One Man's Opinion

Last Thursday, I warned about the dangers of rushing to help the children of Haiti in a paternalistic way, bordering on imperialistic. Now, it seems to have happened in the case of the group of American Baptists who took it upon themselves to "rescue" 33 children by smuggling them into the Dominican Republic without any documents or authorization of any kind. As is often the case with people who claim to "do God's work", they heard His call to action and, thus, had no time to waste with legal procedures or what the Haitian government might have to say about this. Acting like the missionaries of old, who went to backward countries to civilize and convert the natives, these do-gooders crossed the line between Christian charity and the "ugliness" of American naked power.

By now, everybody knows about the Puerto Rican doctors who embarrassed themselves by acting like members of a college fraternity house after providing medical care in Haiti. What prompted these professionals to behave in such an outrageous fashion is beyond most people's comprehension. There are those who, looking to excuse them, have suggested that they had been under a lot of stress, and were just "blowing off steam." I side with the bioethics professor who said that, in the face of such a tragedy, one must act with a certain degree of solemnity. When one is surrounded by so much suffering, there is no cause for levity or horsing around. This has been a most unfortunate event, and, as a Puerto Rican, I feel deeply ashamed of what my countrymen did. There is no excuse for it.

Anyone concerned with the rule of law anywhere should be somewhat disturbed by what is reported about the new Constitution of the Dominican Republic. First of all, the mere fact that this is the 31st in the 166 years since it became an independent nation - an average of one Constitution every five - plus years - speaks volumes about that country's stability. Although not meant to be permanent, Constitutions should have a long shelf life, and not be discarded so frequently. They are meant to be the foundation of a society, the supreme law of the land, not a regular statute to be amended every few years. There are, to be sure, certain disturbing aspects in the document itself that has been adopted. A ban on abortions - even therapeutic ones - harks back to the days when the Catholic Church imposed its theology on secular governments. This step backwards seems rather odd in this day and age, when different moral sensibilities are respected in a pluralistic society. A provision th

I think that, by having this inquiry on how the decision to go to war in Irak was made, Great Britain is giving the rest of the world quite a lesson in accountability. Regardless of what the outcome will be, just calling former Prime Minister Tony Blair to the witness stand, so that he explains why he, knowingly, dragged the United Kingdom into this mess is something the Americans, for one, would do well to pay attention to. Blair has already admitted publicly that he thinks the war was justified, just to get rid of Saddam Hussein, WMDs or not. The underlying theme here is that the British keep thinking of themselves as an empire, going on about the world imposing their will on "inferior" people who have no right to decide for themselves and should only do what they're told by their former masters. This is why Blair had no compunction in going along with Bush in what they both knew were false pretenses. It never entered their mind that truth was important, because to,

Finally, the U.S. and the rest of the West seem to be coming to their senses in Afghanistan. Failing miserably militarily, they have started to talk about talking their way out of the mess they're in. The "evil" and hated Taliban is going to be brought to the negotiating table. Failure makes strange "tablefellows", indeed. The so-called Coalition should get out and let the Afghans deal with their problems in whatever way they choose; be it through the ballot box or the bullet box. Whoever wins, wins, and you either deal with them or you don't. What you don't do is invade their country to "put things right", because, invariably, it doesn't work out that way, and the cost in human suffering is too high.

Now, everybody wants to adopt Haitian "orphans". Let's not get carried away here by pity. First of all, we have to know, for certain, if these children are true orphans and there are no relatives who are willing and able to take care of them. Beyond that, taking a child out of his country and culture should not be done lightly, assuming, automatically, that he would want that. On the part of the would-be adoptive parents, caution should be exercised. Adoption is not something to be done on the spur of the moment, prompted by a sort of euphoria of charity and good will that could lead to mass or large - scale adoptions. Let's take care of the children, and in a reasoned and orderly way, consider adoption as an alternative.

Businesses everywhere keep firing workers and going bankrupt. In the case of these huge companies, it was entirely predictable. Past certain point, it just isn't feasible to maintain a level of profits that will allow a business to continue. Subscribing to the "greed is good" thesis by Gordon Gecko - the character from the Oliver Stone film Wall Street - too may companies around the world thought that growth was infinite, so they kept opening branches or stores, hiring more personnel and running into debt recklessly. Nobody foresaw a very simple reality: if people have very little or no money to spend, there go your customers. In a sense, all that growth was artificial and unreal; it was unsustainable in the long run. There are just so many $5 cups of coffee that you can drink; none when you're unemployed.

If I were the Pope - God forbid - I would rethink encouraging priests to use the Internet as a tool to communicate with their flock. The Church has enough problems trying to keep their pedophiles in check, without giving them any ideas on how to "reach out» - and touch - young ones in their parishes. Hasn't the Pontiff heard about cyberspace being a favorite meeting place for sexual predators? The man is obviously out of touch with reality...but, then, he is the Pope, and being delusional comes with the territory. If this thing comes to pass, parents would do well in monitoring their children's communications with the friendly local priest who takes too much of an interest in their spiritual well-being. This reminds me of an old joke I once saw in Laugh In , the great comedy show of the Sixties. The dirty old man sits beside the old spinster on a park bench, and asks her: " Do you believe in the hereafter? When she says yes, he says: " Then you know what I&#

Black people have it hard everywhere, even in a society in which "the new man" is supposed to flourish. Fifty-one years after the triumph of the Cuban revolution, there is still racism in the socialist state, in spite of the major efforts made to transform that society. Apparently, deep-seated prejudices have resisted the egalitarian bent of the regime, and still rear their ugly head among the Cuban people. The struggle for equality is never-ending. Much has been done to level the playing field in places like Cuba, but there is no paradise on this earth. Sadly, the color of one's skin continues to be a major factor in human relations.

Euthanasia or "mercy killing" is a controversial legal and moral subject, something not to be engaged - in lightly. Although the sanctity of life is the general principle, there are extreme cases in which that rule can be broken. All this comes to mind with the case of the British mother who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing her son to put him out of his misery in a vegetative state due to brain damage. Interestingly enough, her whole family supports her in what has been described as an "act of love." There are times when one must muster the courage to act, in order to end endless and needless human suffering, especially of a loved one. Life in prison for that mother is an extremely harsh punishment. The jury shouldn't have convicted her, and the court should've taken into account the extenuating circumstances present in this case. Justice has not been served.

When so many Venezuelan businessmen complain bitterly about Hugo Chávez's policies, it means he must be doing something right. The man has simply taken the capitalist bull by its horns to protect the people, those who have no other recourse but to accept what the ruling class decrees. Freedom has often - and incorrectly - been equated to free markets, but this is only the freedom of those who have to impose their will on those who have not. Economic abuse is a fact of life in capitalist countries, and is taken as the normal order of things. So, whenever someone attempts to even the scales or, worse, tip them in favor of the poor, he is demonized, much as Chávez has been since he came to power. But, then, we all know where the smell of sulphur comes from...

The American people, these days, are worried about the economy, terrorism and Haiti, but life - or should I say, violent death - goes on as usual. In a country so enamored with guns - even to the point of having them figure so prominently in its Constitution - it's no surprise that killing sprees are so commonplace. What I find absolutely fascinating is the fact that, in the face of these tragedies, Americans have been so unwilling to part with what is clearly a relic from the past. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - the right to bear arms - was understandable at the time of its adoption, given the fact that the war for independence had just been fought, in part by militias, and there was a great deal of mistrust towards the new government, on the part of the citizenry. But those times have long been gone, and except for some conspiracy theorists, no one in his right mind thinks that he has to have a small arsenal in his basement, in case the Federal government deci

In a soon-to-be-released report, the Department of Justice admits that, from 2002 to 2006, the FBI illegally obtained 2,000 phone records claiming falsely that they were linked to terrorist activities. Now, this isn't the first time that the FBI has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, and I suspect it won't be the last one. Supposedly, the practice was "discontinued" in 2006. I find it interesting that, in instances such as this one, these illegal practices are discovered after the fact, oftentimes, years after the events took place, so that the culprits can always claim that this is a thing of the past, a"mistake" that has been corrected, and, therefore, is no longer relevant. Also, nothing major comes out of these snafus. A reprimand or two, maybe, but there is no sincere acceptance of fault nor political will to change anything. And then, it starts all over again.

In Minnesota, they have suspended a doctor indefinitely for having taken out the wrong kidney and performed a biopsy on another organ by mistake. To those who are always ponting out that malpractice suits are generally frivolous, a concoction of unscrupulous lawyers and greedy patients, I ask : What would you do in a case like this? Just say that it's too bad? Anybody care to put a price tag on a good kidney?

It may very well be that I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that these movies and miniseries such as Band of Brothers and The Pacific are part of a propaganda scheme to glorify American militarism by portraying it in a heroic light, in this era of unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Irak. Steven Spielberg, which hasn't done anything to write home about lately, has teamed up with Tom Hanks, a movie star in decline, to try to distract our attention from the failures of the present by focusing on the great triumphs of the past. It's so obvious, that it's downright embarrassing.

Every once in a while, the American government puts out a statement in which it recognizes the "importance" of Latin America and promises to pay attention to it and have a new policy towards it. Recently, Obama sort of apologized for past sins and promised to do better. Now a group of U.S. embassies personnel, has met in Puerto Rico, and seems to want to do the right thing. Now, this shouldn't be so difficult. Latin America wants to be respected and treated fairly by all parties concerned. If the U.S. does that on a consistent basis, its neighbors from south of the border will reciprocate, and everybody will benefit from it. Here's a start: Stop referring to Latin America as the U.S."backyard" and, most of all, treating it as such.

The news that they've found "some" cocaine in the Space Shuttle hangar at NASA reminds me of that old Byrds ' song, Eight Miles High , inspired, at least in part, by their drug use. Of course, those were the sixties and David Crosby was one of The Byrds, so, enough said about that. But, this is clean-cut NASA, the All-American heroes who have conquered space with their pure heart, and are always on their best behavior. Well, apparently not. Another part of the American myth bites the dust.

Needless to say, no country is under any obligation to help another, and $100 million is a lot of money, but isn't it supremely and tragically ironic that the same day that Obama announces that sum of money as aid for Haiti, he also announces his request to Congress for $33,000 millions for the war in Afghanistan and Irak? What this means is that the U.S. could, if it wished to do so, provide much more assistance to Haiti without batting an eye. Is this part of the change that Obama so fervently promised to his people and, in a sense, the rest of the world or has he been gobbled -up by the military-industrial complex denounced by Eisenhower so many years ago?

As I watch the whole world scramble to help Haiti in its hour of greatest need, I can't help but wonder where these same countries have been in "normal" times in this God-forsaken nation. Sometimes, it seems as if the rest of the world has given up on Haiti, perhaps exasperated at its incapacity to govern itself reasonably well and attain some measure of progress. Not having any major source of wealth from natural resources, the country has very little, if any, importance for the rest of the world. It is like one of those beggars who are constantly asking for handouts, condemned to eternal destitution. Given that the Haitians bear part of the blame for their life-long predicament, we should ask ourselves if we have failed them in any significant way, either by being unfair in our dealings with them or by being indifferent to them, the worst sin of all.

By now, everybody and his brother knew that Mark McGwire had used what euphemistically are called "performance-enhancing drugs", at some point in his career. There is just no way that someone, through exercise and nutrition alone, can get to be that strong in such a short time. But, Major League Baseball , ever hungry for revenues, looked the other way because the show that he and Sammy Sosa were putting on was too good to put a stop to. And then, José Canseco, "crazy Cuban" that he is, blew the whistle on everybody, and the whole pretense went to hell. Of course, he is a Latino and an admitted steroid user, so that made it easy to assassinate his character. But, ever so slowly, time has proven José right. All those who doubted him or damned him for being a snitch, now sing a different tune. For his part, McGwire has come clean half-heartedly. His was a "low-dosage use", taken only to heal faster from injuries and not to hit those mammoth homers day

I find it quite remarkable how casually the Americans talk about invading other countries or killing foreign leaders, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. I suppose it's part of the imperial mindset that leads them to believe that theirs is a God-given right to do as they damn well please. Although Obama has made an effort to appear different, his is, at best, a perhaps watered-down version of "might makes right" or Pax americana. With very few exceptions, all this talk of breaking international law goes unchallenged in the United States. No one asks the tough questions about the legality, let alone morality, of the proposed actions. People naturally assume that this is alright, and the debate centers, largely, on how long it's going to take and how much it's going to cost. In other words, "manifest destiny" is fine, if it's cheap and quick. Bomb the hell out of some backward country, kill whomever is in power, put a puppet in cha

I've never really understood the need to have "heroes" or people you look up to in a sort of adolescent way. You may admire someone's talent or quality of some kind, but, on the whole, one is bound to be disappointed in any full-blown admiration. Take Gandhi, for example. Unquestionably, he was a great man, but sleeping with two or three young girls for "warmth" or whatever excuse he came up with wasn't something you should be particularly proud of. Churchill led his country through "blood, sweat and tears", but called Gandhi a "ridiculous little man in a loincloth." Jefferson was all for the rights of man, but he was a slaveowner and fathered several children with one of them. Arthur Miller lectured his countrymen on moral issues in his plays, while he kept his retarded child a secret all of his life. The list of greatness tainted by shameful deeds is endless. In the final analysis, it's up to us to discover our own greatness of

The "best" thing that could've happened to Michael Jackson was his death, because, quite frankly, he had become a non-entity in the entertainment world. He had stopped recording and touring; therefore, he was, for all intents and purposes, "dead". So, in his death, he has made a great comeback. Except for the occasional scandal, no one had paid him any attention for a long time. Now, they can't stop talking about him or those who had something to do with his death. I'm a child of the fifties and sixties, so I appreciate the kind of music he did, but, if truth be told, Jackson was over the hill, personally and professionally. His talent had run its course, and he had nothing more to offer. He had become a pathetic figure. People who have no sense of history and culture have called him a "genius"; he himself had insisted that the media refer to him as "The King of Pop". He was as delusional as his adoring fans. Time will cut him

As we all know, "intelligence" has two distinct meanings: mental capacity and information pertaining to national security. By the looks of what has recently happened in the U.S., there has been precious little of both in the handling of these terrorist threats. For all its bombastic propaganda of superiority, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. intelligence community has acted like the Keystone Cops of old times. I think that part of the problem is that Uncle Sam has believed its own legend of a master race of sorts, so sure of itself and its invincibility, shocked that anyone would dare challenge its supremacy, that it has become complacent. The ever-present rhetoric of always having the "best" or "greatest" of everything has brainwashed its own people into accepting that all things American are perfect. From John McCain to Charlie Daniels, they all proclaim the U.S. to be "the greatest country in the history of mankind." And that is a d

The Honduran crisis has really put the so-called "InterAmerican system" to the test and found it lacking. Ditto the United States, which, after some "tsk, tsk" has looked the other way. The net result has been that a duly - elected President has been ousted from power, and Honduras has gone on its merry way, as if nothing happened. Those who tried to broker a deal to solve the crisis did so trying to accomodate the culprits, thus legitimizing them as players in the democratic game. But, once democracy is interrupted, things cannot go on legitimately, unless you "rewind" and go back to the place where the interruption took place. The only democratically-acceptable solution was to return Zelaya to power and then go on from there, be it with a referendum or whatever mechanism chosen to either reelect him or vote him out of office. As things stand now, there is no legitimacy to the Lobo presidency, much less to the Micheletti one.

At first glance, Cuba's refusal to let the Spanish member of parliament and his wife, also an MP, enter the country might seem like one of those arbitrary decisions made customarily by a dictatorial regime. But, on a closer look, the Cuban government has probably done the right thing in keeping out someone who gives "aid and comfort" to its enemies in and outside Cuba. Given the history of the last 51 years, of conspiracies and plots against the Cuban revolution, it would be unpardonably naive to allow people to come to the island with a destabilizing agenda. No country in its right mind does that. The U.S., for example, has a long history of denying entrance to those it deems «subversive», including, writers, musicians and other intellectuals. The Spanish government "doth [not] protest too much, methinks" because it is aware of the self-defense aspect involved in this case. Let's not forget that this is the same government that has outlawed a political part

As an observer who, in the final analysis has no say in the matter nor emotional stake either, it seems to me that there are quite a few Americans who are "embarrased", to say the least, by having a Black President, and have been waiting for any "slipup" on his part to pounce on him. This is what I think has happened with the whole debate over health care reform and the extreme anger it has produced. Needless to say, the controversy over his birth is the best example that there are people who would do anything to annul or invalidate his election, because they can't tolerate the idea that the White House is occupied by a Black family. These are the same folks that, six months into his term, were pointing out that the economy had not improved, and savaged his every move. Rush Limbaugh spoke for a lot of people when he said: "I hope he fails." Not because he's a Democrat or because of his policies, but, simply, because he's Black. And, no mat

The Supreme Court of Perú has affirmed Alberto Fujimori's 25-year sentence for 25 murders and one kidnapping during his regime. Fujimori, once the darling of the neoliberal set, was a businessman - turned - politician who prided himself on being tough on Shining Path , the guerrilla group, and leading Perú on the path to economic bloom. But, as so many others before him, he was nothing more than a cheap dictator in nice clothes. Pretty soon, his cronies - especially Valdimir Montesinos - were running the corruption show, while killing and torturing left and left. The U.S., eager to embrace anybody who even poses as anti-communist, conveniently, looked the other way. He was a bastard, but he was their bastard. Finally, justice of a sorts has been done. Of course, Fujimori is guilty of much more than he has been found guilty of. But, unlike Pinochet - another U.S. protegé - he hasn't gotten away with murder.

The U.S. is losing its war in Afghanistan on both the military and the political fronts. On the latter one, by placing all of its chips on Karzai - a man who is more worried about his wardrobe than anything else - it has backed someone who is unable to deliver a credible government. In its most recent and stunning setback, the Afghan parliament turned down 70% of his political appointees. Obviously, the man has no real power, let alone legitimate authority over his own people. This is what happens when you invade a country and disrupt what little order there is. The process of "nation- building" is long and hard, and people in the occupied country - even those who, supposedly, are partners of the occupying forces - resent the hell out of being invaded. It's human nature. Sooner or later, the U.S. will have to leave Afghanistan in more or less the same mess it's in right now. This is another mission not accomplished.

I'd like to put my two-cents worth in the global warming debate, with a personal experience that I deem significant. When my family and I moved to our current address 22 years ago, we used to keep our windows shut tight December through February; such was the "cold" we felt in an otherwise very warm Puerto Rico. As time went by, we began opening the windows ever more widely. These last few years we close our windows during this same period because it is so hot that we have to have the air conditioner on, even at night. As I said, we live in the same house, in the same neighborhood, where there haven't been any significant changes. So, I ask myself: Why the dramatic change in temperature? I'm no scientist, but, at least, in my neck of the woods, it is not only warmer but downright hotter, and for me, this is all the proof I need that global warming isn't science fiction.

Let me pose a fundamental question that I never read or hear asked: Why is it that the U.S., Great Britain, France and other "first-world countries" feel that they have the right to dictate terms and conditions of behavior to the rest of the world? The basic premise seems to be that they know what is best for the rest of the planet, which is made up of evil and stupid people that can't be trusted to act responsibly on their own. The problem is that nations, like individuals, dislike to be told what to do constantly, and so this is hardly a reasonable way to conduct oneself in the international community. Take, for example, the question of nuclear weapons. There are a few countries that have them, in spite of what the rest of the world thinks of it. But, those same nations have taken the position that they have the right to decide who else can have them, vetoing any effort on their part to acquire atomic material , even for peaceful purposes, forcing them to explain th