The cell phone addiction

Over the past weeks, a couple of my friends have been... how can I say this... complaining about my lateness in answering their calls, texts, whatsapps, IMs, twitter/instagram/facebook updates and pretty much any call of attention ths is controlled by perhaps the most important device in our lives in current times: the cell phone.

Also, what is the deal with people who call you and for whatever possible reason you can't answer your phone, so they get a missed call. So what do they do next? They call you again right away! As in to say, "Hey it's ME calling, PLEASE answer!" Next thing you know, you have like 9 missed calls on your phone!

Seriously, what's the deal with that? Can't people understand that when one cannot answer the phone, it's PROBABLY because one cannot answer the phone at that precise time? The fact that you call me nine or nineteen consecutive times is not going to make me answer the phone, if in fact it's not possible for me to answer the phone.

Anyway, while there may be some true to that sometimes I do not answer within the next five minutes (or seconds), I couldn't help but ask myself the inevitable question:

Am I really not answering as fast as I should, or are my friends falling for the 'Cell Phone Addiction'?

Let's begin by defining this concept.

The 'Cell Phone Addiction' is a phrase I came up with after watching my two friends over the course of five days, throughout various activities (watching movies, playing cards, cooking, taking care of their garden, driving, going grocery shopping), during which at all times, they had immediate response to any contact message recieved by their cell phones. I'm talking about less than ten seconds to any sort of contact (like I said before, call, IM, whatever).

By the way, I had to research before publishing this entry about the phrase 'Cell Phone Addiction', only to discover it is so real that people are actually going to rehab for it, and whether if you call it dependency or full blown addiction, the way people are using phones is taking a psychological toll. (This paragraph is taken from this source http://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/cell-phone-addiction-so-real-people-are-going-rehab-it )

Anyway, resuming my post, the routine would go like this:

If they were watching a movie, they would have their cell phone next to them, in regular volume, meaning not silenced/muted.

If they were playing cards, they would have their cards, and their cell phone next to them, sometimes answering to any contact during their turn, and other times with their cards in one hand and their phone in another.

If they were driving, and their phone rang, they would keep driving, pick the phone and answer it.

...and so on with the other scenarios, including having dinner, waiting for the garbage truck to come, watching a sunrise or a sunset, going to the beach, tanning in the beach, it goes on and on and on and on. Some people go as far as sleeping with their phones next to them and complain if they get a notification in the middle of the night that of course wakes them up. I started looking at the situation, pondering many thoughts into it and tried to come up with somewhat of a reasonable explanation. The only answer I could come up with, comes up from a funny 8th grade anecdote from mid-school.

I'm an atheist, but I was raised a catholic and attended a catholic school. When I was in the eighth grade, puberty was hitting on my friends and on me, while at the same time we were being lectured in catholic education, of all the infinte bad things that could get you into hell, one of them being masturbation. Fortunately, the priests of our school were a bit more current/modern than what old-fashioned catholic priests are, and they treated students with a more leveled approach, than the old "me teacher-you student" approach. So one day, a group of friends who were a bit frightened of going to hell, decided they had to ask the priest if masturbating was bad. Me being an atheist didn't really care, but I hopped on because I wanted to see the answer of the priest.

And now... cell phones too

I specifically remember that when asked the question, he laughed out loud and said something within the lines of:

"Come on! That's ridiculous, masturbating doesn't get you into hell.

and he followed with

"Look boys, some of the stuff that's in the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, as well as some of the stuff that is taught in class."

Which made a lot of sense. What made even more sense, was his next lines:

"Masturbating doesn't get you into hell, because it's a natural thing that comes with our species. It's natural to do it and that's it. Now... if you become addicted to it, then we have a problem. Like, if you're at school and you have to masturbate, or if you're at work and you have to masturbate, or at a line at the market, or in traffic, and so on. But in that case, still the issue is not the act of masturbating per se: it's the fact that you have an addiction, meaning that you are unable to carry on with your day without it"

Fast forward to present day and my friends, and I couldn't help but remember the example the priest gave. After all, it applies perfectly. No matter what activity are they into, or the context they are surrounded by, their cell phones are next to them, and their response time to any beep emmited by the phone is immediate.

Moreover, when engaged in a chat with someone, say via whatsapp, they would complain how that person would take several minutes to respond to a chat, having seen the double blue checkmark.

"He left me double-blue checked! How dare he?"

Other times they would see the pre-message, but not login to whatsapp, on the pretext of

"I can't login, because if I do, people will see I'm online and haven't answered their messages"

I guess by now you pretty much give their picture. Now I'll paint my picture.

When I open my house's door and arrive at home, I have a large couch to my left, in my living room. I normally throw, first my keys and next my cell phone. I do this because I like to wash my hands, wash my face, take off my shoes, get myself into comforable clothes, and so on. I do this because I place more importance in taking care of myself, than taking care of the world (make that, my phone's contact list) which I can do at a later time, preferably, after I have settled myself in my home.

Which group do you belong to?

If I'm at work and I'm doing work-stuff, I'll normally keep focused on my work-stuff. I don't check my phone unless it rings or beeps, and it's a call or an IM, and there are times when I even do not answer, if I'm doing something very important or urgent. Needless to say, I'm referring to non-clients calls/IMs. The reason  I do this is quite simple: work pays my bills, answering non-clients calls/IMs won't. If I have nothing to do at work, work is slow, or I am on a break, of course I answer them.

Can you go over the hour without checking your phone?

When I'm driving, well, let me start by saying I do not consider myself a good driver. It's not like I'm fair bumper car, but let's just say I rather pay attention to the road than to my phone. It's as simple as that.

I'm somewhat of a bit competitive person, so when I play cards with my friends, I pay attention to the game, even when it's not my turn. I like to win, therefore my phone is a distraction. Sometimes I even leave my phone in the car. It may be a bit extreme, but I like to keep concentrated.

Now let's talk about the whole WhatsApp's double blue check / online thing.

Read ... AND IGNORED !!! IGNORED !!!

I currently have no blocks or filters on my WhatsApp: anyone can see my last online time, my double blue checks, my picture, and so on. I understand the fact that there are people who deserve or expect an immediate response, but let's face it: how much is the percentage of this group ? My opinion is that the answer to this question depends on two variables:

1. How important is your relation with that person: it can be a client, a close relative or close friend?

2. How much relevance does your answer hold to that person?

There are few pleasures a relationship values as sitting on a table to share with the person you enjoy spending time with. And yes, I meantyour partner, not your phone

The trickiest here is variable #2. The reason why I say this is because after looking at my friends, I have come to the conclussion that a new trend in politeness and manners has started in our society. I call it the 'Manners in chatting' and there are two groups of people in this trend.

Group #1. People who believe manners in chatting are the same as manners when facing someone face-to-face.

Group #2. People -like me- who think these two as not the same.

The implication is: if live conversation and online chatting manners are different, then there has to be some sort of manual of etiquette regarding manners with your cell phone -which there isn't-. How can one act correctly with your contact list  if there are no cell phone etiquette rules defined ? Especially when you consider how many tweaks and plugins available out there to break/avoid them, such as the one mentioned:

• Last seen online
• Double blue checkmark.
• Double checkmark
• "Writting..."
• A new plugin for WhatsApp that will show what the person on the other end is writting when the "Writting..." message is being displayed
• Check-in location

Great survey analysis

Regardless of how you view it, or if you identify with group #1 or #2, I believe the Cell Phone Addiction issue is truly real. There is simply no excuse in my mind that can bear anyone going five minutes without checking their phones, especially if it's a non-suitable environment like the ones I exposed earlier. Likewise, the situation applies for your phone beeping/ringing and you picking it up (it's basically the same thing as checking your phone).

Moreover, if you are a cell phone addict, it becomes harmful for your social environment to threaten them expecting them to behave exactly as you. The best thing you can do, is admit you have a problem of depency and expect to spread your problem to your social surrounding. Next comes, working on a solution to get rid of you addiction and enjoy the pleasures of life, the pleasures the world has to offer, away from your phone's social network updates.

Some tips include

1. Monitor your cell phone usage: it may be groundshocking, but when you find out you have been using your phone for more than 50 a day, you may think twice.

2. Create no phone time zones: yes, give yourself a period of time when you simply do not check your phone. Cook, eat your meal, whatever you do, just put it away and let it ring.

3. Turn your phone off when driving: as I said before, safety comes first. Whatever happens when you are behind the wheel, there is little you can do to change it (unless you are a disorganized person who planned accidentally or not, to have a cell phone checkpoint in your car)

4. Find a friend you can talk to who is not a cell phone addict: perhaps that person will have a thing or two to teach you about enjoying things in life that are not cell phone related.

5. Turn your cell off when sleeping: pretty much similar to #3. Of course, some conditions and exceptions apply. Like for instance if you are a father/mother, waiting for your daughter to ring you to inform she arrived safely at her date destination, or if you are waiting for them to get home, that's completely valid. But if your daughter is in another country, there is not much you can do about anything that happens to her and you'll have to live with that. What may happen is that you make bad decisions based on poor judgement, worsening the situation.

6. Think and measure the need to answer: ask yourself questions such as 'do I really need to call/text this person right now?' or 'do I really really need a response from him/her?', 'Is this a life-threatning situation or is a mudane event that can be taken care of later?'

7. Find a hobby: perhaps you are using your phone as a mood baromether, which means you feel better when you have it and when people respond quickly to your texts, and you feel pissed off when you don't have it and people do not answer to you.

8. No devices at meals: period.

9. Don't use your phone as an alarm clock: get an actual alarm clock and leave your phone downstairs.

I think those are good tips.

Lastly, I would like to say, I do not have all answers, and as I stated at the beginning, my responses may be a bit more delayed than normal. I may (and that is a huge may) give you that. The other extreme of not answering your phone at all is not good either. What I will say is that I feel one must learn how to balance and more importantly, manage their relationship with their phone, and more importantly, to let your contact list know of your principles and behavior when it comes to handling your cell phone social life.

H

The Oscars-Star Wars controversy

Last year I posted this entry, in which I wrote a somewhat detailed analysis of times the Academy (the Oscars) kind of messed up either nominations or winners of the award. I wrote it because like I said back then, time has proven that Oscar's don't mean that much when we talk about true trascendence of a film, an actor or a director. This year though, ironically my post is meant to defend the Academy on what I think is one of the most absurd controversies seen in show-business.

Will, Jada and Jaden just can't
keep away from the headlines

As the 2016 nominees were announced early in the week, a few headlines were filled by well-known celebrities such as Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett Smith and Mark Ruffallo, criticizing the lack of diveristy of the Academy, as no african american artists were nominated in any of the top categories. I titled my blog "The Oscars-Star Wars controversy", because at the same time thousands of fans are bashing the latest Star Wars installment on grounds of how it feels more like a politically correct remake of A new hope, than an actual continuation of the Star Wars saga. So what is the relation ?

Being one of the thousands of fans who feel dissappointed by The Force Awakens (as you can read my Episode VII blog), I couldn't help but to question myself and my beliefs regarding the review I gave to TFA, after seeing it break almost every single box-office record, earning an 8.4 rating on IMDb, and reading so many postive reviews from several critics, and even Hollywood celebrities such as Kevin Smith. I wondered whether if I was wrong in thinking TFA was a dissappointment instead of being an actual great Star Wars film. I had to go see the film again, but before doing so, I read and went over almost every single review (and video review) available. I also read the dozens of fan-theories trying to explaing the 942 unanswered questions in TFA, from Rey being Luke's long lost daughter, to Rey being Obi-Wan's granddaughter, passing through Rey being the actual chosen one to bring the force back in to balance. None of the reviews I read, or the theories I went through, or anything I came in contact with, could make me change my opinion about TFA.

Even George Lucas has expressed dissatisfaction with the new direction of "his baby"

After once again analyzing Ep VII, I couldn't reach any other conclussion other than TFA is nothing but what I call "A-Safe-Bet."

The explanation for this term follows suite: My guess is that when J.J. Abrahams and Disney were handed the assignment of making Episode VII, the project overpowered them and they simply didn't know what to do. They probably found themselves cornered with the dilemma of either developing something new or to stick to a winning formula, the latter being the chosen alternative, or as I like to call it, "A-Safe-Bet." Nothing could go wrong if they simply remade A new hope and tweak it a little bit for the new millenial target. Moreover, Abrahms and Disney went for the expanded Star Wars fan base, by developing "A-Safe-Bet" in a "Politically Correct" movie, an expression that has gained quite a trend in the past years. Fpr those unfamiliar with the expression, being PC means to try to please everyone, while missing to please the actual target you should. In TFA's case, they tried to please all demographics, but not the actual true Star Wars fans.

Doubt it ?

The force feels "forced" on this one 

Rey: the female hero, following the Hunger Games trend to please teen females.
Finn: african american star.
Han Solo: old school.
Kylo Ren: emo/goth.
Poe Dameron: the level headed.

So what does this have to do with the Academy this year?

The Oscar nominees for best actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress and director, all fifteen are caucasian (or simpy said, white). Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have complained the Academy should be ashamed for not including any African-Americans. Knowing the I have almost 0% of PC, in my humble opinion, this has no sense whatsoever, and only adds more negativity instead of being beneficial to our society.

First of all, the Academy Awards (the Oscars, for that matter) were perhaps described best by the late great George C. Scott as a "two-hour meat parade, a public display with contrived suspense for economic reasons", also adding that the politics surrounding the awards was "demeaning." Like I said earlier, time has proven on several occasions that Scott's affirmation may be quite on the money, with movies, actors and other artists that would have likely entered oblivion, had not been nominated, yet alone even won the award.

Seriously. Without googling, can you tell if this won an Academy Award? If so, how many and which year?

In a world living in the year 2016, where globalization is more and more a main protagonist in our lives, less and less regionalization becomes a decisive factor in culture -including cinemas-, and the Oscars are no exceptions. The golden statue has been losing the essence of capturing interest of movie enthusiasts, while other international festivals have been gaining more and more notice, such as Cannes, Sundance, Las Palmas and London Film. Needless to say, and to quote Tug Speedman in Tropic Thunder, there is a lot of marketing and politics in being nominated for these awards.

Then, what is the big deal if the Academy didn't nominate African Americans?

I would like to believe that the Academy at least tries, to nominate five of the best performances for each category, whether if they are Caucasian, African American, Indians, Spanish, French, Chinise, Japanese, Norweigans, or Hispanics. Of course, Hollywood most likely will not be including in their nominees any Indians, Japanese, Chinese or Norweigans, it's ridiculous, why would they?

One of the most brilliant exchanges of the satirical masterpiece "Tropic Thunder" deals with the "how to get nominated to the Oscars" issue, and moreover, "how to win it by never going full retard"

And that's precisely my point with this year's fuzz.

Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett complain the Academy has no diversity. This means that they would be somewhat "satisfied" if the Academy would include African-Americans in their nominations. This begs to ask the question: How many African-American's are enough so that Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith feel content with the Academy's diversity ? Two out of five ? Three out of five ? Of course the number doesn't matter as it is not a question of percentages. That approach is simply ridiculous. Spike and Jada are talking about the Academy being "politically correct", pretty much like TFA is.

But let's forget about TFA and the Oscars, and let's use two completely different scenarios to wrap up this whole mess.

Scenario #1: Southpark Episode 7 - Chef goes nanners.

Southpark's is known as a series with a very satirical yet down to Earth approach to most of the subjects its deal with. In Season 4 Episode 7 (hahaha, ironically, episode 7), two secondary characters Chef and Jimbo, develop two opposite opinions on the subject that the town's flag depicts four white figures hanging a black one on a gallows. Chef (being African American) believes the flag is racist and should be changed, while believing the whole town is racist if they don't think so. Jimbo on the other hand, believes the flag should not be changed, being it somewhat of an honor to the history and tradition of the founders of Southpark.

Southpark's town flag

The whole episode goes over and around the fact that the school children, specifically the main protagonists (Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman) should sort this out via a school debate, with some of them agreeing to keep the flag and others agreeing with changing it. However,when the day of the debate arrives, it is discovered that surprisingly the group that agreed to keep the flag as it is, did so without perceiving that the person being hung was African American, but instead, a human being, meaning they didn't pay attention to the race of the person. Chef is touched (as well as Jimbo and the other adults atending the debate) by what the children point, so the adults reach a compromise of ethnic diversity, changing the flag by now having the four people of all races (including an African American). The moral of the episode is the fact that anti-racism makes people racist, therefore make them perceive things according to your own race, therefore leading to more racism.

Southpark's new town flag

Scenario #2: The NBA MVPs

If you look at a list of the NBA MVPs in the last 40 years, you'll probably won't be surprised that finding a white player is not as frequent as the days with full moon. In fact, the last 30 years have seen only three white players, that's 1/10. Is the NBA not diverse enough ? Oh wait, I know what some people will say. "Well, have you seen that Woody Harrelson movie, "White men can't jump?", to which I would reply "Oh my..." So let's go to a recently announced award, FIFA's Ballon d'Or, won last week by Lionel Messi a record fifth-time. In the last 30 years, only two black men have won the award. So Spike: Is FIFA also not diverse enough?

Judge for yourself. White man can't jump too good ? Or NBA is bad at white diversity ?

Here's the thing, Spike and Jada: NBA MVPs are won by the Most Valuable Player of the season, regardless of he's white, black, chinese, or even if his team won the NBA Championships or didn't win it. Same goes for the Ballon d'Or.

Maybe the same thing happened with the Academy this year? Maybe, unfortunately, the Academy couldn't fit any leading black actors with better performances than Bryan Cranston, Matt Damon, Leonardo Di Caprio, Michael Fassbender and Eddie Redmayne. Jada thinks the Academy has no diversity ? Well here's a thought: why don't you get your agent to get you a good script with a great role, good enough to be better than Cate Blanchett's, Brie Larson's, Jennifer Lawrence's, Charlotte Rampling's or Saoirse Ronan's ? Spike thinks the Academy has no diversity ? Well here's a thought: go get yourself a script (or even better, you develop one), so you can be nominated as best director, as you once were, instead of rambling on on how the Academy is not diverse.

Again, I will repeat this. I'm not taking sides with the Academy, but I can't get over the fact that, man, Meryl Streep, like it or not, has 84 Oscar nominations because, well, she's perhaps the greatest actress of all time. She's so damn good, that even in a movie as banal as Devil Wears Prada, the woman got nominated ! I wonder what would make Jada happy. Maybe see Jaden Smith nominated for his awesome performance in the Karate Kid ?

The goddess of acting. She could earn an Oscar nomination by playing a McDonalds cashier. Make that a drive through McDonalds cashier. 

I'm not a huge Fox follower, but this Stacey Dash interview hits the nail on the head.

I like the part where she especially mentions Obama being President and funded by Hollywood. What more true than that ?

So sum things up, this is where it all comes to.

The Force Awakens went through the road of being PC, and it deservedly got slammed by true Star Wars Fans.

The Academy didn't go through the road of being PC, and it undeservedly, got slammed by the media !

... which means, whichever route you choose nowadays, you'll likely be slammed for your decisions and your actions, deseverdly or undeservedly.

Cheers !

H.

Understanding Venezuela's 2016

After the recent trounce of the socialist government in Venezuela in the National Assembly elections, several of my foreign friends have asked me about the repercussions and implications the astounding results have for 2016, given the severe crisis the country has been for the past years. Some call it a devastating night, some call it the first ray of light. I call it: the greatest test in the country's history.

To understand politics in Venezuela, one must understand basic politics in other democracies and add a little tweaks here and there. School teaches us that in most democracies, governments have three branches of power: executive, legislative and judicial. This approach is a bit dull and confusing, so the simplest way to do it is by using the famous three brothers analogy, which I will use in this article. 

Imagine you have a family with three brothers. We'll label them as oldest, middle and youngest brother. The reason there are three is that they can cancel out one another, kind of like rock-paper-scissors. 

The three branches of government: Youngest brother, Oldest brother and middle brother

The middle child is the judicial power. Normally he gets overlooked by his oldest and youngest brother. The judicial power is comprised by a supreme court and inferior courts. Its job is to verify everyone is "following the rules", including the older (legislative) and younger brother (executive).

The oldest child is the legislative power. He is the most experienced and wise of the brothers and he's the one who sets the rules (laws). At times he is overshadowed by the youngest brother, because he takes a lot of time to set the rules, especially if the amount of seats in the assembly (or congress) is insufficient to "get things done". The most efficient set up for the oldest child is to have 2/3 of the seats represented by a party.

The youngest child is the executive power, and just like the being the youngest, he is the spoiled one, or for that matter, the one that gets most attention by everyone. Originally, the constitution made him the "little" brother in order to diminish his power in comparison with the middle (judicial) and older (legislative), but more importantly, to stay away from the monarchy government. However, the executive power, namely the president, has grown in power due to all the attention and popularity he gets. After all, he is seen as the face of the country. IE: Putin in Russia, Obama in the US, and so on.

The idea is that the three brothers are independent from each other and should work in favor of the country and not for themselves. However just like sometimes brothers don't cooperate between them to help the family, something similar happens with government branches.

Having that said, to understand the situation in Venezuela we have to build a bit of context.

Marco Perez Jimenez is regareded by some as the best president Venezuela has had, in terms of national improvement, country infrastructure evolution and first world mindset.

After deposing of dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez in 1958, Venezuela entered the so called 4th republic, which was an almost 40 year period in which the two most important parties split all powers. We'll call them the white party and the green party. Other minor parties were skimming around, like the orange, yellow and the socialist parties, but their participation was null. During this period, the economy of the country was somewhat erratic, good for a few years, then bad another few, then good again, then bad again. Most historians agree that while Perez Jimenez was a dictator, he was on track to establish Venezuela as a first world country, had he kept in office. Since busted, the country in essence began a gradual-slow but steady walk on losing track of Perez Jimenez path, and as years went by, it appeared that Venezuela was headed closer to become a third world country, than the world super power Perez Jimenez had envisioned. This was backed up by countless cases of corruption, unsolved legal cases and the unexisting appearance of a "new light" to guide the car back to the track where it was, heading for glory instead of misery. The people of Venezuela became increasingly frustrated with both the white and green parties, and that's when Chavez came into power, winning an election by captivating the population and by promising to slay any remainings of the white and green parties, who had been deceiving the country for 40 years. Dissappointed as they were, venezuelans voted in three elections to give Chavez's socialist party complete power of all branches of the government. To further extent, Chavez created two more branches, which he called the electoral branch, and the moral branch, both of them filled with socialist party members. 

Chavez got to power by bringing hope to the people, or at least by telling them there was hope.

For over fifteen years, the white and green parties were diminised to the point of their almost complete erradication, as the government held a stronger grip in the branches of power. However the last two years after Chavez passing away and Maduro becoming the president, has seen Venezuela go through the worst crisis imaginable in the country in its history. The most calling aspects of it are:

• Shortage of products, including basic products (food, health, hyginie), which has generated countless (and useless) controls to access the few available products, at ridiculous prices. 
• Hyperinflation, which the Central Bank stopped posting economic indicators a while ago.
• Currency exchange control with four different prices to obtain US Dollars, and none of them being easily accessible by the population, opening the door for a 1000% more expensive US Dollar obtainable in the black market
• Insecurity and crime rates soaring, with the Department of State and Justice also stopped posting crime indicators a while ago.

This whole mess got into a huge boiler and boiled on December 6 last year, where the population voted in 112 seats of 165 possible to a coallition formed by the all the opposition parties to the government. So how did this happen ? Well if one looks at it objectively, it's basically the same story that brought Chavez into power in the 1998 election, without the fact that back then, there were no shortages and there weren't any hyperinflation indicators. There was a currecy exchange control that had been recently modified, but it wasn't as bad as the current one; and insecurity, well... that theme has always been an issue in Caracas since say, the 80s. In essence, the same impulse that manifested by people being fed up with the past, generated a vote for "something different". Note that I wrote "something different", and I didn't write "something new". 

Lawyer Henry Ramos Allup is the new president of the National Assembly. He has been a long time white party deputy. He is well respected and well educated in Venezuela's law and politics. Some people refer to him as a "good ol' fox" due to his quick deliver. Others consider him "old-school", "more of the same" and other similar qualifications.  

Some analysts call this impulse "grounded-vote" (as in, you are grounded, so you have no other choice).

So where does this "grounded-vote" take Venezuela?

The next months will definitely be crucial and the margin of error is minimum, due to the desperate situation the population lives on a daily basis. The older brother has the complicated job of reformulating the rules, resetting the rules, or creating new rules; whichever posture results in a benefit for the country. Add to this that sadly, the most important demographic of the country (recent graduates, young executives) have only one thing in their minds: migrate. This means, that the more capable force of the population is deserting the country and leaving the less experienced and less qualified people to run the country (no offense, but it's true). And let's face: for more than 50 years, Venezuela has proved to be not so good at managing themselves, while having experienced and qualified people running the country. So what can be expected if there is less ?

After barely digesting their astounding victory, the opposition has yet to lay down a plan of the urgent measures that have to be decided within the next months to reactivate (more like, resucitate) the country. There are several censorship issues, several prisoners of the government who are asking for amnesty, and so on. I myself am completely convinced the country right now needs three things:

1) Dismantle the currency exchange control system.

It has been proven three times in Venezuela's history (and additional times in other countries), that currency exchange controls simply DO NOT work. It doesn't matter if it's a band system (hello, Great British Pound 1992?), a fixed system (hello, Zimbabwe?), you name it. To surpress and asfixiate the current flow of supply and demand for foreign currency, does nothing good to the economy of the country.

The currency exchange system must be dismantled. The sooner the better.

2) Reactivate local production and distribution of goods.

When you have a country that produces trillions in electronic technology and shipyars, or with an economy so diverse you don't know where to build your next artificial island, then you can consider importing goods. Otherwise, you must incentive local production of goods. There is simply not enough for the population and this has to end right now. Imports are an alternative and another way to supply the country, but cannot be the cornerstone of the population, especially if there is a currency exchange system that blocks imports.

Goods must be brought to the people by whichever means necessary.

3) Develop a true anti-crime force.

Few things in life are as demoralizing as knowing that you have to leave from wherever you are, because you are afraid something might happen to you on the streets. Despite having local, municipal, state and national police forces, none of them have been proven to be effective against the absolute dominance that organized (and disorganized) crime has in the city. 

Venezuelans must have the right to feel safe in their own soil.

The desperation level of the population may lead to other potential goals, such as impeaching Maduro or even having him removed from office as soon as possible. However, I believe, there is no better marketing to remove someone from office, than to having your own results speak for themselves and speak for yourself, as to prove how qualified you are to do a better job than someone who currently isn't. Anything unnecessary, unneeded, uncalled for, as much as of anyone strongly interests is, is and will be a simple deviation of what the real task on hand is and must be. Moreover, it will be judged as a waste of time and a waste of trust the venezuelan people placed on the new assembly.

And that is why the opposition must not screw this up at all.

Maduro (a bus driver) follows an embarrasing list of successive poorly educated venezuelan presidents (academically speaking), preceded by Carlos Andres Perez (high-school graduate), Chavez (Lt Cnel) and Maduro himself, only interrupted by Rafael Caldera (lawyer).

Mental note (for everyone): always elect as president someone who at least went to graduate school.

Finally, I have to say that regardless of whatever the new older brother the family has, little can be done if the people do not help their own home. Rules and laws may be set, fixed, edited, improved, but the population must follow and obey them, not look for the way around them. It's like that inner wish everyone has to beat the red light: drive pass it just to be 5 seconds earlier, or obey it and add your small contribution to a functional society. 

It's as simple as that.