look. (A)

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.   Not in doubt. Maybe heading towards "overboard," but never in doubt. (A+)

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.  I've done this several times, even granting the point to people who I believe would do Us a favor by removing themselves from Our lives permanently. (A)

Final grade? Seven As, two Bs and an F, which gives Me a 3.4 GPA, a B in intellectual honesty. (No grading on a curve, people.) That definitely needs improvement.  Let Me at it.

The Jenius Has Spoken.

Pay For Performance: Lawmakers Version

A government think-tank today proposed a controversial new law, “No Politician Left Behind,” which would pay congressmen solely on the basis of performance. 

The law, which was proposed by the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Government, “would make a serious dent in the Federal deficit because few if any congressmen would ever have to be paid,” said the Institute’s director, Davis Logsdon. 

“Right now, congressmen get paid even when they storm out of budget negotiations in a hissy fit,” Mr. Logsdon said. “Under this new law, the rule would be, no budget, no paycheck.” 

The idea of being paid per accomplishment drew howls of protest from lawmakers, many claiming that if the law were enacted it would result in their financial ruin. “If passed, this law would be tantamount to the establishment of ‘Work Panels,’ which would determine whether individual congressmen are accomplishing anything,” said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). “I, for one, would be in deep, deep trouble.” 

“I’m fairly sure that this law is unconstitutional,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “Now, I have never actually read the Constitution, but if this law were passed I would probably be forced to read it or live in a cardboard box.” 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that creating performance standards for lawmakers was “an insult to the institution of Congress.” “We have spent millions of dollars, some of it out of our own pockets, to get to Washington,” he said. “We did not come here to be treated like teachers.”

Tongue-in-cheek, from The Borowitz Report.

However, look at the idea closely... Why not? Why not do this? The hell with what legislators think, We own their asses and if We choose to pay them for performance, then We damn sure can make it so that they get paid only for performance. We have that power.

But We don't want to use it. We're lazy that way. And because, not so deep down, We don't want to measure what's going on, with lawmakers or Ourselves. Too much stress. Tons of pressure. Having to live up to standards and all. Better to be willfully blind, conscientiously ignorant. Easier. No need to think, you know?

We're idiots too often to suit My fancy.



The Jenius Has Spoken.

The Forked Estate

A sandwich shop that every 11 minutes smelled of farts. A copy of the day's El Nuevo Día (13 July 2011) adding to the moldy air. Here's a rundown of what the first 52 pages of the rag had as their version of news:

** Canceled contracts in the public health insurance program threaten to leave some 850,000 insured with reduced or no medical services. The current government debt with the insurance providers is deemed to be $60 million.
** Local police brutality, fingered by domestic and international human rights groups, is being discussed in Congress.
** A plan is floated about to clear out the residents of Puerto Rico's oldest ghetto, La Perla, but opposed by 41 community groups. (I used the word "ghetto." It's the right word.)
** An open letter to The Larva, (non)governor Luis Fortuño, concerning beef purchases totaling more than $38 million made in 2010 and 2011 by the School Cafeteria Program, purchases that were made under open violation of state and federal procedures.
** Speculation that senate president Thomas "Mad Dog" Rivera will have to testify concerning his reading in the senate (none don't deserve a capital letter) of a confidential FBI document about the Jorge "Il Castrao" De Castro case. (Me here: Mad Dog's target was not the FBI: it's secretary of state(of chaos) Kenneth "What? Me Guilty?" McClintock.)
** The forced transfer of 100 acres of prime land owned by the University of Puerto Rico in Gurabo is now conditioned to an exchange of about 100 acres of equal-value land. Gurabo mayor what's-his-name wants to build--hahahaha--a school, a hospital, a public housing project, a nursing school and low-cost housing on the UPR land, currently used for agricultural research. HAHAHAHAHAhahahahabullshit.
** An open letter by medical service providers (through their association) that medical services would be provided by their membership while the health insurance lamefest was sorted out. (They didn't say "lamefest.")
** A bill to limit malpractice damages loses one of its authors, senator Lornna "Innsannity Is Hereditary" Soto, as Insurance Commissioner representative Alex Addams (Family) was more idiot than idealogue at the hearing. The cap, suggested by the (non)administration, would be $250,000.
** Housing incentives will be extended to help raise the number of house sales from the current rate of about 340 to 500 a month. But note: there are over 10,700 new houses on the market right now.
** Scotiabank wants to participate in the Private-Public Partnerships (PPP) fund sale, scheduled to reach $1.436 billion. Which is debt. Let Me be blunt: the current hyenas take the cash and We pay the debt. Woo hoo.

Pretty massive mess, I'd say. But Let's look closer at the mess, shall We?

1) Of the 52 pages in the daily, 23 are full-page ads. And the open letters were also full pages, most likely sold as ad space.

2) Of the remaining 27 pages roughly 7.5 were truncated by ads. The total amount of news coverage was 19.5 pages at most, about 38%.

Now I know that a newspaper needs to make money to survive.  But El Nuevo Día also owns Primera Hora, the second-largest daily on My Island. They also print El Vocero, the third-largest daily. So apparently money is either flowing like a river (or a sewer) or stuck in a hole. (I'm sure that given the management talent, it's the latter.) Either way, money is not the sole consideration.

No, the consideration We have to look at is "perspective." Does Puerto Rico have a true Fourth Estate? Or is what We have a "forked estate," as in "Stick a fork in it, it's done," or "One that speaks with a forked tongue"?

I know, for editors at END and PH have told Me, that management of the papers have repeatedly spiked stories that could "discomfit" either the paper owners or their cronies. The papers have a clear business slant, covering certain industries like a jealous lover (of their own wealth) while consistently ignoring economic sectors such as start-ups, agriculture and "new-tech economy." (That END is a powerful member of the so-called """Center for the New Economy""" is like having Glenn Beck be a spokesperson for the Gay Parade.)

Bluntly, Our dailies are the mouthpieces of an old guard dying a slow death. Over the past three decades, they have inexorably choked what little power the Fourth Estate may have had and turned what should be a crusading guardian of the public trust into a sycophantic, spiteful gossipmonger. The papers have long surpassed their utility as a trusted source and force for democracy, with their only usefulness now as ad litter and puppy trainers. 

Look at the list of news again. The average story length was under 450 words. In several articles, most of the "information" presented was disorganized, with clear gaps in the presentation. Most of the stories lacked a sense of context, placement in the overall "map" of meaning. On that basis, the best contextual pieces were the open letters. By far. Makes sense, since they hired people who could actually think and write to do them.

Our media is more than Our newspapers. That should be Our consolation, only Our radio and TV news coverage is barely a little better. The dominant attitude on radio is confrontational and on TV it's sycophancy, both coming from the same basic emotion: fear. A fearful guardian is an oxymoron, like honest politician or Larva leadership. Our news sources are nothing more than comedy acts: the newspapers are ventriloquist dummies with cracked voices that move their lips and Our other news coverage is a herd of Chicken Littles disguised as Daffy Ducks...but dumber.


A forked estate serves only its pathetic handlers: a Fourth Estate can build a nation. Our only option is to make Our own Fourth Estate, to forge links with the disparate resources on Our Island that can brick by brick build a true news platform. It won't happen overnight, but for Our sake, it has to happen. 


The Jenius Has Spoken.


P.S. -- Global Voices Online now has a podcast. The first one has an interview with Firuzeh Shokooh Valle, Puerto Rican with Iranian ancestry, who grew up in Old San Juan, worked in local news coverage and now edits the GVO webpages for the Caribbean, with strong emphasis on Puerto Rico. Check the podcast out and learn more about a true news professional that is one of Our own.

P.P.S. -- The Guardian takes on its own industry to reveal the depths of unethical behavior that ended with the closing of the 168-year old News of the World.

Crime, Punishment

I've called him "the murderous moron" for years. The now ex-president that allowed a known terrorist and his group to kill citizens on Our soil (and by "allowed" I mean "was too incompetent to grasp the threat of"), that then lied Us into a war that had NOTHING to do with the terrorist and his group, that used the terrorist attack on his watch to undermine the very values he swore to uphold and in doing all of these things and more, engaged in criminal behavior that merits severe punishment.

The murderous moron repeatedly authorized the violation of Constitutional rights, the document he once snarked he "wiped his ass with." Through his machinations and that of his rank hyenas, he caused the deaths of thousands of people, deaths he schemed for knowing he was lying.

And yet he has not been brought up on charges. The evidence is astonishingly broad and deep. This is no "mere burglary" in a quasi-swanky hotel. This is murder, plain and simple. Mass murder, no less. And the world outside of the fat jackasses that make up most of the "American public" know this.

The international organization Human Rights Watch just came out with a damning indictment of the murderous moron, his wretched cronies Dick "Richard" Cheney and Donald "Slimer" Rumsfeld...and President Barack Obama. The current President gets rightly tossed into the morass for his failure to act upon the evidence. See for yourself how substantial, how compelling and overwhelming the evidence is. (The same report, in Spanish.)

Letting the murderous moron and his nation-raping crew get away with mass murder is indefensible. The right thing to do is to apply punishment to the crimes. Those who committed the crimes--and We know who they are--are more guilty than those who have the power to apply redress to the situation and don't. But not by a wide margin.

Unless the crimes are brought to justice, there might be an additional target alongside the murderous moron: the indifferent moron.

I hope there won't be a need for a scorecard.



The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 26 October 2011: The murderous moron and his British butt-buddy Blair are to be the targets of a war crimes trial, in Kuala Lampur. Let the avalanche gain momentum.]

(Some) Progress To Report

[Hey! Jenial Thanks to Ms. Mendes-Franco for picking up not one, but two Jenius posts, showcased on Global Voices Online.]

Progress Note One: Those of you who know My predilections know I am a diehard--possibly THE only diehard--Pittsburgh Pirate fan left outside of the Three Rivers area. The fanaticism (where do you think "fan" comes from?) stems from My childhood idolatry of Roberto Clemente. That does nothing, really, to explain sticking with the same team over a record-setting 18 consecutive years of losing records; My only defense is that I'm loyal to a freaking fault. But this year! The Pirates are currently 45-42, competing with the Brewers and Cardinals for the Central Division lead. How significant is this? It is the best performance by any Pirate team this "late" in the season...since 1992, the last year the Pirates had a winning (and playoff) year. Go Bucs!

Progress Note Two: The picture reflects the current state of construction of My street's "drainage project," scheduled to have been completed in March of this year and actually started in April. How's that f0r government efficiency? In any case, contractors on the project tell Me it's about 15-20% completed and won't really be a functional canal until late August or early September. The irony? It could be delayed several weeks...if it rains. During the hurricane season. Which lasts until October.


Progress Note Three...maybe: According to something called the Urban Institute, each death in Our (the U.S. of part of A.'s) "costs" about $3.4 million. To put it another way, each of Us "provides" $3.4 million in value to society. So doing a quick calculation, Our 2010 murder toll of 1,046 dead "cost" Us roughly $3.56 BILLION.  By reducing that murder rate to what it was in "the good old days," when it hovered around 746, would give Us a "gain" of a little over $1 billion. When you consider that Puerto Rico's only abundant natural resource is people, what possible argument can there ever be against saving the lives endangered by Our own societal failures?

The Jenius Has Spoken.

101 Dead...Millions Held Hostage

June 2011: 101 murders; 101 murders in one month in what is the bloodiest year to date in Our recent history.

Want to compare, so you can wrap your mind around that number? The U.S. of part of A. is roughly 80 times Our size in population, so the murder toll in that country--if proportionate to Ours--would be about 8,080. In one month. Between 2006 and 2009, the average number of murders in the U.S. of part of A.--per year--was 16,456.

Our proportionate monthly rate equals almost half the annual U.S. of part of A. rate. At Our rate, the U.S. of part of A. would have averaged 96,960 murders a year.

Fuck.

One hundred and one murders in one month on My Island. Makes it sound like it's My fault...and to some extent, it is. I am a resident here, so it is My problem, too. But Let's be clear: almost all the blame for this lies in a purposely-created system, as most of the murders are related to the drug trade, its sanctimonious "drug war" and widespread political indifference to death so long as prisons are full and more get built.

1) Roughly 68% of the murders in Puerto Rico happen in and around drugs as an ecosystem, either as part of warfare for control of the trade or people trying to get more drugs. When you look at the demographic data of the victims and murderers, you see people that politicians don't give a crap about and most of Us refuse to identify with, even though they are often Our relatives, friends and neighbors.

See, drugs are a daily reality in Our sick society, but We refuse to acknowledge just how real they are. Drugs are "their" problem, where "their" means "the poor," "the black," "the welfare freeloaders," "the caserío trash" and "the police," as in both law enforcers and users/guardians of the drug trade.

But We fail--on purpose--to include the other druggies: professionals, government workers, students, legislators and other elected officials, people "more like Us" who fuel the trade. And the majority of Us who ignore the whole mess make it worse simply by abdicating responsibility.

2) The "drug war" is not aimed at drugs, the physical product: it is aimed at a socioeconomic class for purposes of control. If Poor Man A and Rich Man B are arrested, each with a pound of marihuana in their car, which one will go to jail and which one will walk free? Now answer where Poor Man A is black with no job and Rich Man B is white and works at a stockbroker firm.

Uh-huh. You don't even have to think about it, right? The facts are clear: the number of blacks and Hispanics in jail are disproportionate to the demographics and the crime rates, in other words, there's a higher percentage of both blacks and Hispanics in jail (when compared to whites) and their sentences are harsher and longer as well.

Want to compare, so you can wrap your mind around that number? The U.S. of part of A. is roughly 80 times Our size in population, so the murder toll in that country--if proportionate to Ours--would be about 8,080. In one month. Between 2006 and 2009, the average number of murders in the U.S. of part of A.--per year--was 16,456.

Our proportionate monthly rate equals almost half the annual U.S. of part of A. rate. At Our rate, the U.S. of part of A. would have averaged 96,960 murders a year.

Fuck.

One hundred and one murders in one month on My Island. Makes it sound like it's My fault...and to some extent, it is. I am a resident here, so it is My problem, too. But Let's be clear: almost all the blame for this lies in a purposely-created system, as most of the murders are related to the drug trade, it's sanctimonious "drug war" and widespread political indifference to death so long as prisons are full and more get built.

1) Roughly 68% of the murders in Puerto Rico happen in and around drugs as an ecosystem, either as part of warfare for control of the trade or people trying to get more drugs. When you look at the demographic data of the victims and murderers, you see people that politicians don't give a crap about and most of Us refuse to identify with, even though they are often Our relatives, friends and neighbors.

See, drugs are a daily reality in Our sick society, but We refuse to acknowledge just how real they are. Drugs are "their" problem, where "their" means "the poor," "the black," "the welfare freeloaders," "the caserío trash" and "the police," as in both law enforcers and users/guardians of the drug trade.

But We fail--on purpose--to include the other druggies: professionals, government workers, students, legislators and other elected officials, people "more like Us" who fuel the trade. And the majoroty of Us who ignore the whole mess make it worse simply by abdicating responsibility.

2) The "drug war" is not aimed at drugs, the physical product: it is aimed at a socioeconomic class for purposes of control. If Poor Man A and Rich Man B are arrested, each with a pound of marihuana in their car, which one will go to jail and which one will walk free? Now answer where Poor Man A is black with no job and Rich Man B is white and works at a stockbroker firm.

Uh-huh. You don't even have to think about it, right? The facts are clear: the number of blacks and Hispanics in jail are disproportionate to the demographics and the crime rates, in other words, there's a higher percentage of both blacks and Hispanics in jail (when compared to whites) and their sentences are harsher and longer as well. The "drug war" policy is aimed at the wrong target...but keeps taking prisoners.

Rates of prison sentences, by race & gender

Which leads to point Three:

3) The "drug war" is an economic boon, for drugs and prisons. Drugs are around because (a) large amounts of people want to use them and (b) the demand is high enough to make supplying them very profitable and worth the risk of breaking the law. You can eliminate the whole false need for a "drug war" by (a) reducing the amount of people who want them (and Prohibition isn't the answer to that) and/or (b) reducing the profit margin.

It seems that (a) is being "solved" by locking up some dealers and some users, but that does nothing to reduce the desire for drug use. Education would help, but policies have undermined education to the point of inanity and insanity. The easiest way to reduce drug use is to let users die and scare off the curious. Too radical? Nicotine addiction, through cigarette smoking, dominated a large chunk of the 20th century in the U.S. of part of A. It's legal, taxed to absurd heights and still in use, but with much fewer smokers. Why? The evidence piled up against it...and the profit margin was slashed.

Portugal attacked both (a) and (b) by legalizing certain amounts of drugs (for personal use) and decriminalizing. Some people died from using too much, others from crappy drugs cut with poisons. Over the years, the number of drug users and the crime rate have dropped significantly: the people are no longer curious about drugs, the profit margin is almost gone and those who want to throw their lives away are doing so, like they can with alcohol and tobacco. (You can't fix stupid. Look at Congress.) Side benefit: drug-related AIDS cases dropped 75%. But note: the crime rate in Portugal has gone down. Their murder rate per 100,000 residents was close to 7; it is now 3. 


Ours is 27...and rising. 

Our murder rate is the direct result of a failed "drug war" policy, one aimed at attacking a socioeconomic class rather than a product or its related addiction. As the narcolords point out to U.S. of part of A. officials and media: "You are the source of the problem, since you buy most of the drugs." So, yes, We are the problem. 

We want the drugs. We use them. Instead of smashing the malformed "drug war" system, those of Us who don't benefit from it allow it to continue, indifferent to what it does and how it cuts Our throats, by wasting Our taxes, fostering corruption at every level from cop on the beat to chief executive (through bribes, hush money or "donations"), wrecking non-user lives through crime and hatred and allowing some to prosper at the expense of the rest of Us.

If you think drug dealers and highly-placed law officers are the big winners, check out the private prison companies: they're literally making a killing. The average expenditure per prisoner in the U.S. of part of A. tops $30,000 a year.

The average expenditure per student is around $7,000. No wonder a school superintendent recently asked the governor of his state to turn his school into a prison: the money's better in jails.

And guess which industry advocates with millions and millions of dollars for stronger sentencing laws, harsher terms and more stringent stipulations to throw your ass in jail for minor offenses?

Yup. With over 2 million prisoners in the country, that's a tidy $60 billion plus a year...with every new "client" representing a "sale" of about $30,000 more.

And who takes advantage of these prisoners? Anyone who hires them, in a modern form of slavery.

So the "drug war" kills hundreds every month. Many of those deaths are used to promote more laws that benefit the political power structure, the "drug war" thievery, private prison profits and corporate greed avid for shit-cheap labor that can't go on strike. 

The government sees this as simply another opportunity to extend its powers beyond all reason. The "drug war" system uses this as another opportunity to "request more funding" from lawmakers and lawbreakers alike. Private prisons ramp up the legalized bribery, with dollars as "words" in the most idiotic form of "free speech" ever conceived by disease-addled hyenas and brainless slugs. And your job might be outsourced from the "freedom" of the U.S. of part of A. to the "increasingly jailed" U.S. of part of A.

We're certainly doing Our part to prop up that rape of Our society. One hundred and one dead in June as the cornerstone for continuing to hold millions hostage. Almost four million people here alone, and countless millions in dollars and drugs flowing like cancer cells to every part of Our society.

Happy Independence Day, people. Celebrate while you still think you have it.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 6 July 2011: Holland is closing 8 prisons because--what else?--they don't need them. The crime rate has dropped since marihuana and hashish were legalized for personal use (trafficking is still a crime) and the only major step taken since then is to forbid sales to non-residents...because supposedly they were creating problems related to petty crime and traffic jams. Yes, traffic jams.  The move will probably be revoked soon as tourism revenue for the hundreds of legal "coffee shops" drops and the crime rate increases, simply because nothing raises profits for once-legal activities as making them illegal.]

[Update: 7 July 2011: From AlterNet, a headline that smacks you in the rational with an article that gives you rationale:  3 Months in Juvie For a MySpace Joke? How the For-Profit Prison Industry Locks Up More People Each Year.]

[Update: 13 July 2011: Want other profit-makers from the "drug war"? Banks and the rising tide of private militia contractors, basically mercenaries that very often operate against citizens, not criminals. From AmpedStatus.]

[Update: 11 August 2011: "While Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world's population, one-quarter of the entire world's inmates are incarcerated in the United States."  From J.A. Talvi Silja's 2007 book Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System. Cited here.]

[Update: 12 August 2011: A walking shitbag of a judge named Mark Ciavarella Jr was sentenced to 28 years in prison for accepting bribes to railroad kids into 2 detention centers. Basically, he ran over the rights of some 4,000 kids, some as young as 10, to stick them in jail. Not content with that, he also blackmailed the owners of the detention centers. But he says he's innocent. I'm going to sugarcoat My final remark: I hope that within a month of his being in jail, Mark "Kids for Cash" Ciavarella Jr. bleeds to death from anal rape.]

[Update: 14 August 2011: 8 Years In Prison for a Harmless Prank? Handcuffed for Doodling? The Increasing Criminalization of Students. Yes, it is an established trend.]

[Update: 28 September 2011: Watch the reactions of these British comedians to the facts about prisons and prisoners in the U.S> of part of A. And note what host Stephen Fry says near the end of the clip: With 5% of the population, the U.S. of part of A, has 25% of the prison population. And yes, the comedians quickly seize on it being a business.]

[Update: 29 October 2011: 85.7% of all prisoners in the U.S of part of A. are there because of "victimless" crimes; 50.7% for possession of drugs and 35% for "public-order" offenses. In other words, 14.3% of all prisoners are there for "major and/or violent crimes." Other stats: the U.S. of part of A. has the highest prison population rate in the world, at 756 of every 100,000; the world average is 145 per 100,000. That gives Us a rate 527% higher than the rest of the nations on the planet. Land of the free...or in California, $47,102 a year per inmate, back in 2009.]

[Update: 9 February 2012: "The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that. In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education." (Emphasis Mine.) From "The Caging of America, in The New Yorker.]

[Update: 8 March 2012: Michelle Alexander, with her book The New Jim Crow, is opening eyes across the land about the serious implications of the mass incarceration of blacks. To say that her argument is a devastating indictment of the current judicial system and the "drug war" is to say "water is somewhat damp."] 

[Update: 23 April 2012: Venerable Forbes Magazine weighs in: "Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War." Indeed.] 

[Update: 20 June 2012: In the gooood ol' U.S. of part of A., prison rapes exceeded rapes of women, making the gooood ol' U.S. of part of A. most likely the first country in history where rape is a crime primarily perpetrated on men. Let's hear it for the prison system, where crime stats go to die!]

Justice (Un)Served

A man is arrested for having 218 marihuana plants and assault weapons in his house.

Another man drives drunk, causes an accident that results in injuries and flees the scene.

Under a fair and impartial justice system, the laws applying to each case would be applied and a law-constrained result would emerge. For example, the drug dealer--218 plants and assault weapons are not the attributes of a private consumer--would get jail time. And the drunk driver would face a fine, some jail time and the loss of his driver's license.

But you know--you really do--that the two incidents are going to end in something other than punishment. And you are right.

Fresh off the front pages is the report that local basketball hero José "Piculín" Ortíz, the first Puerto Rican-born NBA player and center of multiple national teams, was arrested with a forest of weed and weapons. Cutting to the chase: the prosecutor is aiming to have the ex-basketball star placed in rehab. Not jail: rehab.

And from inner pages, Judge Roberto García avoids getting hammered--hee hee--by another judge because of a technicality: a prosecutor didn't file charges within the mandated 60-day period, so the judge walks. Or drives. Whatever.

Now with in the case of the former basketball star--who should wear 218 on his jersey during pick-up games at rehab--the law is clearly being ignored. (That the "war on drugs" is useless is a separate issue: We're talking about the law as it is now.) Obviously because Piculín is famous enough for 218 whacky-tobacky plants and assault weapons to be ignored as evidence. It's as if the light of fame blinds Justice. Twice.

On the other hand, you really can't blame impaired Judge(ment) "Go-Go" García for a prosecutor's incompetence, can you? Except...the impaired judge refused a breath test on the night of the incident, had a beer can in the car, was red-eyed and smelled of alcohol when he spoke with the police who stopped him after the accident. Now all of that, even from policemen, could be construed as hearsay. If the judge was innocent of causing the accident, why did he flee the scene? If the judge was innocent of driving while under the influence, why did he refuse a breath test? If the judge was innocent and interested in Justice, why didn't he press for a speedy trial--as he knows he has the right to--especially when you take into the account that he was suspended immediately from his bench because of the incident?

No, impaired judge(ment) Go-Go García is not innocent: he caused an accident, injured a woman, fled the scene and refused to cooperate with authorities to seek Justice. He is now on the "clean" side of the ledger through a technicality, one that may have been caused by his intimate knowledge and network within the justice sewer.

On an island where the largest daily paper quotes The Onion News Network as a reliable source of information, anything can happen. Ex-basketball stars can be caught red-handed with ganja growing wild in their armory-like houses and judges crash into citizens with a Yaris they might outweigh by 200 pounds and avoid prosecution. La-dee-dah.

In My world, the judge would have to play basketball 8 hours a day for 6 months...against cons he jailed, and Piculín would have to stuff his 82-inch frame into a Yaris for a month of delivering hot meals to the homeless. Not that it would fix the Justice sewer, but it would amuse Me more than what's going right now.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 4 July 2011: "The challenges poor people encounter while just trying to survive are so alien to our political elites that they can't even begin to understand how it effects people. At the very top, there are people who write rules just like the ones that affected Ms. (Sadie) Barker. Rules they will never ever have to live under. Her landlord is a multimillionaire slumlord with properties all over New York, but he himself lives in a comfy mansion in Great Neck, Long Island. The politicians who wrote the rules will probably never see the inside of her building, ever. It is almost impossible to fight back against the crushing weight of all the forces arrayed against the middle class and those seeking to be middle class. But sometimes, just sometimes, we the people can fight back. And win."

From Daily Kos, an example that committed lawyers and citizens can make a difference. As for the lawyers that simply want to nestle within the system, Shakespeare had a solution I fully support. Here's the essence: exposing the cockroaches is what they fear most. If We work to expose them and their activities--as citizens, media, lawyers, business owners and more--We will make a difference. Guaranteed. ]

The Fiscal Experiment: Al Jazeera Swings And Misses

The typical reaction of My Brethren upon hearing that Al Jazeera had done a brief news report on Puerto Rico is: "Al Jazeera? What the hell is that? Terrorists?"

My Brethren know I'm right.

So in the vomit aftertaste of Obama's "Wham, bam, that's all you got folks?" sprint past San Juan, We get a look through Middle Eastern eyes (a key point, people) exposing what the U.S. of part of A. is really about.

And Puerto Rico? It's merely the backdrop for the ongoing exposé

Don't make the mistake of thinking that "The Fiscal Experiment" is focused primarily or even mainly on Puerto Rico. It is not. Even in the sense of "blaming gringos for Our problems," the piece makes its most powerful points, not against U.S. of part of A. imperialistic practices, but against Republican conservative ideologies and their underlying push to violence. 

Now why would an Arab news service, renowned for taking "objective" stands, be doing this? Because they see clearly what We ignore: that the ideology battle is the key to future power. In essence, whoever frames the debate best, wins.

If you haven't seen "The Fiscal Experiment," give yourself 25 minutes to do so. You'll see students protesting at the University of Puerto Rico and police forces manhandling them. You'll see government workers protesting or hurt by job loss and the government being portrayed as manhandling them. You'll hear only one government official being interviewed--the feckless Kenneth "What? I'm Wanted By The F.B.I.!" McClintock--and being asked point blank how the (non)administration he serves is manhandling the poor by cutting services and support to them.

You'll see drug addicts being tended to on the streets. (Disclosure: Mrs. Jenius has participated numerous times with Iniciativa Comunitaria in what the reporter from Al Jazeera called "Search and Rescue" missions in the streets of San Juan. Search. And Rescue.) And you'll hear, several times and from the very beginning of the piece, how much "the Republican ideology" is to blame for Puerto Rico's economic, political and social ills.

Asides: Reporter Zeina Awad did toss into her questions to "Future F.B.I. Informant" McClintock the notion that maybe by reducing corruption, We'd have more money for social services. Possibly näive, but certainly worth discussing at length, not as a pinprick moment. And calling Puerto Rico's independence movement "small but strong" is like calling the dodo "alive and smart."

Time and again, Awad and Al Jazeera make it clear that Puerto Rico under (non)governor Luis "The Larva" Fortuño is but a reflection of U.S. of part of A. policies, a mad doctors' laboratory specimen. The Larva is defined clearly, described as a conservative Republican, "a rising star" in the party because of his policies, a "member of the powerful National committee" and most ludicrously, called (on the Al Jazeera "Faultlines" webpage) a "hawkish fiscal conservative," making it very clear--without a doubt-- that the target is not The Larva and his incompetence, because he is portrayed as a puppet of larger Republican interests.

And "hawkish" comes from the Vietnam Era, describing an ideology that favored force over negotiation in the realm of diplomacy and realpolitik, a stance that saw war as a legitimate and preferred method for solving certain issues. The ludicrousness of using this term is that it, along with the reporting, undermines any pretense Al Jazeera and Awad may have that this piece is about Puerto Rico. It's an attempt to blunt the rising wave of Republican "might makes right" propaganda, of Republican governors and senators and Fox News and "pundits" framing issues and forcing the discussion to "either/or" actions, seeking always to centralize power away from democracy and towards a smaller band of despots.

Why does Al Jazeera give a fig about this? Because the "might makes right" ideology is the predominant political reality of the Middle East, and if the U.S. of part of A. embraces it fully, the region knows it will become the target of the "might" making their part of the world "right." The rise of fascism--and that is what We are seeing--predicates grabbing more power, and what other region in the world has so much to offer in a power grab?

* Europe? Allies and major clients of the U.S. of part of A.

* South America? Aside from land, what else is there to grab?

* Asia? An ally and two huge opponents with nuclear weapons make this suicidal.

* Africa? Perfect for a land grab and plenty of resources, but what is the "jewel" in this region. The Middle East (covering largely Northern Africa and Southwest Asia), because it has huge amounts of oil controlled by small countries with weak armies. (Remember "Desert Storm"? The Middle East does. Very well.) And furthermore, at the very heart of this viewpoint is the certainty that the ideological clash of the 21st century is not political (communism versus democracy), but religious, Islam versus Christianity.

Now you are sitting there thinking, "What the hell, Jenius? This is just a measly news report on Puerto Rico and you just turned it into a salvo of World War III!" Here's My response: Watch other reports by Al Jazeera. I'm willing to bet My left kidney you've only seen one, if any. Notice how often issues that don't seem to relate to ideological discussion are linked to ideological stances. Note how certain points are repeated and hammered to the point of inanity...and if it makes you think of Fox News, you're getting it. The difference? Fox News focuses on the U.S of part of A. only, while Al Jazeera properly looks at the world as a whole.

Al Jazeera failed to produce a worthy report because it didn't focus on Puerto Rico on Puerto Rico's terms, choosing to focus on the Republican party through a Puerto Rico lens. Their best choice would have been to focus primarily on Our economic history and how U.S. of part of A. policies have consistently favored their interests--economic, social and political--rather than Our own, in a pattern that used Our lack of unity to crush dissent and routinely yield whatever power We had. As the framing of an ideological debate, Al Jazeera could have shown its viewers around the world that "The Fiscal Experiment" didn't begin with The Larva crawling into La Fortaleza, but with American troops wading ashore in 1898. All The Larva did was willingly participate in the acceleration of centralized power-mongering and expanding corruption, a pattern so common to the Middle East that entire books have been written to explain it to Westerners. 

We don't get it; they do. They definitely do. But they failed to get that message across, using Us as the canvas. 

Swing and a miss. Strike one.

 The Jenius Has Spoken. 

[Update: 11 July 2011: Here's Al Jazeera's take on the Republican hero Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan. Think I'm wrong about their angle of attack? Try to find a similar takedown of Bill "No Inhale-No Intercourse" Clinton...]

[Update: 12 July 2011: "I don't think anyone can contest that Glenn Beck has the ability to reach tens of millions of people and to convince them, and as Israel finds itself in an intellectual battle for its own story, as Zionism continues to be under attack, we need to understand how to make sure that our truth is heard ... and anyone who can help us with that is more than welcome," (Israeli Parliament member Einat) Wilf said." And what party/ideology does crybaby Mammon--uh, Mormon--Beck(less) represent? Uh-huh. From CNN.com.]

2 Hours 9 Minutes

[A Jenial Muchas Gracias to Janine-Mendes Franco for highlighting My "C-Section Gets An F" post in Global Voices Online.]


Opened a slew of bookmarks, not noticing one of them was for local puppy trainer rag Primer Hora. Paused a second before closing it...and saw the following headlines:

--Grandfather and granddaughter killed in Río Piedras.
--Man coming home shot several times in Carolina.
--Elderly man commits suicide in Naguabo.
--Man beaten severely in Ponce.
--Young man shot and killed while driving in Las Piedras.
--Man wounded by bullet in Cidra.
--Man shot and killed in San Juan.
--Man killed in Santurce.

The last headline went up at 6:40 AM. The top one, about the grandfather and granddaughter, went up at 8:49 AM.

At least 6 violent deaths and three horrible woundings reported in 2 hours and 9 minutes.

Two hours. And nine minutes. An average of almost 3 deaths an hour and one seriously wounded in the same timespan.  A geographic span from southern city and central-eastern towns to northeastern city and capital midtown.

Yes, the media believes in "If it bleeds, it leads." The Universe knows We have a crime problem like a bowling ball-sized tumor in Our chest, fueled by a myriad of problems that The Larva We have for (non)governor and similarly-positioned feebs can't even begin to give a damn about.

It bears repeating: We had over 1,000 murders last year and We're plunging towards more than 1,100 this year. Instead of stopping the bleeding, Our witless excuse for a government would rather shove a 93-mile pipe up Our...mountains, and across the north coast. Because, really, they can't make much more money off of these killings, so the bottom line needs to be focused on someplace else.

Six deaths, one a child, and three people wounded. Two hours and nine minutes of another Monday that shouldn't be on My Island.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

Really? "Puerto Rico Has A Human Rights Crisis"

That quote comes from Amnesty International, who weighed in on the subject vía its local representative, Osvaldo Burgos, as part of a recent forum. According to Burgos, police brutality and eviction/expropriation of poor communities were included as examples of these human rights abuses in Amnesty International's most recent report.

Now as with most things, there are degrees here. Police brutality and forced evictions pale beside the imperialistic throttling of living wages, as the U.S. of part of A. has shown wont to do in Haiti. That's obviously a human rights abuse of a higher--or lower--category. But since the abuse against Me will always hurt more than the abuse against someone else, Let's take a look at Puerto Rico in this context.

As defined in the U.S. Constitution, the so-called "basic" rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are bogus, for "rights" are social constructs, a tit-for-tat agreement based on fairness, and thus don't apply to "Life" (who do you appeal to for fair exchange?), "liberty" (you have to defend liberty: it isn't a given) and as for pursuing happiness, as long as you can think, who can stop you?

Moving on. The basic rights, borrowing from Ayn Rand (a cerebral kook far too influential for anyone's good, but on the "right" track here) are the right to property (you can keep what you earn or acquire legally) and the right to individuality (no "group" rights; only individuals have rights.) An example of the second could be "gay rights" or "handicapped rights": just because there is a group doesn't mean it can get--or be denied--rights that any individual has. Therefore, the "gay marriage" debate is "THEY can't marry," but "S/HE can, provided it's with the opposite sex, even though that prospective bride/groom of the same sex CAN marry" which is ludicrous. Make the example "Blacks can't marry, but a black man or a black woman can get married, provided the other person, who can also get married even if s/he is black, is black" and you see the basic idiocy of thinking groups can be denied rights that individuals already have. Based on rights, laws forbidding two human beings from getting married are wrong. (And no, animals don't have rights because they can't extend any right by fair exchange. See above. Period. End of discussion. However, they deserve to be protected from Our abuses.)

It also means "corporations" cannot have rights that belong to an individual: by definition, a corporation is a collective, a group, so treating it like an individual human being--a person--is idiocy of the highest order, or should I say, Supreme (Court) idiocy? (And if you support "corporate rights" because you say a group can be an individual, then you have to support gay marriage rights because a community, the gay community--a group--can be an individual... See? Rand was right about some things.)

Another point: rights are all-inclusive. If Person A has a right in a society, then every person is a Person A. Men can't have rights that women don't. Blacks can't have rights that Hispanics don't. Period. A right cannot exclude anyone except if that person chooses/acts to be excluded. (Convicted criminals lose rights, but gain health care, gyms, paid-for education and in Puerto Rico get to swing elections because they are allowed to vote. What bullshit.)

Summarizing:

1) Right to property is the basic right of all. If you don't own what you produce or acquire legally, you have no other useful rights.
2) Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
3) Rights belong to everyone or they are not rights.

Okay, within this context, is Puerto Rico involved in "a human rights crisis"?

Under Point 1 above: No. We have the right to property (that We keep trying to get even more of it by going into deeper debt is the problem), We have free speech (in spite of Marcos "MouthFart" Rodríguez and his pestilent opinions), We have fairly good wage protection (especially for the too-many thousands working in Our government) and the legal system--creaky at best--works fairly well.

But what about police brutality, or mass evictions, Jenius? No one would say that the spate of police killings and beatings is a systematic problem aimed at everyone, or even at a particular group (UPR's money-grubbing attention hogs notwithstanding.) What We have seen is the lowest of "the finest" breaking out against the law and instead of enforcing it for Our protection, becoming the reason We need police in the first place. As for the evictions, squatters don't have rights. (See Point 2, above.) If I come over to your piece of land, your backyard, and decide to build a shack on it to house Mrs. Jenius and My 16 little kiddies, do I have a RIGHT to keep that land/shack? Of course not. So how is it a "right" because 50 families do it, or 75 or 175?

But are you saying things are peachy-keen, AOK, copacetic, Jenius? No.  There are abuses, but they aren't caused by somebody taking a dump on human rights:

* Welfare recipients may top 75% of Our population by November 2012.  Reasons: a bad global economy, Our elected morons threw away any viable economic planning since 1968 and We let them, local unemployment is effectively above 30%, emigration withers the middle class to nothing, Our government is in a feeding frenzy, like piranhas feeding on Our flesh and as long as We have Our bi-weekly or monthly check and a plasma TV to watch syphilitic retards mouth off, most of Us act is if We're okay. Our infrastructure is crumbling, Our society is falling apart, but why work when We can get paid to sit, spit, shit and ignore the rest?

* Government incompetence and corruption are widespread and ingrained. Now this could be considered a human rights abuse case, considering how it hinders the right to property...but it isn't, neither considered nor an abuse. Why? Because it simply exists across all levels and niches, targeting no one and everyone. It doesn't discriminate, thus making it the most democratic of Our largely-failed democratic processes. And so it remains largely unpunished, as the beneficiaries to the system fight tooth and nail to stay within it. This isn't a case of abuse of human rights: it is a case of abdication of the responsibility to protect them.

However, there is one clear human rights abuse going on in Puerto Rico, heinous and worthy of Amnesty International's flighty attention:

* Our murder rate is once again slated to exceed 1,00 deaths this year. Lives taken by force, not by a government, but by a society a government has failed miserably. Lives lost not because of self-defense, but because of greed and hatred...or have you forgotten the 18 gay or transexual persons murdered here in the last year and a half? What this means is that--according to Burgos and his Amnesty International lightweights--We have a society that tolerates, with casual indifference, the murders of hundreds, but gets all pissy when a policeman beats up a student.

Really?

The thing about rights is that when someone loses them, eventually We all do, because you don't have rights I don't have and I don't have rights you don't have. Any other stance is wrong. Our fundamental right to property is the precursor and reason for government, thus government is beholden to it and to Us...but not when We're indifferent. Our indifference fuels evils We choose to ignore, social and economic ills that are not easily labeled with neon-glare tags like "human rights abuses." Instead of focusing on vapid sparks, We should be staring deep into Our society and acting--pun intended--righteously against what We see.


The Jenius Has Spoken.

C-Sections Get An F

Mrs. Jenius is going to be a pediatrician...ostensibly to deal better with The Jenius.

Sigh.

So when it comes to health issues, especially those related to children, My mild attention to them is now enhanced. (As to why it was mild, it just was: I have many interests and millions of things I don't care about.) From this report comes another confirmation of a long-standing problem in Puerto Rico: 48% of Our births are by cesarean section, the highest rate in the world.

According to the The Unnecesarean blog (great name), the ideal number (percentage) of C-Sections is 15%, a reflection of the ratio of difficult deliveries, where the operation is needed, to normal ones, where vaginal delivery is possible.  That Puerto Rico has over 3 times that percentage has been a problem for at least four decades, but especially so since the 1990s, when the "health deform" (yes, I wrote "deform"; you get the joke) basically turned treating patients into something akin to a sausage factory.

As noted in the original article--from local fish-wrapper Primera Hora--the two trends that moved C-sections into unconscionable frequency were the baseless notion that vaginal deliveries were unsafe after a C-section and the need to tend to "dozens" of births a month, forcing doctors to "cut the babies out" rather than wait for Nature to deliver. That second trend is also behind the common tendency of inducing labor, to speed it up, so that a majority of babies are born on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, between 8 AM and 5 PM. Office hours for Nature's greatest gift.

Notice that neither "trend"--no vaginal deliveries and mass production--is reasonable: the first is based on bad science and thus bad health practices and the second is based on bad politics becoming bad economies of scale, thus leading to bad health practices. In other words, this is not an inherent problem My Island has--like lacking even one reasonably intelligent politician--but a created one, by lazy doctors, stupid politicians (redundant) and ill-informed patients.

Now a system that forces doctors to choose between having a life outside of the hospital or providing quality health care is idiotic; it's what We got and doctors have to choose in their best interests. No problem there. But the blame for the "no vaginal deliveries after C-sections" claptrap falls squarely on the medical community. 

Their argument that "C-sections are safer"--usually linked with "insurance costs"--is self-interest of the worst kind: self-serving and deceitful. Mothers know that giving birth is not at all easy, but a C-section is the deliberate slicing open of a woman's body, through muscle and fascia, to remove a baby who--according to the statistics-- 2/3 of the time would have been born safely anyway. Yes, there's physical damage in a natural delivery, but ask women who have had both birth methods which one left them weaker and less capable of tending to themselves and their baby.

The human body is incredible, and what women go through to bring Life to the world is an astounding process, one men cannot duplicate. Even though Nature has pushed human childbirth to an extreme (again, ask a mother), the process is--pardon the pun--natural. Millions of women give birth every day; it doesn't diminish an iota from the wonder of it all. To think that cutting a body to get to another is a frequent "improvement" over Nature is hubris and idiocy of the highest order.  That a so-called "health reform" makes a C-section a coin flip decision is moronic, like calling "heads" on whether a heart attack patient should be treated or left untreated. 

Think about that...

Puerto Rico must also face its own blinders, the idea that "they" are the experts and "We" do what "they" say. Doctors and other professionals hate when their clients come in with incomplete information and act as if they have all of it. Neither party benefits from that. But the best professionals love it when their clients come in with some knowledge and the curiosity to learn more, by asking relevant questions and listening critically to the answers.

If your doctor hates to explain and won't listen to your concerns, change doctors. And as patients, We have to learn to take charge of Our responsibilities, to ask good questions, to confirm opinions with outside and secondary sources and to understand that if We don't do it, the system doesn't care and most professionals barely take the time to care. If We find a good one, then by all means, stick with him or her.

Motherhood is a beautiful part of Life. That too many of Our babies are coming into the world through needless slashing is criminal. Our health care system is failing Us in this very crucial aspect, and however difficult it may be to fight the system, Our future children--and their mothers--absolutely deserve that We strive for their greatest welfare, rather than settling to merely serve the system.


The Jenius Has Spoken.


[Update: 26 June 2011: From the Daily Mail, the idea that women choose C-sections for "image", a "too posh to push" option.]

[Update: 8 July 2011: According to local Health Department statistics, Our birth-related numbers suck when compared to U.S. of part of A. averages, which suck when compared to other industrialized nations. Some of Our lowlights:

--18% of Our births are from teenage moms; the average is closer to 8%.
--57% of the births are from single mothers; the average is closer to 24%.
--In 2007, 49% were C-section births; the average should be 15%, as noted above.
--19.4% are premature babies; other industrialized nations average less than 5%.
--12.5% are underweight babies; other industrialized nations average less than 3%.
--Our infant mortality rate is 9.1 per 1,000 births; the U.S. of part of A. averages 6.9; the top 10 industrialized nations average 1.8.

Affordable health care? Ha. We're more concerned with gossip..."up there" and "down here." We can't be bothered to vote right where it counts, and in any case, malformed and dead babies don't vote for "American Idol," "Nace una estrella" or any of the literal motherfuckers who keep trashing Our health system.]

The Texan Is Right...Once

Caught My eye, this did:

During committee testimony this week in Austin, a Texas senator interrupted a Spanish speaker telling him he should "be speaking in English" during a committee hearing. Antolín Aguirre of the Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition was testifying against Senate Bill 9 that would help crack down on illegal immigrants in Texas. Aguirre spoke through an interpreter even though he had been in the U.S. since 1988. 

Two minutes into Antolín Aguirre’s testimony, Sen. Chris Harris, a Republican from Arlington, interrupted asking Aguirre’s interrupter, "Did I understand him correctly that he has been here since 1988?" Harris asked. "Why aren’t you speaking in English then?"

Through his interpreter, Aguirre said Spanish is his "first language and since it is his first time giving testimony he would rather do it in Spanish." 

"It is insulting to us," Sen. Harris fired back. "It is very insulting. And if he knows English, he needs to be speaking in English."


Blind squirrels and nuts... Chris Harris is right: for Aguirre to be delivering his testimony in Spanish, after living in the U.S. of part of A. for 23 years, is insulting. If Harris tried that same trick in Spain or Argentina or Mexico, he'd be shot down in a similar way and deservedly so.

Part of the immigration problem--in every country--is that the immigrants have to choose between retaining their socio-cultural heritage and blending into the new one they inhabit. It isn't easy. The two most obvious signs are clothing (think "burka") and language. To speak your host's language--and yes, I'm saying you as an immigrant are a guest--is at worst good manners and at best a broad path to growth and understanding.

For Aguirre to sit before a government body in public function and address it in any other language other than its own can only be excused if he had very little or no knowledge of that language. But 23 years' exposure to English and he can't muster up the confidence and courage to use it to express his position? That is beyond stupid. Given the topic under discussion, his use of Spanish actually undermined his argument, whereas by using English, even haltingly, would have given him and his words greater force.

Yes, a lot of people make fun of others who speak their language less-than-perfectly. I went through that with Spanish. But given the average American's moronic attitude about any other language besides English, an immigrant can take pride in knowing more than the average American, which is often as easy as being taller than a hobbit.

And taking "refuge" in "I don't learn English because I'm not American" is the uttering of total moron. If you live in another country, you don't cease to be whoever you are, so everything you learn actually makes you more "you." Why? Because you grow, rather than stagnate. It's that simple. So on a personal note, the next statehood supporter who tells Me they lived in the U.S. of part of A. for at least 10 years and speaks English like a brain-dulled toddler is going to hear Me say: "Qué inútil eres." How useless you are.

But Harris, predictably, fails to be right on the topic discussed by Aguirre:

The fiery exchange happened on Monday during a Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee hearing. Law makers were hearing testimony on the purposed Senate Bill 9 – The so-called sanctuary cities bill. The bill would allow local law enforcement officials to check a suspect’s immigration status.

Supporters of Senate Bill 9 have said it would help crack down on illegal immigrants. Opponents argue that it will do little to help border security and that it’s instead based on racism. 

Despite the blow-up The Texas Senate passed the bill Wednesday.

Harris voted for it, despite the fact that "suspect" is defined as "anyone authorities deem to be a suspect." No probable cause, no actual crime witnessed, no nothing; just an exercise in "legal authority" backed by id.  And so the march to fascism detoured ever-so-briefly for a moment of shining truth, only to be buried under a double crapload of fear and loathing.

The Jenius Has Spoken.