letters
 
Letters from different places, which reflect some different perceptions of reality
What's all this griping about?
Okay, so you all hate Mireya. Please explain to me why the country is so far worse off than it was five years ago. My first visit to Panama in 1996 saw a nation of crumbling infrastructure and poverty with armed guards on the street corners. In the years since, my friends that live in Panama have seen increased income, amenities and services.
The city appears like a boom town, buildings sprouting up everywhere, of course I know most are still empty, but nevertheless it's impressive.
Under Mireya the country has moved fast and grown, like gold rush San Francisco, and naturally there would have to be some corruption, some "sleaze." Frankly, that is what it takes to create a boom town. US history proves that. So what is it really that bugs you all??
Christopher Gioia
New York
About a business brief and an opinion column
I read your paper every time it comes and try as best I can to read it from cover to cover.
On many issues I tend to support your stands, though some do seem a bit far left of the middle --- but that is the way for many thoughts to be heard.
On two points from your August 8-21, 2004 paper I differ or disagree on.
First,
The Business and Economy Briefs article on seasonal shrimping and fishing bans is way too soft on the threat to Panama's fishing industry from the Western Pacific fishing fleets. The name Panama comes from meaning abundant fish. Even by early standards the fishing in Panama was fantastic, as if without end. Now there is talk of reduced fish catches indicating dramatically reduced fish populations, especially in the pelagic varieties prized throughout the industrial nations.
One of the most prized of the pelagic fishes is tuna. Another is swordfish. Both found in great numbers and sizes in the Pacific waters off Panama. And both populations are being dramatically reduced through over fishing and without an equally dramatic repopulation program underway. The fishing season and limits need to be applied and especially to foreign registered or owned vessels. The catch should be brought through Panama to validate the catch size and any vessel trying to come in without registering or leaving without catch validation should be confiscated, such as Chile used to do to the USA fleet of Southern California. Like Chile, the economic national line should be set at 200 miles.
Because these fish are among the most highly prized they can fetch a very good price and those monies should go to Panamanian's for their needs, such as education, health services and their own local fishing business development, such as fish breeding programs similar to those in the Gulf of Mexico that have greatly increased the numbers of fish available in the local communities, such as Red and Black Drum, Speckled Trout (close cousin to the Corvina) and Flounder (and paid for through a $1.00 per fishing license fee). Fish should be considered a renewable resource that needs careful management for the fullest derived potential to the local population. Not the local fat-cats or foreigners.
The hardest part of getting any such plan to work is having the program completely transparent to minimize corruption among the regulators in place to protect the Panamanian people's resources.
Second,
Your opinion article, "The fundamental issue," seems a bit over the edge.
Now is it that terrible that our president declares war on a continuing reign of terror on the USA military and civilian people around the world by a gang of thugs? Thugs that also love to incite international rebellion against the US and any other American, Asian or European countries that support personal, economic and religious freedoms. All in the name of Islamic "jihads." Guess if they decided if it is a "holy" war that will make them safe from reprisal? So we are supposed to put our tails between our legs and look the other way. Well, we did that for the eight years of President Clinton's administration and where did we get except more and more outrageous events. To recall, the WTO twin towers were attacked twice before Osama was finally successful. Was the international intelligence level raised by President Clinton to stop the attacks, heck no --- not on his watch. His personal matters were a higher priority.
Of course, in the editorial proposition this is not a matter of the President going after terrorists. It is a matter of a zealous Christian president over stepping his bounds and using his office to go after a bunch of innocent Islamics that only needed to be talked to nicely to convince them of the error of their ways. And talked to by whom, the UN or NATO. Give the world a break. They can never decide to DO anything. Talk yes, do nothing.
And the whole article started over the conceptual idea of No religious commentary by a US politician based on the First Amendment.
To quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting [regarding, concerning] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging [deprive, cut off, or reduce or lessen] the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
First, it says the "Congress", not the president, or governor or mayor.
Second, it says "establishing of religion." There is a difference in "establishing" a national church --- said at the time of wide spread moves by the Church of England to expand their control over the colonies and one of having a basis for the law and perception of equality among all the citizens of your country that is based on the quality laws found in a particular religious fundamentals.
Third, also note, "or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religions]," now how come the people-oriented liberals don't seem find it in them to be proactive that part of the First Amendment.
Fourth, and how long will it be OK to corrupt the meaning of the First Amendment's words on religion before others get around to corrupting the other words there, like "freedom of speech," [freedom] "of the press," [deprive] "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," or [deprive the freedom] "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
These are supposed to be freedoms we are should all hold dear and are concerned about loosing, at least until it becomes uncomfortable. Or some other form a "judicial tyranny" decides to eliminate them also. The religious concepts brought over by our founding fathers and mothers are the basis for the Bill of Rights and the backbone that made the US of A great. Don't believe that you can tear out and destroy our foundation and still be great in the future. A country without a stiff backbone is little more than a jellyfish.
Is President George W. Bush perfect? No. Does he know all the answers? No. Is he a coward? No.
Does Kerry really offer a better solution? Well, he is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and rarely found time to participate in its function since 9/11. Doesn't show a lot of actual concern to me.
Is Kerry decisive? Yo-yos are more consistent and decisive than Kerry. Just who actually pulls his strings? Find that out and you will know the direction he will take, at least for a day or so.
The US needs a leader.
Kerry needs prestige and power of position to go with his wife's fortune, but is still a jellyfish.
Taxation of American expatriates
The taxation of the worldwide income of Americans is an interesting issue for your editorial section. Your readership must include both Panama's Zonian population, as well as Panama's growing population of American retirees. Both of these groups are affected by the US's unique and unfair income tax laws that require Americans residing outside the United States to file an income tax return and possibly pay income tax for income earned outside the United States.
While some or all foreign income earned by American expatriates may be exempted, US law assumes that American citizens residing outside the United States receive the same benefits of US citizenship as those residing in the United States. Current US law therefore makes American expatriates as equally responsible for filing an income tax return and to pay income tax as other citizens. However, the United States is the only country with such laws. Why would anyone pay income tax to a country in which he does not reside and where he earns no income?
No American would accept that because he was born in one state that he must file with and pay taxes to that state for the rest of his or her life, even if he or she resided in another state. However, the United States forces its expatriates to accept a similar unfair situation.
The taxation of Americans residing abroad is not only unfair, but it is unsound economic policy, because it makes Americans too expensive to hire in the international marketplace, thereby hurting the United States and its citizens in today's global economy. If you have further interest in the economic impact of the taxation of Americans residing abroad, please read the attachments to this email, which include a speech given on the subject by the founder of American Citizens Abroad.
I hope that the Panama News will run an editorial on this subject an encourage the large American expatriate community in Panama to write to the United States Consulate in Panama to complain. The email address of the consulate is: Panama-ACS@state.gov
This laws can be changed, but American expatriates must demand change.
Christopher Staab
Nyon, Switzerland
Peace and development
In the interests of peace and development why isn't there a very large tax on the global armaments and war industries and trade, to be directed to humanitarian and development programs?
Also why isn't there a very public visibility of those countries, corporations and individuals with interests and profits in the global armaments and war industries and trade?
Also in the interests of peace and development the worldwide routine and very serious human rights abuses in prisons, police stations, law courts and workplaces, and state sanctioned judicial and extrajudicial murder need urgent serious and sustained attention and action.
John Finch
Cairns, Queensland, Australia
News | Business | Editorial | Opinion | Letters | Arts | Review | Community | Fun | Travel
Galleries | Calendar | Outdoors | Dining | Science | Sports | Español | Front Page | Archives
|
|
|
