The FGS Blog

Last night, President Obama spoke to Congress and the nation on his first State of the Union address. The talking heads tore him up–from both sides of the aisle–the liberals because he is not socialist enough and the conservatives because he is too far left of center. It’s a shame. His speech was exalting and positive. His thread was coherent and convincing. He took the high road with humor and well deserved reproach.

Yet, he remains captive and unable to move forward on anything he proposed when he promised change on the campaign trail. He is not able to grasp the malaise of Washington. His administration has not reduced spending one bit and continues to expand the national debt at an alarming rate.  He is Bush plus one at this point.

It’s the country that loses in the end. It’s the lower class and the middle class and even the bureaucratic class that fail to capitalize on the quagmire that grips the political elements whom our ignorant public elects every other year. It’s not about the rich.

The rich don’t need help. They fare well in good times and bad ones. They simply sit back and wait. This too shall pass.

As a speaker, our country never had it so good as we have now with president Obama. He gets A plus and bats them out of the park every time.  It’s the substance that is lacking.

Frankly, last night he showed a little more backbone than on prior opportunities. He seemed to take on the whole Congress, his political partisans and those with whom he fought until a few minutes before his television appearance. Our president simply fails to see the writing on the wall. It’s a clear message: Congressional members enjoy not resolving the issues. They happily remain in the very same endless re-election campaign he described, grasping for contributions at every turn, and seeking to perpetuate themselves in office forever more, without doing anything beyond talk and talk and talk and talk. 

Sadly, it’s the way of Washington. It’s not the way of Main Street. It’s not the way to create new employment opportunities. It’s definitely not the way to resolve the healthcare issue. It will never put an end to waste and pork in government.

Mr. Obama is philosophically opposed to capitalism. It’s not his fault. He is the product of liberals at home, liberals in school, and liberal advisers.

The rest of the country, however, should feel differently. We know better. We can fall back on history for clarity of vision. To move forward, foster freedom of opportunity, foment business growth. Lower taxes, don’t raise them. Reduce obstacles to free enterprise and provide incentives for the rich to put their money to work. Tax capital accumulation that is idle and not put to work to improve the economy.  

We should stand up and reclaim our government. We should stop re-electing every incumbent without questioning whether his/her role in Washington was to resolve issues, as evidenced by the legislation he/she sponsored and passed the prior term or whether he/she was one more clog that obstructed the right of the people to work uninhibited by a government that over-reaches and meddles at every turn. Big government simply causes disruptions that negate citizens their right to pursue happiness.

Mr. President, show some leadership. Tell Congress how to do it. Show how to draft the legislation you propose. Get some of those highly paid bureaucrats in the administration to draft your version of what it takes to move forward. Congress will follow. They are too busy running for the hills to object. You are the president with a majority in Congress, for Pete’s sake. Find some common ground and move forward.  

On the practical side of the argument, though, we need to stop looking to the government to resolve our issues. We need to find market solutions for our problems. We need to work together and find a capitalist solution for our healthcare, unemployment, and education issues.

We need to alert everyone to our awakening. American business, at the summit of our industrial hegemony across the globe, was about honesty, integrity, ethics, and ingenuity. We need to regain our voice and the only way to achieve it is by doing in the marketplace what Massachusetts did with the Kennedy dynasty a few of weeks ago.  We need to dump the stock of companies that allow their CEO’s to receive outrageous bonuses and endless expense accounts because the money comes out of our pocket.  

We need to instill in every CEO that the profits of the company are first due to the corporation’s owners: you, me, and the rest of the holders of common stock. We need to hamper every CEO’s ability to fill a company’s board of directors with yes men who will allow him/her to pillage and plunder the treasury of the company he/she is entrusted to run. We need to find ethical people to run our public corporations.

To cure our current economic problems as free market capitalists, we need to accept the payment of fewer taxes on the condition that we invest in business ventures that create job opportunities. We need to eliminate the restrictions on the purchase of health insurance coverage across state lines. We need to eliminate an insurance company’s ability to refuse coverage to anyone after a policy is issued. We need to make health insurance coverage mandatory for everyone. We need to legislate a single premium for every covered person based on the actuarial experience of 300 million insured citizens from cradle to grave without exception.

To eliminate waste, we need to define when a claim made after a medical occurrence becomes frivolous. We should define as frivolous any claim that attempts to profit from a medical occurrence that was purely accidental. We need to understand that doctors are human, not deities. Doctors are not able to save everyone. Sometimes, people die despite all their best intentions and medical training. And we need to learn to deal with death at all ages. We need to know that individuals die when their time comes. We need to eliminate frivolous law suits. Accidents happen. All the while, doctors need to understand that they are expected to act according to their Hippocratic Oath. 

As a nation, we need to grasp that government is a necessary evil. We need it for many things, none to meddle in our life. It is a serious waste of resources the majority of time. Government’s only goals are to perpetuate itself, expand itself, and grab more power away from the people.

We need to change the way we elect politicians. We need to hold them accountable at every election. Let’s throw them out if they are not effectively reaching consensus to progressively get us out of national bankruptcy. Let’s put an end to the downward draft that spiraled out of control nine years ago and holds us down today.

We want the change we were promised, not more of the same. We want common ground solutions. We want government by consensus. We want a balanced budget at all levels. It’s the only effective way to move forward.

It’s been a few months since my last blog for a myriad of reasons, none good enough to break a promise of continued writing, but I am ready to mend my ways. Curiously, moving to work after so many weeks away from this blog is like starting fresh. Everything on the site is new to me, as if I had never done this before. It makes one wonder about the intricacies of the human brain–and the calendar.

Today my blog will deal particularly with Haiti. After the earthquake a week ago, the world suddenly became aware of the poverty that incarcerates our neighbors to the south. The popular saying is that the Lord works in mysterious ways. In this case, news broadcasting non-stop from the desolate country has made it possible for everyone across the globe to become aware of the nature of the country’s plight and this realization propels some to come to the rescue of these humble people.

Every television journalist addressing the latest misery to sweep this marginal country is quick to mention the statistics that make Haiti one of the world’s poorest territories, certainly the poorest in the Americas. As television viewers, the cameras expose us to the havoc caused by the earthquake: the loss of life, of property, and of precious economic opportunities in a country that lives, since its independence 200 years ago, immersed in poverty. We come to the conclusion that the Haitian people are amazing survivors.

From the video footage we learn of the tradition and history of sustained corruption that plunders the national treasury and wastes resources sorely needed to foment among the people of Haiti a better tomorrow. And we also hear clearly the people’s gratitude for the handouts they receive after so many days without nourishment or water. We see them meekly thankful for as little as it may seem to us watching from a distance, surrounded by comfort and excess in comparison to what others have in other parts of the world. Subconsciously, we indulge in questions about divine justice, karma, and fate as we digest the visuals.

The daunting images confront us with the dismaying reality that exists a short few hundred miles away. We watch and admire selfless individuals working through charitable organizations that provide humanitarian help to these very unfortunate people. From one side of my family, a little cousin who works with the City of Miami Emergency Rescue is seen on television with several of his colleagues as they drag an elderly lady out of the rubble seven days into the nightmare. The survival of individuals whose time has not yet come is astonishing. From another side of the family, another little cousin, an orthopedic surgeon flown from Pittsburgh in a private donor’s aircraft filled with physicians and medical supplies writes of the ordeals she faced while on the ground without adequate equipment to tend to the gangrene, amputations, and other infections out in the open. And all these raw images also serve to shake us violently inside. They cause us to feel uneasy about our abundance and our ambivalence until now to do something to try to balance some of the inequities that separate us. 

Suddenly, we dismiss the high incidence of AIDS, the hepatitis, the dysentery, the dengue fever, and the tuberculosis that habitually plague these indigent people and, regardless of the risks involved, extending our hand too becomes imperative; raising our voice is now our duty. And we come full circle to the starting point: those of us with ears are now able to hear; with eyes, able to see. Clearly, we hear and we see that which until now was neither audible nor visible to us.  Yes, we clearly feel the mystery of the ways of the Lord.

In closing, I urge you to contribute to make this world more tolerable for those who have so much less than we do. The best known organization that makes life a little easier at everyone’s most serious hour of need is the American Red Cross: www.americanredcross.org. There is also the United Nations World Food Programme at: www.wfp.org. It takes only 25 cents per day for this organization to feed a child somewhere in need. Please donate as often as you can. So many need our help!

After listening to the president last night and reviewing once more the text of the speech this morning, my mind is clear. Some of the comments offered and published by other readers of the NYT tend to be too partisan and did not give credit to the president where credit is due. I was staunchly opposed to any additional government intervention in the private life of citizens and to any expansion of the size of the federal government as well as to any intervention on my ability to live to as advanced an age as I am due–no pulling of my plug.

However, after listening with an open mind, the president’s proposal is very much to the point. It resolves all the issues that anyone concerned with government intervention would consider invasive. It foments a responsible citizenry that directly addresses their personal needs away from the hand of the government, eliminating the unnecessary tax burden on those who create jobs and produce goods that promote everyone else’s wealth, not just their own.

If everyone is required to purchase health insurance, neither the federal government nor the state governments nor the municipalities will have to bear the burden or irresponsibility on the part of the citizens. True, it is the hand of government forcing us all to be responsible, but it is now a necessity, to alleviate the burden of the few having to pay for the many irresponsible ones who prefer to travel, purchase goods with borrowed money that they are unable to pay back, and burden our municipal hospitals with the obligation to cater to their irresponsible behavior.

Kudos to Mr. Obama. He brought me around. Now we have to ensure that his words have meaning and that the group of crooks that run the Congress do exactly as they were told: LEGISLATE. Word the law correctly. Force insurance companies to fulfill their promise to their premium paying customers. Eliminate the denial of payment over pre-existing conditions. Fine the executives of the companies and throw them in jail if they fail to meet their contractual obligations. Force every citizen to carry insurance. Form exchanges across state lines to pool all the risks together and provide reasonable premiums for adequate coverage. Ensure competitiveness in the service and provision of healthcare across the country. Provide relief to the few who need it due to TEMPORARY hardship. Implement tort reform measures to ensure patient rights and reduce frivolous law suits. All these premises will reduce the spiraling cost of healthcare without quashing invention and capitalist incentives.

That’s the perfect bill and no one is taxed to pay for anyone else’s irresponsible behavior. It places the responsibility for our care on our own shoulders, not other people’s. It does not grow the government programs. It ensures compliance.

What’s not to like?

All day I’ve been involved discussing healthcare on Facebook. The heat of the moment is the revision of how we administer the cost of healthcare in this country and the plans we have in store; either the government will expand Medicare to cover us all or there will be cooperatives formed across all states to pool risks together, à la Iowa as a model. Well, let me tell you what I know and what I think.

I know that 44 years ago, before Medicare came into existence, we did not have a healthcare problem of spiraling costs in this country. I know that doctors did not have to worry about their profiles to get paid by the government for their services. I know that the elderly were covered by private insurance that did not cost an arm and a leg.

I know hospitals spent on medical equipment according to their capital capabilities, not mandates from the federal government as to proximity to similar equipment. Hospitals were run for profit. Everyone knew that going into business had as a goal the earning of revenues to ensure another day of operations with the profits.

Doctors performed lab tests in their offices routinely. People carried insurance for their health, their life, their retirement and sums of money were earmarked to cover those premiums first. Families spent what was left after being responsible, paying the bills, saving for difficult times. It was not customary to borrow without the expectation of paying back sooner rather than later the sums borrowed. There was a high degree of diligence, respectability, and honesty.

I also know that when Medicare erupted into the scene all kinds of spiraling costs sprang up. Doctors needed to charge more to create a profile with Medicare lest they continue to receive in payment from Medicare less and less for their professional services. Insurance companies did not withhold payment sixty or ninety days because the free market did not allow them the luxury of bad service to their policyholders. They paid promptly. Really, everyone paid promptly.

I know that pooling risks was the norm at the time, not the exception. But pooling risks of all insured persons is what I’m talking about, not pools of the healthy versus the sick. It follows that pooling risks of healthy versus sick will not be profitable for the sick and will increase the cost of their benefits while the pool of healthy insureds continues to decrease in size and payment of benefits. Clearly, it is more profitable to keep premiums and not pay benefits. Withholding payment for benefits to retain premiums without paying claims incurred is clearly not what insurance companies are contracted to do. It follows with only an ounce or two of grey matter.

Before Medicare, everyone knew they had to pay for healthcare coverage. No one expected the government to pay for anything. The indigent could resort to public hospitals, but those were the few, the exceptions to the rule.

Now, I read of vast numbers of individuals who prefer to travel and not get health coverage because it is more enjoyable to spend money doing what we want than facing the obligations we all want to avoid. This creates in our society a group of freeloaders that comes to burden the rest of us. They boast about it on the pages of Facebook and Twitter. And it irks me.

As I have written on this blog before, insurance is the substitution of an unknown loss (the risk) for a loss of known magnitude (the premium). If we take the money that should conscientiously go to face unexpected difficult moments that may arise in the future and spend it traveling for pleasure, going on vacation, buying expensive automobiles or homes we cannot afford, and charging credit cards with loans we cannot repay, all while expecting the government to pick up where we cannot afford emergency expenditures, we are nothing more than a burden to our society. We do not belong to the capitalist society that formed this country, where everyone works hard to find a better footing.

Truthfully, there ought to be provisions for genetic illnesses, serious medical conditions, unemployed individuals who lose their ability to fend for themselves, the old, the mentally ill. But not for those who refuse to take care of themselves because they would rather spend their money doing stuff that immediately rewards their hedonistic behavior. For those people, we should pay their bills and then make them work to pay it back, forcefully, even behind bars if necessary.

If we all insure ourselves during youthful and healthy times, we should not face illness and old age with fear. Our insurance coverage would be there to respond. If we choose not to insure ourselves, we should have in escrow with trustees hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure that our bad planning does not affect the rest of society. So if we do not have those funds to escrow, we should then resort to buying insurance.

I believe the government should have a pool of money for those who cannot help themselves temporarily, but not blanket support for all the loafers that would rather take from the rich to give to the poor. The taking from the rich to give to the poor is a dead end game. Soon all the rich are poor and all the poor are equally as poor. And no one has anything any more.

We need to reform the laws that regulate insurance companies. We need to ensure by fear or by force that insurance companies pay the benefits that their customers buy from them. We need to levy stiff penalties and heavy fines, including criminal prosecution for executives of companies who fail to live up to the promises of their insurance policies. This is the true role of the government; not run healthcare for everyone.

As free individuals, we need to account for our own needs. We are free to pursue happiness, but not free to burden others and condemn the nation to pay for our financial failures. My freedom to do whatever I want ends at the step of my neighbor’s right to do the same. If the exercise of my freedom tramples someone else’s rights, then I am breaking the law.

We must shape this discussion into arguments that forge ahead with our country’s culture. We are not a socialist country. We are a country of laws. We should honor and respect our heritage. It is what made this country a great nation, a beacon to the world.   

We should contemplate eventual occurrences where a handful of individuals lose their ability to support themselves. We should be there as a country to lend them a temporary hand. We should not encourage sloth and lack of responsibility by blanket support that hinges upon the ability of the rich to foot the bill. This course of action is dictatorial and socialist. It points to the end of the country that we know and love today.

Let’s create a fund that the government will use to defray the cost of medical care for the exceptions, not the rules; the temporarily unemployed, the genetically disadvantaged unable to secure regular coverage, the mentally ill unable to cope with reality, those that lose their employment but actively seek another. We should use the funding to pay the premiums these unfortunate individuals cannot cover. But it would be the same premium pooled with 350 million insureds from all walks of life within our country. 

The insured’s geographical location in the country, sex, occupation, avocation, age, and history of illness becomes irrelevant. The premium would be the same, actuarially determined ahead of time. What we would seek then is a better service provider, not a lower premium. Service would be the new area of competition: service unequaled by competitors and the free market would flock to that carrier.

But we would all be responsible and, outside of supernatural occurrences that we all encounter from time to time, we would pay our own healthcare premium from cradle to grave. We would find our own doctors. We would go to the hospital of our choice.

Let’s legislate that. Let’s legislate integrity and self-determination. Let’s stop discussing how the rich earned or not what they have.

Envy is the worst of human conditions. It blinds us to the point of ignoring how detrimental it is to our psyche and the country as a whole. We should rise above these petty exchanges that currently shape our discussions on healthcare and find workable solutions to our present situation without ignorantly expecting the government to take care of us with other people’s money.

As we come to the end of this blog today, please let me know your opinion and how these topics may better reflect your personal interests. All points of view are respected. Thanks for reading my blog.

It’s long overdue. My last blog was a good number of days ago, but as usual, I’ve been wrestling with many pressing issues without a moment to relax and post new material, although these days, blogging is probably the most rewarding of my projects. And today’s is one of the most enjoyable to undertake. The weekend of the 8th of August was a compilation of pleasant events.

The primary reason for the short trip was simple. My oldest daughter, Hilda Elena, received her Master’s degree from the University of South Florida. She completed her studies in Speech Language Pathology. She is now able to work professionally with young and old addressing all issues of oral communication.

She makes as good a practitioner as she is an excellent human being. She is observing, careful and tender. She is nurturing and loving. She is also determined, focused, and zealous. She dreads public speaking, but thrives when given the opportunity to express her well-informed point of view. She is conscientious and filled with good intentions to make this a better world. She is a wonderful mother to Andrea, my favorite granddaughter, now going into third grade.

It was a memorable ceremony for me as her very proud father. While in second grade, her teacher called me to a meeting after school because, in her very professional opinion, my small daughter required special schooling. She announced that my young daughter would never be a good student and would best require special attention to develop coping skills. While the teacher’s negative assessment upset me, I felt I knew better, and paid no attention to her discouraging pronouncements. But her words always remained imprinted on my memory, like a bad spell from a witch.

Frankly, I could not afford a special school for slow learners. There were three more little ones at home. And my own perception was different.

I always felt that Hildita, as we call her in the family, simply had her head in the clouds and did not concentrate fully in school assignments. She preferred to daydream looking out the window. She found it hard to read and derive meaning from what she read. I could relate.  

My own assessment was different. Hildita’s academic progress would be resolved with time, as she matured slowly. She would gradually learn to concentrate. My more reasonable job was to create a nurturing, peaceful home environment to allow her to find her footing, as she learned to focus more on her work than on the distractions in the classroom. 

This plan proved easier said than done. At the time I met with her second grade teacher, we were in the middle of an emotionally tearing divorce that lasted well over her next two school years. This extraordinarily painful period was followed by a nasty sequel of about four more years, where the sight of the other parent coming to visit the children in my home at all hours, unannounced, caused me to blow up, paying no attention to the possible negative consequences that my fits of rage could bring on my children. 

These troubled years continue to haunt me periodically, so I assume they were even more significant in my children’s lives. I do not find it easy to dismiss, forget, and forgive myself for trespasses that hurt the very people I love most in the world. Often, these reproachful memories make me pay the price. So as my daughter’s name was called and she marched up on the stage to shake the university president’s hand and someone snapped a professional picture, all these images and sad memories barraged themselves onto my consciousness to underscore how far she went to overcome her earlier shortcomings, complete her Master’s program, and attain a once distant goal.

Hildita’s two sisters also hold Master’s degrees and one a PhD. But my other two daughters never failed to achieve high marks in school. As most successful students tend to do, they both, loved and hated academic work; but in the end, their marks were always stellar. I was no less proud of their achievements. But throughout life, it was Hildita’s work in school that worried me the most, and I was not alone. Sister Paul, the high school disciplinarian hinted more than as a joke to keep me in detention over my daughter’s work. Even she popped into my mind that day. Her prayers too were answered.

To couple this memorable graduation that finally resolved my unrest over Hildita’s ability to achieve academically, there was also my visit with Alina, Carlos, and Stone. It was my time spent with Stone, my favorite grandson on the date of this writing, that was equally as rewarding. Until this weekend, I had hardly spent any time with him.

But I am delighted to report that my amazing grandson is now able to grab, kick, roll, sit, gurgle, show delight, and whimper when hungry or sleepy. He loves his meals consisting of fresh organic vegetables and fruits, carefully prepared by his loving dad that his mom spoon feeds him four times a day, and he does not seem to receive fast enough. 

Stone is now six months old with two tiny lower teeth to show and an amazingly pleasant personality. Clearly, he is a happy baby. He smiles often with his eyes shiny and bright.

I can picture him in a few years, as a toddler, bringing bugs and frogs from the garden into the house to his mommy’s delight. His gaze is analytical. He observes everything very carefully. He loves his musical Marlins carrousel. He smiles, goos, and kicks with delight as the hanging fish and stuffed baseball parade in circles slowly over his head.  

Our small gathering in Tampa for the graduation was truly enjoyable. We missed Frankie, but he could not come down. I wish we lived closer to enjoy more time together, as when they were small. It would be great to spend more time with the grand kids.

Andrea is now eight. She’s quickly growing up. There is so much we could do together while they grow up before I slowly fade away.

Well, this brings me to the end of my blog today. If you enjoyed this piece, let me know. As always, all comments are well received.

The New York Times today reports that while in Paris, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams, “said profound differences among the world’s 77 million Anglicans over gay clergy and same-sex unions could divide their church into a ‘two-track model’ yielding ‘two styles’ of being Anglican.”

As an individual concerned with spirituality, God, and community, it is clear to me that organized religion’s interest in dictating and defining the sexuality of Man is akin to our different governmental legislatures passing laws to declare the Law of Gravity unconstitutional. If organized religion is to remain in the mainstream, it should focus more on how God loves all his children and their individual relationship with a higher being, as they steer away from their salacious desire to interfere on who sleeps with whom and whether their association in the privacy of their bedroom is sanctified by a group of earthly figures trying to replace God’s teaching to love one another. Will those reputedly more enlightened beings who are held by so many in such high esteem ever see the light in this lifetime?

As Christians know it, God sent us His son, Jesus, to die on the cross for all our sins, and Jesus’ single most important message was not the fashion to be worn by his earthly emissaries or the color of the shoes they wear; instead, His message was succinct and direct, simply to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Isn’t that clear enough? Do we need miles of theologians lined up to instruct us on how and where to love? Church, teach us to love one another, not to separate ourselves from everyone else by imposing unchristian values that distort our existence!

It’s ironic that a church founded by a king who wanted to assert his human sexuality, distancing himself from the other church that was prevalent at the time would, centuries later, swerve into a rift over exactly this same sexuality issue. The more things change, the more they stay the same? Maybe it’s time for all churches to stay out of the bedroom and focus on God, spirituality, and individual relationships with our own concept of what our God wants for our own happiness, in an intimate dialog directly with Him, without intermediaries who have their own agendas with dictatorial mandates for everyone else.

We hope you enjoy these blogs on a continued basis.  As with all postings, please leave your comments. Reader comments are not only interesting, they help shape the nature and subjects of the issues we address.

Today is a special day for most people of Cuban origin; not for political reasons, though. It marks the day most Cubans reflect on our love for our grandmothers. It started because in the Roman Catholic calendar, July 26 is the feast of St. Anne, the virgin Mary’s mother, Jesus’ maternal grandmother; and while the origins of this celebration may be religious, the rest of the country adopted the date to mark a very special day for all grandmothers. 

Both my grandmothers are gone now, but my love for them remains and transcends life in this earthly plane. Every instance  I remember my two grandmothers, their kindness and their love are what pop into my mind. I recall them always gentle and caring. And I am grateful for all the time they gave me, as brief as it was until I had to leave them abruptly at age thirteen.

I am grateful for their patience and for their endless desire to be there for me no matter what their worries and concerns may have been at the time. When I was around them, everything else was secondary, and my issues were their first priority.  They had kindly ways and attentive manners. 

Abuela Lola, my paternal grandmother, taught me to play Spanish games with a deck of Spanish cards and a two-feet long piece of string. I learned to pass the time forming geometrical figures with a piece of string on my hands held side by side, palms in, and pulled apart, tied between my fingers, as she picked at the shapely string with her hands and fingers to re-shape the string into different rectangular and triangular shapes while pulling away on the same two-feet long piece that I held. She also taught me to play “Tute” and “Brisca,” games played with Spanish cards. And she taught me to speak Castillian, pronouncing the ¨Z’s¨ and the ¨C’s¨ in the right places, not mistaking them for ¨S’s,¨ as the rest of my compatriots born in the tropics. Abuela Lola had the patience of Job, but she never told me how old she was.

She was a great cook. She cooked daily and fed each one of her five children who routinely came home at lunch time. For a couple of years, until I saw her the last time, after the revolution forced changes in my school routine, I too came to her home for lunch from school, shortly after noon every day, and found that my plate was always ready, filled with her savory, traditional, Spanish dishes. If at any time I was hungry for more, there was always plenty more to ensure that we rolled out the door in demonstration of good caring and satisfaction.

I had more opportunities to be around my maternal grandmother, abuela Amparito. We sat down and talked about all kinds of things endless times. We lived under the same roof for a few years. She taught me to sit at the dinner table, to hold the silverware, and use the napkin. She often took the time to scrub my nails before sitting at the table to teach me hygiene. She always stressed that most people display their good rearing at the dinner table, as they hold the silverware, drink from a glass, and speak politely. She was witty and fun.

Abuela Amparito was my television buddy and film companion. We spent countless afternoons watching old cowboy movies, Mexican and Argentinian comedies on film with Tin-Tan and Cantinflas, and even more than a few heavy dramas on television when school was out or when any number of childhood diseases kept me away from school. She liked to see me laugh and I liked to see her laughing.

My two grandmothers were friendly conspirators and smart companions. More than once they smuggled treats and caresses with impunity while others who had punished me glared at them for their transgressions. But they did not care. They were my unconditional redeemers.  

So today, as I reflect on their impact on my life, it is clear that although we only shared those fleeting thirteen years together, they remain a very important part of my present. Their positive energy continues to nurture me at all moments.  I love them very much. Even today, their memory makes me smile and warms my heart.  

Happy “Día de las Abuelas,¨ abuelitas!

As always, comments are always welcome. Please leave yours too.

HR 645
If you double click on the hyperlink above, you will be able to read and understand why the blogs are boiling with a bill presented by Alcee L. Hastings, Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the State of Florida. Mr. Hastings, with his turbid reputation and his re-election after disgracing his office represents a constituency in the State of Florida who cares very little about proper representation and too much about cronyism. For review of the trial and impeachment details, please click:  Alcee Hastings Trial and Impeachment.

At first look, HR 645 appears to be a perfectly innocent bill. However, it allows for the military to enter the civilian life and law enforcement. It allows for the federal government to determine that which constitutes an emergency. There are no proposed reviews by panels composed of other branches of government to judge on the suitability of the emergency call. The scope of the proposed bill is too ambiguous and ambiguity lends itself to abuse.

If we take Katrina as an example, yes, we all agree that we were in the presence of a national emergency. But what if the people of Vermont decide to go out on the street and protest against any measure that they deem improper by the government–such as increased taxes, higher assessment millage, stolen elections–as in Iran–anything that could bring large groups of people to voice their objection? This public act to clearly voice an objection under the bill could be called a “national emergency” and participants would be turned over to an internment camp without anyone’s objection, all within the scope of this bill.

The bill grants power to the federal government and representatives of only one branch of the federal government. While today we may trust that these measures will be placed in healthy use, in the real world later could find unhealthy abuse. Unlike what occurred with the USA PATRIOT ACT–where no one currently discusses any more how we should do away with it despite all the loud discussion during the Bush years on how the Act abuses our rights as citizens–we need to limit the power of the federal government, not extend it. We already know what an administration grabbing power was capable of perpetrating on the country and our Bill of Rights. We need to prevent another act of this nature from sprouting up. Any legislation of this type must restrict the ability of a government body to silence individuals who object to its abusive ways. Without limits on what government is allowed to do and under what specific instances only, we erode our rights.

In principle, anything Alcee Hastings proposes should be scrutinezed with high powered magnifying glasses. He was impeached once already as a sitting federal judge for taking bribes and peddling his influence. We should wonder who is paying him now to propose this bill.

As citizens of this great nation, we must stand together with the framers of the Constitution. We must ensure that individuals who try to eliminate our rights as citizens are not returned to office. We must never allow in representative office proponents of laws that do away with our rights. Mr. Hastings is no exception. Quite the contrary, he should be watched very carefully.

HR 645 places in the hands of the executive branch, specifically the head of the Homeland Security Agency, our individual freedoms, our right to free speech, to freely assemble, to promote our ideas, to bear arms, to dissent with unjust government measures, to retain our fifty states in a union where the framers of the Constitution envisioned a very weak and loosely constructed federal government with limited rights and very clearly delineated powers. The framers themselves were so distrusting of the power of the federal government that they took every precaution to limit it. This bill proposes that we hand the very person we should distrust the power to incarcerate us at his total discretion. 

We are conscious that there are 435 members in the US House of Representatives. We hope that the majority of these honorable representatives will block this preposterous legislation. We also trust that even on the outside chance that a majority of our representatives misrepresents their elected office and fails on their oath to uphold the Constitution, that the US Senate will block this legislation and that as our elected officials, they never allow the obliteration of our constitutional rights.

We are all in the hands of the representation we elect to office. If we are not concerned with the actions of our elected officials, we are all in very deep trouble. These individuals are obligated to represent us and passing HR 645 would not be in our best interest, for it allows our freedoms to be questioned. This is not what the framers of our Constitution envisioned. We must never allow others to dispose of our inalienable rights.

As we come to the end of this blog tonight, it would be very helpful if you forward a copy of HR 645 to your US Congressman and request of him or her to block this insane piece of legislation that would turn our country into a giant concentration camp as Hitler envisioned for Germany’s enemies as head of the National Socialist Party. It is not a patriotic bill. It us an unpatriotic bill, for it eliminates the very essence of our existence as a nation.  

If you find ways in which these postings may better serve your needs, please leave a comment. Thank you for your time. All points of view are respected and encouraged. We truly believe in the First Amendment.

While I love politics as a topic of conversation, often it is not a good subject to discuss in mixed company. Most people find it offensive. A small minority gets agitated. It is definitely a controversial matter and etiquette dictates avoiding it as a theme to prevent alienating friends.

Nonetheless, as a victim of a demagogue who arrived at the head of government under the guise of democratic reform, promising free elections that never took place, remaining in power over fifty years, causing economic destruction, financial ruin, and popular distress, we, Cubans of birth, cannot remain silent when another autocratic despot tries to solidify his hold on the country and install himself as royalty at the head of his country’s government. For this observer, the surgical prowess of the constitutional forces in the Republic of Honduras deserves admiration. Without spilling a single drop of blood, the power of the Honduran Constitution removed the sitting president and declared him in violation of the country’s democratic order.

The evidence is clear. Ex-president Zelaya failed to respect the laws of the land and failed to rule according to the mandates of the Honduran Constitution. He is accused of failing to implement more than eighty laws passed by Congress over the last year. He also failed to present a budget to avoid disbursing funds to his detractors in other branches of government. Instead, he was receiving cash from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to run his office with the goal of installing himself as yet another autocratic system in Latin America.

While in office, Zelaya requested the Supreme Court’s decision on his intention to amend the Constitution and run for a second term as president, but the high court’s finding came down negating his request on the very legal grounds that the Constitution of Honduras does not allow for a second presidential term. All Honduran presidents are only allowed to serve four years and at the end of their mandate must go home. Zelaya wanted to copy Castro and Chavez, amending the law of the land to suit his personal ambitions. Zelaya moved ahead and, in perfect challenge to rule and judicial authority, ordered a referendum that went against the law of the country and the constitution he swore to uphold.

Unfortunately for Mr. Zelaya, the people of Honduras had also elected other politicians who respect the law and serve ethically. His provocation of a constitutional crisis was halted. He was removed from office and flown to Costa Rica, a neutral country, for his own safety and to avoid internal struggle between his supporters and those who oppose him while the other two powers of the Honduran government decided his fate.

Yet the cry-baby went knocking on every door, including Barack’s, crying foul. Regrettably, other presidents and international organizations fail to understand that no international power has the right to impose mandates on sovereign countries. Today, the people of Honduras stand tall and refused to allow the landing of several airplanes full of international figures that want to instill fear as they push for the return of a member of their socialist alliances.

Who are these people who cry foul? Cristina Kirchner, who was elected with money sent by Chavez in suitcases breaking Argentine election laws, Ortega of Nicaragua, a lackey of Fidel Castro’s ruling over the hemisphere’s second poorest country as he enriches himself by taking private property and placing it in his own name, the brothers Castro, as Fidel’s ghost remains behind the thick curtain like the Wizard of Oz, and Raul sits atop his throne because his brother selected him as Juan Carlos of Bourbon would pass his crown to the next king of Spain, Chavez, a jester who wants to take control of the region’s leadership when the world is finally made aware that Fidel Castro, the Great Puppeteer, died months ago but the half century dictatorship’s repressive organizations would not allow for the release of the news.

How do these perpetuators of personal mandates, destroyers of countries, and annihilators of personal freedom have the audacity to cry foul when their plans are trumped? Leaving the answer to this very poignant question to each and every one of you, I applaud the people of Honduras for putting a stop to the autocratic systems of government that are sweeping our continent. We must stand behind them in support for their courageous leadership and their brave majority who refuses to allow the plague that destroys the rest of America from taking hold of their country.

Once again, we come to the end of our blog. Thank you for reading this post. Please leave a comment and share your thoughts on how to improve this site.