State sanctioned killing in a country of killers

"Police is gansta." That is a quote from a self-described garrison don during an interview for a Discovery Channel interview for the series Gang Nation. The episode that aired a few days ago featured the interminable and brutal wars being waged on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica's poorest communities between political and geographical factions. The don summed up what many Jamaicans believe: that the police force is corrupted and is part of the island's frightening crime problem.

Ask the average Jamaican what they think of Jamaica's Constabulary Force and you are likely to hear corrupt, inept, and overwhelmed. Ask what they think of the country's justice system - that in large part, rests on those officers - and you are more likely to get a humored chuckle than an answer. It was alarming to me then that in December Jamaica's government elected to retain the death penalty for capital offenses. It seems Prime Minister Golding and other members of parliament have far more faith in the honesty of police officers who make arrests and investigate crimes, and in the efficiency of the courts that prosecute offenders, than does the average Jamaican - at home or abroad.

Cases of police shootings have been the source of morbid jokes for as long as I can remember: Police shoot man waving newspaper: Officers claim self-defense. Amnesty International's 2008 report on human rights avers that 206 people were killed by police between January and September 2006. Very often eyewitness reports conflict greatly with the claims of the police.

Everyone who drives in Jamaica becomes familiar with the language of policemen on the take: "So what you can do fi yu'self?" With that question, pulled over drivers know to count their dollars and consider the option to pay the crooked officer, rather than take a trumped up ticket and lose a day of work to deal with the backward and inefficent courts. How, in that context of disfunction, can a government or a judge opt to take the life of an accused?

Under the best circumstances I am apprehensive about the death penalty. Human error and ill-will make the permanence of state-sanctioned killings scary prospects for me. With every release from death row here in the United States, I find it more difficult to support the death penalty. With widespread corruption, low police morale, and the lack of effective policing and investigation practices, Jamaica is far from the best of circumstances. The margin of error widens into a gaping hole of deadly possibilities.

I understand the need to deter crime, but crime and violence in Jamaica have to be approached with a holistic plan. That plan must include weeding out corruption from the justice system, building a police force of integrity, fostering public trust through community policing, and investing in cutting-edge investigation technology. While those tasks are neither small nor simple, they are necessary to protect the lives of all Jamaicans - including those accused of crimes. Any plan to overhaul the island's justice system is long-term. But only at the end of that arduous process should capital punishment be continued - if at all.

He's just not into you so act like a lady think like a man and take 52 weeks to find him

Ok, the title is a bit much - and they were pilfered - but it goes to my point. There is an astronomical amount of material on the market (books, movies, websites, CDs) offering women instructions on how to snag a man. It is really interesting to me, particularly because similar instruction manuals for men are almost non-existent. When did men abdicate their role as hunters? Has the purported shortage of men flipped the script on the traditional roles of the sexes? Or is the proactive approach being taken by today's woman an upshot of the bra-burning 1960s?

Whatever the reason, many women are taking ownership of their romantic life and their sexual relationships. In many ways women are acting more responsibly than their mothers and grandmothers; from securing their financial independence to buying their own condoms. But are women giving up too much by usurping some of the roles traditionally held by men? Are we sacrificing the old-school precepts - like romance, chivalry and discretion?

Call me old-fashioned, but plotting to net a man on a schedule (a la 52weekstofindhim.com) is tacky and reeks of desperation. And if a woman needs to be told that a man is 'just not that into' her she needs of dose of self-esteem, not advice on catching the next man.

There are some precepts that should never be lost in the mad rush to secure one of the few good men left:

• When a woman has a full and fulfilling life on her own and not on the constant lookout, she is happier and more attractive.
  
• There is nothing wrong with taking initiative. Be places where the kind of men you are attracted to are likely to be - Barnes & Noble, industry association meetings, the organic section of the supermarket, a restaurant popular for business lunches, the local rock-climbing wall.
• Obvious and transparent are not the same things. Leading a man home takes smarts and tact, not overt fawning and aggressive texting.
  
• Let him pay for dinner, let him open the car door, let him help you with something. Yes, there are a few men who take equal rights on a date, but those are suspect. Most men want to play the traditional roles.
• Learn at least one sport very well.
• Sure, you can call him the morning after a date. It is quite respectable to call to say 'thank you' if you had a good time and to say you would like to do it again. Just not every hour on the hour to ask him what he's doing.
• You are not required to answer every call, return missed calls within five minutes, or reply to every text or email. Unavailability and mystery are intriguing.
  
• Save some things for later. Whether you want to implement the 90-day rule or a 120-day rule, just have a rule. Value yourself enough to demand someone meet a minimum mark before you give them everything.
• Have standards and do not bend on them.
  

Noise without works is just noise

The Wednesday, February 18 New York Post editorial cartoon horrified me. The cartoon depicted a chimpanzee being shot dead by two police men, one saying "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." It was shocking in its blind political bias and its blatant racism.

The reaction from Al Sharpton and the rest of the race police was predictable. Callers flooded urban radio drive-time programs to express their disapproval and utter disgust with the paper's editor Col Allen and cartoonist Sean Delanos. Discussions railed on social networking sites and news media internet sites. The staff in my dentist's office debated on and on the merits of the arguments supporting the cartoonist and those who found it offensive.

What is still to be seen, as public outcry wanes in the face of a half-ass apology from the paper, is
what all the talkers will be willing to do to make their point. When radio hosts publicize phone numbers and email addresses in calls to action, a handful of the audience will call or email; even fewer will take the initiative to write or call without being stirred by their favorite on air personality. Yet fewer will go beyond that phone call or letter, will take the time and endure the inconveniences of taking real action. How many will participate in a protest march or boycott a favorite product to make a point?

Talk is easy and it is very true that it is cheap; which is why it carries less weight than action. Anything worth having, any positive change worth making is certainly worth substantive sacrifice from stakeholders.

For this cartoon and for the next exposed nipple or racist comment, those who claim to be outraged must back up the chatter with a willingness to take action and to make sacrifices. Only then will change come. Put up or shut up.