Balbina's power luncheon; US presidential primary endorsements

Illegal and downright foolish use of public funds, aggravated by a crude insult to the people's intelligence

Balbina's women's forum was
creepy even if we believe her

So now we are told that a luncheon attended by some 700 women at the Hotel Continental, at which those present were regaled with political speeches in favor of Housing Minister Balbina Herrera's 2009 candidacy for mayor of Panama City, all at the Housing Ministry's expense, really wasn't a political event at all. It was, we are told, for the purpose of building women's self-esteem.

Yes, in a sexist culture in which women are so frequently put down in so many ways, female self-esteem is an important matter. It really is a prerequisite for Panama's full development because more confident women are more productive citizens. It should be a concern at every level of government and in the private sector as well.

Ministries and public agencies of all sorts should promote women's self-esteem by treating the women who work at them with respect, by giving them the support they need to do their jobs well and expecting high standards of performance.

Luncheons with speeches of this sort, whether they're in the touchy-feely "we can do it" genre or in the outright campaign pitch mode, are neither an effective way to promote women's self-esteem nor an appropriate use of public funds.

What we're really dealing with here is a pseudo-feminist way of trying to justify a highly illegal expenditure of public funds to promote an individual's and her political party's electoral campaign. The proffered justification is cynically put forward with the expectation that corrupt electoral authorities will for partisan reasons take it at face value rather than conduct a proper investigation and get to the root of what's really going on.

But even if the ominous reality of election laws violated with impunity is set aside, what Balbina did was still highly improper. We have far too many Panamanians living in the most appalling and dangerous urban slums or in the most miserable and unhealthy rural hovels for the Ministry of Housing to be spending the people's money in this way.

Outstanding leaders on each side of the US partisan divide

Richardson and McCain are their parties' respective best

By the time that the next issue of The Panama News is uploaded, US voters will have begun the process of choosing the major party candidates for president in caucuses and primaries. A number of American voters will be casting votes from Panama, either in state primaries by absentee ballot or in the worldwide Democrats Abroad primary. 2008 will surely be a watershed political year in which more of the same will not be an option but starkly different choices about what kinds of change should happen will be on the agenda.

All of the Democrats would be likely to get the United States forces out of Iraq if elected. Those who talk cautiously would be pushed to get out faster by the weight of public opinion, and those who talk about a complete and prompt withdrawal would have a mandate for just that. All of the Democratic hopefuls would curb the use of torture and other shameful practices that have harmed the US reputation in the world. There are still a number of issues upon which the Democratic candidates differ and a few more that it would be better if there were more differences. The biggest issue confronting the Democratic primary electorate is competence, that is, which candidate has the right combination of talent, experience and judgment to be the best president. The presidency being an executive rather than a legislative post, the nation usually makes a better bet by going for a successful governor than by picking a distinguished senator. The successful governor in this race also happens to have served in cabinet and diplomatic posts, also excellent preparation to be president. Bill Richardson, the popular two-term governor of New Mexico, former Secretary of Energy, former diplomat and former member of Congress is the most thoroughly prepared candidate to guide the executive through difficult times at home and in the world. Rank-and-file Democrats should also be attracted to him because he never supported such defining blunders of recent years as the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act or the use of torture. Richardson offers the country the right mix of a new set of policies and broad experience.

With the exception of Ron Paul, who will do surprisingly well but will neither be nominated nor elected president, all of the GOP candidates would continue the US adventure in Iraq. Do the Republicans want a war president of any worth at all? Then they should pick someone who understands that if US forces use torture, captured Americans will be tortured, someone who understands that when the nation sends men and women off to war it owes them more than words of praise in return. The Bush administration's short-changing of service men and women is scandalous, and John McCain is the one Republican candidate who can be trusted to set that right. And does the GOP want to at least maintain US leadership in the Americas? Then they need a leader who doesn't get hysterical about the presence of Latin Americans, which is pretty much what the GOP immigrant bashing from which McCain has so honorably refrained is all about. As a Republican in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition, McCain also sees problems to which many other politicians of his party are blind, whether it's the sad state of professional boxing or the crooked realities of campaign financing, and offers the nation some hope of real solutions that might yet save American capitalism from its inherent weaknesses.

Although they are from neighboring states there is a world of difference between Bill Richardson and John McCain. But even if they by no means represent the same things, these two candidates are still the best that their respective parties have to offer for the US presidency.

Bear in mind...

Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings --- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha

Literature cannot control a government; poets, as poets, do not legislate. What they can do is set minds free of the control of any tyrant or demagogue and his lies and disinformation.

Ursula K. Le Guin

What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Rudolph W. Giuliani

editorial