To Give or not To Give

It is generally accepted that we have become a very permissive society, while at the same time we have become a very regulated society; both premises may sound incompatible, but the reality tells us otherwise. Parents give and give and give, while the state keeps a close eye on them, ready to pounce at the slightest hint of abuse. We must applaud of course when a careless mother is arrested for leaving her toddler in a hot car, as she clamors in her defense : "It was just for a  minute." We also applaud when children show a history of bone fractures obtained through parental physical abuse and the father or paramour ends up in jail. Strangely enough we don't applaud when an 8 year-old showing 200 pounds is dragged through the aisles of the supermarket and the parents are pushing two carts overfilled with junk food.. paid with food stamps in many cases.

Parents can go to jail if a teen claims abuse; while the case is investigated, the family suffers the social humiliation even when innocent. And yet we fail to act against mothers who fail to feed their children a balanced diet with the logical consequence of diabetes and heart attacks. The state often provides food stamps to people who don't need them, an abuse that goes unpunished. Among these, many illegal immigrants take advantage of our generous welfare system. Why should they work if they get everything they need? Housing, food, clothing, education, health care, are all free. Who can imagine such a paradise on earth in any other country in the world? Only here, where state and federal budgets can happily spend more than they have; politicians simply order more money to be minted unlike a working family which plunges into an ever growing debt.

The other side of the coin is the regulated society in which government tells us what to do, how to do it, and where to do it, and how much to do it. The state wants to license everything under the sun, from cutting nails to combing hair to painting a room. It is getting so ridiculous that
a city wants to license the sale of knives. It has truly become a nanny state (see prior URL). Why not regulate matches, cigarette lighters, rubbing alcohol, nail cutters, hammers, drills, etc..


We don't punish parents who overfeed their kids, or who fail to teach them manners, or ignore the importance of personal responsibility, thus setting the social model not to follow. We jail the mother of older teens who were drinking beer in her house with their friends, where she could keep an eye on them; we know that teens will drink alcohol, whether the legal age is 18, 21, or 51. The mother showed personal responsibility by recognizing that reality and protecting them.

Discipline is fast disappearing from American families. "I don't want to end up in prison," complained a mother who felt like slapping the face of an insolent daughter. Spanking a toddler in public is asking for trouble with CPS (Child Protective Services). Denying a sugary treat to your children in a supermarket is earning the visible condemnation of all present. Give them whatever they want to keep the peace. Let them watch television 4 hours a day without asking about the homework. "I'm too tired to argue with them," sighed a working mother.

The result is the lack of discipline across the board in young America: Discipline is the backbone of success, whether material, academic or spiritual. Ask colleges what they think about freshmen: poor English, deficient math, and scarce scientific knowledge are the consequence of a soft and comfortable education that does not require sacrifices and hard work.




We should learn from recent immigrants from developing countries, whether legal or not. They shame us by doing what we consider beneath our dignity and in the process they become rich.

Have we become too lazy by asking the state to give and give and give?

The Latin America Affair

President Obama briefly mentioned a much needed free trade agreement with a couple of Latin American countries in his forceful message to Congress about jobs; such a deal with Colombia and Panama has not yet been approved by our legislature. This light reference to what used to be our primary backyard under the infamous Monroe doctrine has become a forgotten part of the world under both Bush and Obama. Yet, our exports to the countries with which we have a free trade agreement have grown faster than with other nations and with all know that exports mean more jobs here in the U.S.

After spending more than 20 years in Mexico, I can state with total certainty that life in the Aztec country revolves mostly around its relation with us. The U.S. Census bureau reports that in July 2011 we exported goods worth $16 billion to Mexico, $3 billion more than last year for the same month. True, we also bought around $20 billion, thus creating a trade deficit. In comparison, we only exported $8 billion to China in July 2011 while importing more than $35 billion, an enormous trade deficit that created a lot of jobs in the land of Confucius. Mexico imports twice as much from us than China, and yet we dedicate much more attention to Beijing than we do to our southern border allies.

 The Mexican Flag

Why the neglect? And what are the consequences of such attitude from our State Department?

Cartel Wars

The drug wars are not limited to Mexico; their tentacles reach into Guatemala, El Salvador, and Panama. The citizens of these nations suffer the daily violence and uncertainty caused by rival gangs which fight for the enormously profitable sale of drugs to... the United States. If by some miracle our country stopped buying these illicit substances from local dealers, these armed conflicts in Mexico would gradually cease, just as land stops being productive when rains disappear. It would take a few years of course to recover, but by then these Latin American countries would only have to deal with small groups of bandits ill-equipped and bereft of financial resources.

As things stand nowadays, the government in Mexico City is simply overwhelmed as if a powerful army had invaded that country. The Mexican military makes a valiant effort to root out the "cabecillas" or leaders of the cartels, but as soon as one is arrested and jailed, another takes his place. Why? Because the temptation to become rich and powerful is irresistible to many lower class citizens. Corruption is endemic among politicians, among policemen, and among soldiers who receive a pittance in exchange for risking their lives. It's a lot easier to turn a blind eye as the heavily armed convoy passes by than engaging in a risky firefight. It's a lot easier and much more profitable for a powerful politician to add a few million dollars to his offshore account than to openly defy the drug trade.

Do we have a drug policy in place in the present federal administration? Aside from giving a few helicopters and tips to the Mexican military, what do we do to seriously make a dent in the drug wars?

The simple answer is very little; an all out effort to help Mexico fight its way out of this growing conflict is needed in order to save one of our principal trade partners from falling into anarchy and thus killing thousands of jobs in our nation. And I haven't mentioned the need for an immigration policy...

To Be or Not To Be

Honestly and without bias, with no party preferences, whether male or female, conservative or liberal or moderate, using only your objective senses, who, among the presidential candidates, has the best profile to occupy the White House? Whom would you like to see as commander-in-chief, as exalted leader of this powerful nation in January of 2013?

I bet you have never heard of Roger Gary, of Stewart Alexander, Gary Johnson, or of Fred Karger; yet, all of them have the absolute right to compete in the 2012 election, even though none of them has the slightest chance of winning the coveted position. There are quite a few more names but it would be tedious to name them all since the national media will not waste any air time on them. I will therefore stick to those whose names appear daily in newspapers and television programs.

1. Mitt Romney

Admittedly, Mr. Romney does have the presence and intelligence to become President. He speaks well in public and has a certain charm that appeals to ladies. Against him: his religion, which the more popular Protestant churches view with suspicion. Also against him: his constant changes of position on crucial issues, including of course his Obamacare-type of health insurance in Massachusetts which he now says cannot be applied to every state.

2. Rick Perry

Another male candidate with physical presence and good masculine looks, the way we imagine our President must look like compared to other heads of state (of course, it could well be a lady with a strong personality). In his favor, a relatively low unemployment rate in Texas, ten years as chief executive which means he is quite electable, a strong Christian with conservative values and an avowed enemy of big government. Against him: some of his more extreme views (Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, term limits for the Supreme Court judges) may alienate quite a few more moderate voters.

3. Ron Paul

Extreme ideas as a libertarian and much too old to be elected (he is 75), Mr. Paul knows he can't win;
 he only wants his suggestions to have a large audience, hoping that some of them will be taken up by the winning candidate.

4. Sarah Palin

Even though she has the best name recognition in the country and though she hasn't thrown her hat into the ring yet, Ms. Palin is the subject of some national polls. Strangely enough, she fared the worst when compared with President Obama. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on the other hand stood neck and neck with the Chief Executive among probable voters. It doesn't seem possible for her to overcome the leading Republicans and get the nomination of her party.

5. Michele Bachmann

Another lady who has struck hard in the preference of tea party members, Ms. Bachmann apparently only attracts the more extreme voters. She won't get the nomination because she fails to attract moderates, but her influence in the campaign will certainly be felt. Vice-President??

6. Newton Gingrich

A fighter and a strong debater, Mr. Gingrich, just like Ms. Bachmann, seems set on earning a position on the winning ticket, whether as Secretary of State or chief of staff in the White House. He won't become president, but his intelligence and wide experience could be exploited by whoever ends up on top.

7. Jon Huntsman

If you read my article on Mr. Huntsman published a few days ago, you'll know that he is my favorite by far as a future leader of this country. He is smart, good looking, and has the credentials in the Far East to deal with any crisis that may emerge from China. He may not win because he is too nice, too polite toward his opponents. If we compared him to a boxer, I would say that he doesn't have the killer instinct. He doesn't debate well and speaking in public requires firing up the crowd, a skill he does not possess. Yet I am convinced that he would make the best President.

I now ask you, my occasional readers, to given your opinion in this very informal poll. Thank you!

Huntsman

I really like Mr. Huntsman, although I regret the fact that he cannot impress his audience when giving a speech. He comes across as soft-spoken, as a moderate, as a nice guy; you know what they say about nice guys coming in last. Obama sent him to China probably because of Huntsman's tact and able diplomacy (Chinese leaders are very sensitive to "losing face".) In this cutthroat political competition, however, being nasty and cunning may well earn you the nomination.



Mr. Huntsman (I'll forgo the nobility titles of Governor and Ambassador since he is presently neither) looks like a president and has the needed executive resume as head of Utah's government; he also has a taste of the private sector which he acquired in his family's business the Huntsman Corporation. He has the right age, 51, and the wrong religion, Mormon. He worked in Taipei (Taiwan) for a year as a missionary, and it seems that he and his wife decided to adopt two children in 1999 and 2006. His family is a composite of various religions, his wife is Episcopalian and his kids went to Catholic schools. A perfect picture of the United States great variety of faiths.

When studying his personal history, there is no doubt he comes across as a good man who not only talks, but also walks the talk. For some reason, the image of Jimmy Carter emerges and we all know what kind of President he was. Given the evils of this world, could Mr. Jon Huntsman pull the trigger if necessary? That is the question that will come up sooner or later in the debates and in the political columns of influential media.

One point in his favor: He is not afraid to go against his Republican party, as he did during his tenure as governor. So may be there is a big, strong backbone in Mr. Huntsman's body, a quality that is not always present in President Obama's decisions. He has been outspoken regarding his belief in science's theories about climate change and evolution, unlike Mr. Perry who stated, wrongly, that Texas teaches both creationism and evolution. Religious beliefs, because creationism is strictly a belief and not a product of scientific research, have no business in schools. Let churches take care of that.





Mr. Huntsman's personal and professional experience in the Far East makes him an ideal candidate to deal with the rising power of China. None of the other candidates has such polished background in foreign affairs. I shudder to think what Michelle Bachmann would do when confronted with a North Korean crisis; ditto for Mrs. Palin, Mr. Cain, and especially Mr. Paul who favors total isolation of the U.S. The only candidate who has a similar experience is Newton Gingrich and we know that he won't get the nomination.

If the ex-governor of Utah is capable of making his name familiar to all American families, there is no doubt in my mind that he will compete a year from now with Mr. Obama. Right now, his main "enemy" is another governor, Mr. Rick Perry.

It all comes down to which Republican candidate is capable of defeating the incumbent President, a formidable foe who campaigns better than anybody else.

In Government We Trust?

Our motto "In God We Trust" is available on any banknote, a phrase that has provoked the ire of a few atheists. Can we say however the same for government? More important, perhaps, is the question of whether we trust our company since our paycheck depends on it. Look at GM in 2008, a bloated elephant that made quite a few high executives very rich, while wasting enormous resources on unsellable cars and projects and leading the venerable car manufacturer straight to bankruptcy. Banks? Don't even mention the word trust in the same sentence.

What about the Bernie Madoffs of this world, the ones who were caught and the ones who still roam free on their luxurious yachts. How can they abuse our trust and our savings on such a grand scale without government agencies paying attention to their blatant lies? Is there a relationship between our television taste for cop shows and handsome doctors, and our need to trust somebody who tends to our basic needs? Are we essentially trusting human beings in America, ready to be swindled by the first fast talking salesman or broker? Or are we making a mistake in believing that Government (with a big G) will protect us from professional con men and women who often operate under the mantle of respected companies?

We all know that Congress, a body composed arguably of elected officials whose only job is to watch over our welfare, has an approval rating of about 12%, the lowest it has been in decades. The President and his cabinet do not fare much better with only 19% approval rate according to the Rasmussen Reports. Even the Supreme Court rate hovers around 50%, not a good number if we remember that the Justices have a profound impact in our daily lives through their decisions.



Do we have to become, as has already happened in the last 3 months, a nation of cynics and skeptics? If that's the case, who will we vote for in the next elections? Shall we continue to favor those with the biggest campaign war chest or are we capable of filling Congress and the White House with ordinary but honest citizens? How many years will pass before we, the people, (the phrase sounds familiar) demand term limits from legislators who often have lost touch with every day life after 30 or 40 years in office?

Some naysayers will argue that only candidates with experience should be elected, "because they know how to get things done."

Hum, I wonder if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers had any experience in nation building. Yet they did a pretty good job, don't you think?

If You Want to Learn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kz_W6sSoowo