por el Movimiento de Adecentamiento de la Universidad de Panamá (MOVADUP)
El próximo 1º de octubre de 2016 se inicia la nueva administración de la Universidad de Panamá (UP).
El Dr. Eduardo Flores, rector electo el pasado 29 de junio, se comprometió a promover un “nuevo modelo de gestión académica y administrativa” que sustituyese al modelo “centralista, personalista, politizado, inflexible e ineficiente”, así como “cerrarle las puertas a toda forma de clientelismo, corrupción y autoritarismo” (Eduardo Flores. Propuesta: Agenda Estratégica de Renovación Universitaria Rector 2016-2012, p. 16).
El Movimiento de Adecentamiento de la Universidad de Panamá (MOVADUP), sin ataduras clientelistas con la nueva administración, y con la independencia que lo caracteriza, le indica públicamente al nuevo Rector que estará vigilante del cumplimiento de sus promesas de campaña, en especial la de hacer realidad un nuevo modelo “descentralizado, horizontal, colectivo, eficiente, democrático, transparente y con rendición social de cuentas”.
La crisis estructural de la UP
Al MOVADUP no deja de preocuparle la existencia de una normativa y una praxis política universitaria que legitiman y reproducen la centralización del poder, el clientelismo y los gravísimos riesgos de corrupción administrativa. Estas fallas estructurales han promovido la impunidad, la cual ha contado por muchos años con padrinos y encubridores en todos los órganos del Estado, en donde se destacan, recientemente, el contralor de la República, Federico Humbert, y la procuradora general de la Nación, Kenia Porcell, quienes tendrán que enfrentar las consecuencias legales y morales que acarrea proteger la delincuencia.
Reiteramos el compromiso esbozado en nuestro Pronunciamiento del 10 de agosto de 2016, de seguir luchando por la recuperación de todas las tierras y bienes ilegalmente enajenados; por la certeza del procesamiento y sanción de todos los que han abusado de su autoridad; la exigencia a la nueva administración de que, como primer y fundamental acto contra el clientelismo, el Rector y los vicerrectores se rebajen el salario y que ya no exista ningún sobresueldo por jefatura, únicamente la descarga horaria; en fin, del ejercicio de todas las acciones jurídicas y políticas para el logro de un real adecentamiento de la Universidad de Panamá.
Contra el clientelismo y la corrupción
El MOVADUP censura con firmeza cómo la componenda clientelar se ha manifestado en diversos nombramientos que ha realizado el nuevo rector, por lo que le advierte que en ningún momento la facultad legal para efectuarlos debe interpretarse como una licencia para soslayar la obligación de designar personas que cuenten con la debida preparación, experiencia, desempeño eficiente, trato humano, iniciativa y, sobre todo, la ruptura con el clientelismo y corrupción que caracterizó a la pasada administración.
Igualmente, haciendo eco del clamor de la sociedad panameña que aspira a una Universidad decente y democrática, exigimos que, desde el primer día de gestión, la próxima administración tome acciones inequívocas para que se haga justicia a todos aquellos docentes, administrativos y estudiantes que fueron víctimas de persecución política amañada e ilegal hasta el último día de la pasada administración, y sean reintegrados a sus respectivas cátedras, posiciones o aulas universitarias, así como se realicen actos oficiales de desagravio público. Igualmente, demandamos que quienes hayan sido nombrados como docentes o funcionarios sin cumplir los requisitos legales, sean, a su vez, desalojados de las cátedras y cargos a los que han accedido espuriamente, merced a la arbitrariedad de la administración saliente.
El compromiso del MOVADUP
MOVADUP reitera a la comunidad nacional, y con particular énfasis al nuevo rector, nuestra permanente actividad comprometida con el adecentamiento y la transformación de la UP para que sea un centro de educación superior que goce de respeto y se sacuda las taras que hoy lo caracterizan. Estamos convencidos de que ello exige la participación de los más amplios sectores de la sociedad panameña, única fórmula para encontrar soluciones a la grave crisis que enfrenta. Emprender el cambio en la Casa de Méndez Pereira y el resto de las universidades públicas, con un análisis serio de los cambios por introducir, no puede enclaustrarse en sus estamentos internos. Se requerirá de mucha fortaleza ética y moral, y de mucho acompañamiento de los sectores más honestos y consecuentes de la familia universitaria y de la comunidad nacional para superar los graves problemas de la UP y apuntalarla como centro científico y humanístico de alta calidad y como referente crítico de la vida nacional, de carácter popular y al servicio del pueblo panameño.
¡EL PUEBLO PANAMEÑO RECUPERARÁ SU UNIVERSIDAD!
¡POR LA EXCELENCIA ACADÉMICA, ADECENTAMIENTO UNIVERSITARIO!
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
“Where do you find the laboratory?” The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) gave a numerical answer to its rhetorical question in the handout to reporters who were already there: “9.11°, -79.70°” Those are coordinates of latitude and longitude — not rocket science, but an opening reminder that to cover this internationally renowned scientific organization very well one needs to bring a bit of prior knowledge and be ready to look things up.
Those content with rewriting the press release and getting a picture of the dignitaries cutting the ribbon got what they needed, but as it turned out nobody in the local press corps was that shallow. There were plenty of things to impress the dozens of people in attendance, each possessed of a different perspective.
The building itself is revolutionary, even with its adaptations of features already well known in isthmian architecture. Big windows, shady overhangs and LED lighting add up to energy savings, both for lighting and for cooling. The shaded balconies all around, which shelter the ground level, are a feature that we see as part of the French Caribbean architecture that used to be predominant and is still found in Colon’s city center and of which examples can be found in the capital and elsewhere in Panama. That large grassy ramp in the foreground is a huge water tank that is meant to ensure that the plants and animals in the lab will not die of thirst in an El Niño drought or a prolonged IDAAN outage. The lines, angles, shade and spaces for sunlight will provide material for photo artists for a long time to come.
There are three stories. On the ground floor are the animal behavior labs, the insect breeding area, the sound room and the animal maintenance facility. The second floor is dedicated to microbiology. The third floor is used to study forest ecology and the effects of climate on plant life and evolution. About a half dozen of the institute’s 40 staff scientists will have their main labs or offices in the building but they will be at the head of a small army of visiting scientists, research fellows and students.
The building cost about $20 million, mostly raised with a grant from the US Congress. The project also received funding from private donors. It was designed by KlingStubbins and CAISA, both subsidiaries of the US-based Jacobs architecture, civil engineering and design firm.
Several species of context
A Smithsonian building spree against a backdrop of rising irrationalism in the USA: Does this lab’s mission include investigation into to climate change and evolution? Polls indicate that about one-quarter of American adults believe that evolution doesn’t really happen. In a statistical tie in the race for November’s US elections there is a presidential candidate who calls global warming a Chinese hoax aimed at destroying the American economy. All sorts of long discredited racial theories and negative stereotypes about other people’s cultures and religions are in vogue. The politics of the endlessly repeated lie — a technique invented by the US advertising industry, then perfected in it most pernicious political application by the Nazis — thrives not only in Internet memes but also in candidates’ stump speeches. All of this creates doubts about the future and funding of the Smithsonian Institution, a US government agency and famous polymath academic organization.
Attempts at political and corporate manipulation are an old story for the Smithsonian. Perhaps these have been more successful with respect to history and the arts. STRI draws its staff, research fellows and visiting scientists from about 55 countries and among them there are certain common attitudes that resist manipulation. Were some anti-scientific mandate to come from on high to the world class scientists who work at STRI, it’s probable that there would be a mass exodus to other institutions and other countries where scientific methods get more respect.
The national institution went through great turmoil in 2006 and 2007, mainly over scandals that arose from the importation of corporate values and habits at the end of the 20th century. But one of the signal events in the Smithsonian’s troubles was a 2006 National Museum of Natural History exhibit on the Arctic. At a time when oil companies were offering large donations and members of Congress were denouncing the scientific consensus about the nature and causes of climate change a fraud, on orders from above the exhibit was changed to replace references to global warming as an established fact with suggestions that this was just one possible theory. There was a rebellion among government scientists, within the Smithsonian and in other public agencies. That fed broader inquiries which ultimately brought down the Smithsonian’s top people of that time.
So why wasn’t the Smithsonian’s top officer, Secretary David J. Skorton, on hand for the laboratory’s opening? At the time Skorton was busy with the preparations for the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture three days later. The lab and the museum are but two of more than a dozen new Smithsonian facilities opening in the last year of the Obama administration. Fairly or unfairly, we might look at the state of US society and infer reasons about why ribbon-cutting season for this building spurt is happening now.
A new facility as a symbol of a new era at STRI: One day in the fall of 2013, this reporter was told by several secondary sources at STRI, a management detail sent from Washington barged into the office of then STRI director Eldredge “Biff” Bermingham, seized his computer, obliged him to hand over his Smithsonian ID and set of keys to STRI facilities and permanently banished him from the institute. Since that firing STRI has pretty much made Bermingham a non-person. Any mention that Bermingham ever existed has been erased from the STRI website. He is the only former director who was never given emeritus status.
Why did this happen? The people who know do not get into the details other than to say that there was a conflict of interest. A couple of coincidences may suggest a reason of sorts, but may just be coincidences. Shortly before his ouster Bermingham proudly announced to this reporter that he was the owner of a penthouse in the San Carlos beach development of Vista Mar, a Shahani brothers project that was at the time in search of controversial environmental permits for the diversion of the Rio Teta to water their golf course and the construction of a marina that destroyed a lobster niche off of Playa Ensenada. Bermingham’s ouster also came at a time when the US government began to make public statements suggesting that it did not approve of Ricardo Martinelli’s moves to neuter the Electoral Tribunal and otherwise clear the way for a stolen 2014 election which would leave him in control of the country through proxies.
Whatever it was, the apparent consensus within STRI was that the institute needed to be rid of Bermingham but that whatever the offense was it did not warrant his being drummed out of the scientific community and left unable to work and support his family. He is now the chief science officer at the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science in Miami.
The washing of STRI’s dirty laundry is not this reporter’s purpose, but it’s important to note that while conditions in the society and government of the United States are hazardous to the mission of the Smithsonian Institution as a whole, Panamanian society and government also set ethical traps, not necessarily the same ones, for STRI. Here corporate and banking secrecy set the stage for opaque deals in both the private and public sectors and generally hinder accountability for any wrongdoing. Here we have one of the world’s very worst educational systems. People at the top of society — including at the flagship national university — flaunt falsified academic credentials. Getting to the top is generally a matter of family ties rather than ability. It’s rare for anyone to get kicked out of a profession for misconduct. By and large there is no conflict of interest law here. In court cases the concealment or destruction of relevant documents gives rise to no presumption that the party who concealed or destroyed them did so because that evidence would be adverse to his or her interests. Here there is no real penalty for filing a fraudulent environmental impact statement.
The governments that such social conditions create treat expert opinions as commodities to be purchased and experts whose word can’t be bought as defective. It’s always a potential problem for STRI, a US government institution operating by leave of Panamanian authorities.
Panama’s “atomic bomb” might be to kick the Smithsonian out of the country altogether, but STRI depends on all sorts of cooperation on many levels and lesser things could be denied or delayed. Visas for foreign scientists — not just American ones — or permits to collect fauna or flora in protected areas could be denied. Panama could prevent STRI archaeological digs, or deny scientists protection from huaqueros who would vandalize and loot their work. The institute, or more likely those who work for it, could be shaken down in myriad ways.
Panamanian politics have surely affected STRI’s work, but it’s more complicated than just intimidation. In 2006 the Panama Canal Authority and Martín Torrijos administration claimed a STRI endorsement for the “Yes” side in the canal expansion referendum, something that would be terribly inappropriate for a US government agency to issue. STRI in fact made no such endorsement but neither did the institute dispute the claim. But there are Panamanians who work at STRI, who do take sides in Panama’s national debates and some did in that referendum.
That choice, in which most of the Panamanian electorate abstained, presented a complex set of technical, scientific, economic and political issues. Part of the “Yes” campaign’s pitch was based in climate change denial. They denied that Arctic ice would melt so as to create navigable routes that would compete with the Panama Canal. Biff Bermingham claimed to this reporter that concerns about the new locks’ water saving basins increasing the salinity of Gatun Lake and endangering much of Panama’s drinking water supply were misplaced because a hydrologist’s recent research had shown that the constant inflows of fresh water from the watershed would flush the salt out of the lake. But he would provide no citation to anything published on this matter, and the recent El Niño drought perhaps calls into question predictions of this sort. The ACP was yet worse. Their own studies said that the salinity issue needed more research, but the ACP claimed that the study had been superseded by newer work, yet then and to this day they have refused to specify which new research, by whom.
A basis for mistrust of the ACP’s scientific claims was laid early in the campaign by their misrepresentation in Spanish of an American archaeologist’s study that was published in English. When that scientist objected, he was told that strings would be pulled so that he would never again work in Panama. That sort of thing would be the stuff of public protests by scientists if done in the United States, but STRI folks kept their silence about it. Perhaps Bermingham’s claim that Panama was offering STRI a hydrology institute enhanced the effect.
This reporter, who is not a scientist but draws on experiences in the USA as a local elected official, a building code appeals board member and a lawyer who dealt with road construction contractors and the games that they play, was born in Panama and does not make the pretense of not having opinions on things. STRI anthropologist and Galeta Point lab director Stanley Heckadon is also a Panamanian citizen, has advised or served governments — he played a key role in General Omar Torrijos’s decision to create a series of national parks in the canal watershed rather than turning those areas over to developers who wanted them — and in the course of the campaign this reporter and Heckadon had a back-and-forth exchange about potential salt intrusion into Gatun Lake. Heckadon cited no undisclosed studies and made no projections about what the watershed’s future rainfall would be. Having previously studied and documented the increasing pollution of the canal’s lakes, his argument was that the metro area should not be taking its water supply from the lake anyway. As it turned out, at a cost of more than $1 billion and with many problems along the way, the main water intake was moved upstream to Madden Lake. We might now argue about whether and to what extent the cost of the canal expansion was improperly compartmentalized and thus deceptively understated to the voters, but that’s off the side of a side issue. In a season of specious claims Heckadon made an honest argument.
As it turned out the canal expansion digging led to important scientific discoveries. STRI paleontologists led by one of the stars of the profession, Colombian scientist Carlos Jaramillo, made important fossil discoveries that went a long way toward resolving an old argument of just when the Isthmus of Panama closed the gap between the oceans.
There is still some finishing work to be done on the canal expansion and perhaps there will be more important fossil finds. The technical and economic issues are unfolding and political consequences may follow. But a chapter in Panama’s history, and also in STRI’s, is coming to a close. The new lab, and the new STRI administration, coincide with the changed situations and are likely to become symbols of them.
How different is Panamanian political culture and what changes would there be in its relationship to STRI? That’s hard to say. Panama’s official delegation at the lab’s opening was led by Environment Minister Mirei Endara, who seemed quite pleased. “This facility will strengthen the capacities of our community of scientists,” she said. But perhaps more important than the minister to STRI folks working in Gamboa was the presence of quite a few members of the Environmental Police unit. This is the scientists’ line of defense against being mugged in the wood or having their rainforest experiments vandalized.
Is this lab, along with other new Smithsonian projects, a break from a corporate model that prevails across much of US public higher education and a lot of the nonprofit sector? It has been heard so many times before. To grow and thrive, this public or private nonprofit outfit needs to be “monetized.” The money-making functions need to be grown and spun off beyond the constraints of public policy or a charitable tax status. Millionaire, billionaire and large corporate donors must be attracted. To do this sharp operators from the world of business — especially from the financial sectors — are the ideal leaders. To work well with such donors, these executives must receive salaries and benefit packages that allow them to fit seamlessly into the same social circles. From small public universities to great national institutions, this sort of thinking has prevailed in American society for more than a generation. The Rector Magnifico was just a crummy Panamanian imitation.
And so it was that in 1999 the Smithsonian Institution, guided by regents and staff who thought that way, spun off money making functions as the privatized Smithsonian Business Ventures. Then they set up an appointment process that brought banker Lawrence M. Small, previously of Fannie Mae, Citibank, as the institution’s 11th secretary, which is the title of the Smithsonian’s top executive.
Rather immediately Small ran into resistance from scientists when he moved to close unprofitable research activities, such as what is now the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Virginia. Then he was convicted of violating international and federal law by possessing without a permit an Amazonian artifact containing the feathers of an endangered bird. He got in trouble with scientists again over censorship of frank discussion of global warming. In the end, in 2006 and 2007, Small was run out of office over tawdry financial abuses, including fraudulent housing allowance claims, his wife’s unofficial trip to Cambodia on the Smithsonian dime, sweetheart television deals with the Showtime Networks, $90 grand in overstated expenses, and… we probably don’t know the extent of it. Against the orders of the Smithsonian’s top lawyer, records were destroyed.
Small’s ability to get into so much trouble — which culminated when the US Senate froze about $17 million in appropriations and prompted his resignation in March of 2007 — was aided by broad exemptions from the application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Smithsonian. It’s not a simple issue. It’s easy to say that the public has a right to know how much the head of a government agency is paid, or the financial details of part of a public institution that has been spun off into a private company still controlled by that public institution. But should a Smithsonian archaeologist be obliged to tell the location and details of her ongoing dig to the huaqueros? Should a Smithsonian biologist who is not ready to publish have to turn over his preliminary research results to a rival for some prestigious professorship? Add the proprietary claims of corporations whose grants fund much of today’s scientific research and the transparency versus secrecy issues become yet more complicated.
Small, however, was in an ethical league with his fellow financial manipulators who largely brought down the US economy a year and a half later. There was a clique at the Smithsonian that went along with his secretive, sticky fingered ways. But mostly the Smithsonian culture spat that stuff out. Regents rebelled and complained to Congress. Notwithstanding FOIA exemptions, key people at the Smithsonian insisted on the retention of records. When Small fell a bunch of people went with him.
If one cares to look at the Lawrence M. Small story as a part of the larger ethical tale of the 2008 financial and real estate collapse, then the Smithsonian stands out as something of a contrast. There was more accountability at the Smithsonian.
With the exodus accompanying Small’s departure, long-time STRI director Ira Rubinoff, who had been training Biff Bermingham to take his place, left for Washington to take over as interim science director. When Small’s successor, G. Wayne Clough, stabilized things and put together a new team Rubinoff came back to Panama, now as STRI director and staff scientist. He played a role in getting the land and making the arrangements for the new Gamboa lab.
In 2014 the president of Cornell University, cardiologist and jazz musician David J. Skorton, became the Smithsonian’s 13th secretary. He, the institution and its outpost in Panama face a new generation of challenges. But some of these folks will do so in a really cool building in Gamboa.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Finally that recognition — and a glimpse of Panamanian musicians’ predicament
by Eric Jackson
Erika Ender is a journeywoman fixture on the Panamanian music scene. But is that characterization an annoying diminutive, given that she’s a master of her craft? The thing is, a Panamanian singer and songwriter will generally have to journey far from these shores to find work and recognition, a process that invariably affect her or his work through a process of exposure to and immersion in other musical scenes. Yes, she does these patriotic things mainly for Panamanian audiences, but in the Pan-Latin melting pot of Miami, or in Puerto Rico or Mexico City or wherever, Ender the singer is generally pigeonholed in a Latin pop genre, which in many circles detracts from the artistic recognition that she deserves.
Must we assign blame? Whose fault is the relatively tiny Panamanian market? Who separated the music industry into genres thought to be marketable? Who influence the general public so that most people like certain sorts of music and dislike others? But a part of the problem for Erika Ender and Panamanian colleagues across many dividing lines is that this country is not very good at systematically putting its culture out to the world. We don’t have our own network on cable and satellite TV, nor are we partners with other Latin American countries in such. Our international tourism promotion efforts do not systematically include the government putting Panamanian bands on the road in foreign lands. Our presentation to the rest of the world is mostly a private affair.
Now, however, comes some recognition for Erika Ender the composer. It’s for something she wrote that a Mexican norteña band, Los Tigres del Norte, have turned into a smash hit this year. Ataúd, an Ender composition, is nominated for Best Regional Mexican Song at the Latin Grammy awards to be held on November 17 in Las Vegas.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
After promoting the Birther hoax for years in search of white supremacist votes — and getting the Republican nomination on the strength of that — NOW Donald Trump admits that its basic premise is not actually true. So where does the Klan vote go now?
They’re sticking with Trump. They won’t be persuaded otherwise. Racism is alive and well and a strong contender for the White House and through that control of the US Supreme Court for the next generation.
The only way to stop the white supremacists is a vote for an imperfect candidate, but one who strays not nearly so far from the norm of basic human decency. We do not ask sainthood from presidential candidates, nor infallible health nor 100 percent agreement on the issues. But a man who stands for the proposition that any infamous lie is acceptable if it’s about a black man, even if the man about whom that lie is told is the president of the United States, is way beyond the pale of what is acceptable.
Hapless president, acephalic comarca
It’s an old lesson from The Great White Father. Virtually all US Indian treaties were violated by Washington, the states or freelancing white people anyway. Virtually all concessions of Native American lands and resources were also made under duress. Then there was another common subterfuge — a lot of these “agreements” were made by white-selected “native representatives” or through unethical white-selected interpreters and in no way represented a consensual agreement between two parties. Juan Carlos Varela is dabbling with all of these tactics in his dealings with the Ngabe nation over the Barro Blanco Blanco Dam.
Does he say that the Honduran hoodlums and perhaps other silent partners of GENISA are out? Watch him back down on that by taking a dive on any court challenge. He certainly is not going to step on the claimed rights of Dutch and German banks that invested in theft and fraud, nor take any action at all against the Panamanian lawyers who concocted and filed the bogus “environmental impact study.” He just promised 15 percent of something or the other to go to someone not really specified, and nothing in particular to those families and individuals who have been thrown off of their lands, had their communities cut off by flood waters or lost their livelihoods.
Was it a deal with the Ngabe-Bugle General Congress? By its terms the “accord” said that it had to be ratified by that body. Set aside for a moment the Supreme Court decision that condemned the rigged election by which the Martinelli kleptocracy and the Electoral Tribunal created the present general congress to replace the traditional general congress. Set aside that the tainted general congress can’t even muster half of its purported delegates for a vote on a crucial issue like the dam. Set aside the fact that most of the puppet general congress’s officers and most of the government-recognized regional caciques — including the one representing the people of the area that’s being flooded — would not sign the document. Set aside all that, because the general congress voted to reject the proffered deal and to depose the general cacique who signed it.
Are there good legal arguments to hold that a special congressional session called to consider the Barro Blanco matter lacked the authority and failed to serve proper notice to effectively remove Silvia Carrera as general cacique? That’s probably the case, but the moment that she signed Varela’s document her status as a leader and spokeswoman became a thing of the past. Does she allude to the failure of the comarca’s elected legislators to stop the hated project? That may be a valid point but she’s now in no position to make it. The Martinelli administration ignored and insulted Carrera, but now the Varela administration has destroyed her as a political figure, even if they ignore her purported removal and continue her salary for another year.
The way forward for the Varela administration seems clear enough. Through bribery or coercion they will try to get the half of the delegates who boycotted the ratification session to attend a new gathering and vote for the lesser white father’s offer. Maybe they’ll throw some firewater into the mix. It’s ugly and unseemly. The swing voting comarca is unlikely to elect any Panameñista for a generation to come. With all the political parties in disarray things become unpredictable, but it’s probably safe to say that the post-invasion norm of the party in power losing the next elections is more firmly in place and that if there is a constitutional convention Varela is unlikely to be able to control it.
The comarca is scheduled to have new elections in a year’s time anyway. Meanwhile it has no generally accepted leadership. The nation has annoying and ineffective leadership in all branches of its government and in that same year leading up to a renewal of Ngabe and Bugle leadership, the nation ought to elect delegates to write a new constitution. Among other urgent reforms, any new constitution worthy of being ratified would give Panama’s original nations their due place in the sun and control over their lands, resources and fates. The “Great White Father makes a treaty with the Indians” political model is one of more unbecoming and inappropriate US imports that Panama has ever made.
Bear in mind…
People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
I shall be an autocrat, that’s my trade; and that good Lord will forgive me, that’s his.
Catherine the Great
That old saw about the early bird just proves that the worm should have stayed in bed.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
It’s improv, which means what a reporter saw one night is not going to be like the next night or the night before. But some of its practitioners are known quantities, some of the known quantities have improved since the last time, and this series of shows is historic to the Theatre Guild of Ancon, the nation’s oldest theatrical group in any language.
Yes, the Guild is community theater, but it’s also a place where outstanding professionals have learned their craft and lesser known but very good professionals have come to impart their influence. From past shows, this reporter expected that Joe Mezquita and Andres Clemente would be the excellent pillars of the performance. They were as good as expected but the rest of the cast, some of whom this reporter saw for the first time, rose to the occasion to the extent that it’s hard to pick a star for the night (Thursday, September 16) in question. Might it be said that this was ladies’ night, or a women’s year? The women — Rita Banús, Hillary Hughes, Lisa Palm and Andrea Marchosky — were collectively excellent in the context of a strong ensemble performance.
Once upon a time, the Guild would do popular Neil Simon plays and the like between Septemeber and April, then do quirkier, more demanding stuff to sharpen their skills in “vacation season.” Improv8 started under the direction of Danielle Miles, a British sometimes professional, as a summertime performance. Some of the usual Theatre Guild fans of the time were unimpressed. However, the shows attracted a bigger audience, mostly younger, largely of folks for whom English is a second language. The improv nights have grown into a great success and a logical choice to start the theater season in earnest in mid-September. But this year Miles passed the directorial baton on to Amit Nathani, and a lot of local musicians were incorporated for intermission and post-peformance shows.
Improv8 – 2016 by the Theatre Guild of Ancon directed by Amit Nathani produced by Carlota Allen With Joe Mezquita, Hillary Hughes, Juan de la Guardia, Lisa Palm, Rita Banus, Yesui Aranda, Andres Clemente & Andrea Marchosky Assistan prducer Cedric Carrere Set design Stephanie Sanz Set construction Cedric Carrere & Dean Hopster Lighting design Juan de la Guardia Lighting operation Andrés Díaz & Rob Getman Sound design Alfonso Lewis Sound operation Amit Nathani Stage manager Sandra Sosa Choreography Cristina Maduro Marketing Maria Emma Faria Poster & graphics Stephanie Sosa Program design & photography Elena Nathani Creative media design José Lopez and Dayana Moreno Security Carlos Ortega Membership Billy Foster
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
When voters go to the polls this November, they won’t just be choosing the next president, they’ll also be deciding the direction of the Supreme Court.
The fate of our rights and liberties as Americans — everything from voting rights, to immigration, to reproductive rights — rests with those nine critical individuals who sit on that bench. The outcome of the 2016 election will determine who nominates justices for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.
Looking at Trump’s track record of commitments and his list of courtroom contenders shows just how disastrous a Trump Supreme Court would be for everyday Americans.
Take women’s rights for example. Trump has made very clear he’s against the Roe v. Wade decision protecting women’s reproductive rights, saying it was a wrongly decided case. He also infamously called for “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions and has pledged to select anti-choice justices.
The executive power to nominate justices is especially important to consider this election cycle given the possibility of multiple Supreme Court vacancies in the next president’s first term. A Trump presidency could put women’s reproductive rights in real danger.
On other issues disproportionately affecting women, like sexual harassment at work, a Trump Court would be just as perilous. Another one of the judges Trump mentioned as a possible nominee, Judge Steven Colloton, argued that a woman fired in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment at work shouldn’t have been able to take legal action.
The same trend follows in cases of civil rights, where Trump’s choices have shown that they’re more likely to rule in favor of the powerful and privileged.
Judge Pryor strongly opposed the ruling that said police must inform people of their Miranda rights when arrested. He was also the judge who argued, in a case about an African American employee being denied a promotion, that the man’s supervisor calling him “boy” was just “conversational” and had no bearing on promotion decisions.
And multiplejudges on Trump’s list have upheld disenfranchising voter ID laws, which have an outsized impact on minority and low-income voters.
There are similarly foreboding examples across issues like environmental justice, workers’ rights, and big money in politics, among others that impact our day-to-day lives.
We need a Supreme Court that will defend the rights of everyday Americans instead of rolling them back. The justices our next president chooses should understand that the Constitution is for everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
November 8 is “Judgment Day” for the future of the Supreme Court. Even if it’s not printed on our ballots, that’s the day voters will decide the direction of the nation’s highest court — for decades to come.
Marge Baker is the executive vice president of People For the American Way. Distributed by OtherWords.org
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.