Recently I got a history and current affairs lesson and update on the happenings surrounding Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, who many Jamaicans believe is holding the country hostage, with the help of the JLP government. Cliff Notes version: Coke is wanted by the United States government on drug charges. The Jamaican government has refused to hand him over on the grounds that the evidence against Coke was illegally attained.
I have maintained my position in every conversation I have had on this issue that Jamaica, as a sovereign nation, has the right to demand its laws be followed and refuse extradition of a citizen if they are not. No one disagrees with me on principal, but mistrust of Jamaica's government runs so deep that there is a prevailing certainty that the refusal to extradite has very little to do with asserting state sovereignty or legalities. Stories about pay-offs, black-mail and political party loyalties are rampant and people are largely resentful of the JLP administration's actions on the matter - especially now that the U.S. seems to be retaliating by revoking visas from and refusing to give visas to prominent Jamaican business people and entertainers.
The chocking hold that decades of corruption have had on the country has just about squeezed the last breath of trust and hope from Jamaicans. We tell our children "there is no such thing as can't." We want them to face every obstacle with an attitude of confidence and determination, but we all accept that there are things we cannot do. There are many things we do not feel confident we can change. There are some things that make us feel hopeless and resigned. Many Jamaicans - on the island and living abroad - think of their country with that resignation and heart ache. With a spiraling economy, decreasing access to good and affordable healthcare, and an ever-worsening crime problem I am hard-pressed to find a Jamaican resident who is not seriously thinking about leaving, or a Jamaican living abroad who is not firmly decided never to return for more than a few days at a time.
The Dudus affair is only the most recent layer of icing on the cake however, and Jamaica's problems do not rest squarely on the shoulders of the government. The country's decline has been steady and apparent to all of us. The beginning was clear in the erosion of simple courtesies and respect for self and others. Jamaicans joke as much as complain about the lack of customer service in stores and government agencies. We have come to accept dishonesty and outstretched hands from everyone from our garbage men to our government representatives. We have taken on coarse language, the disrespect of women, and calls for violence as part of our musical culture. Those of us who know better are willing to rely on, even call for, censorship, because we do not trust the masses to reject the tasteless foolishness. Those who live in Jamaica lock their grills, cross their fingers and hope for the best against crime and violence. Jamaicans living abroad know to dig deep for the thickest version of our accents and try to blend in as much as possible when we visit lest we are harassed or worse. Jobs, particularly for the college-educated, are hard to find and prices on basic necessities make them beyond the reach of many.
Criticisms, indictments and laments do no more for progress than calling in to one of Jamaican's daytime radio shows however, so what should be done? Is there any hope for progress and positive change in Jamaica? How should that change begin? Who bears the responsibility for sparking the change needed?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Rights in the eyes of the beholder
A Colorado group, Personhood USA, has garnered enough signatures to put a proposition for an abortion ban on this year's election ballot. The ballot item seeks to give unborn fetuses human rights in the state's constitution over the rights of women to have abortions. The group hopes to put similar propositions on ballots in 40 other states, including Florida, California, Montana, Missouri and Mississippi. Personhood USA is not unique. Anti-abortionists have fought against and around Roe v Wade since it became law in 1973.
Anti-abortionists, pro fetus rights activists bewilder me. Their arguments and beliefs are, to my mind, inconsistent and contradictory. Even their chosen identifier - pro-lifer - implies that to disagree with them is to be against life, but their considerations seem only to cover one of the lives concerned in an abortion decision.
Activists against abortion rights, usually right-wing conservatives, argue that a fetus is a person with rights, and that the mother - merely a carrier - should have no right to terminate or discontinue its development. They are usually the same people who argue that parents should be free to educate, proselytize, and medicate their children as they deem fit, without interference from schools, government agencies, and others. By their argument, a parent of a walking, talking, thinking child has more rights to direct that child's life than a pregnant woman has to make a decision regarding an organism within her body.
Those who argue that abortions are morally irresponsible are the usually the same people who cry for fiscal responsibility in government and for fewer social services. By their argument, a poor woman who becomes pregnant should not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy - even if she knows she is financially unable to support a child - and the government should not be allowed to provide social services, such as health care, to her and the child.
The same mouths that argue vehemently that healthcare reform makes America a "little less free" amazingly argue with the same conviction and intensity that a woman should not be allowed to determine when she is fit and able to be a mother. According to them, the federal government does not have the right to make you carry health insurance to your own benefit, but they should have the right to make you become a parent.
It does not matter if one agrees that abortion as medical procedure is right or not. It does not matter if one would have an abortion, or support a loved one having one, or not. It does not matter if one believes there are better options than abortion available in cases of unwanted pregnancies. A woman's right to do as she deems best with her own body and life is the single matter of consequence in the abortion debate. As long as the organism within her relies on her for sustenance and life a woman should have the untethered right of choice. The strength of America's freedoms is reliant on our commitment to protecting everyone's rights to act as they please within the law - whether we like and agree with them or not. We cannot be selective with our principles. Freedoms, privacy, and fiscal responsibility cannot be applied like quilt patches just to make ourselves feel comfortable.
Anti-abortionists, pro fetus rights activists bewilder me. Their arguments and beliefs are, to my mind, inconsistent and contradictory. Even their chosen identifier - pro-lifer - implies that to disagree with them is to be against life, but their considerations seem only to cover one of the lives concerned in an abortion decision.
Activists against abortion rights, usually right-wing conservatives, argue that a fetus is a person with rights, and that the mother - merely a carrier - should have no right to terminate or discontinue its development. They are usually the same people who argue that parents should be free to educate, proselytize, and medicate their children as they deem fit, without interference from schools, government agencies, and others. By their argument, a parent of a walking, talking, thinking child has more rights to direct that child's life than a pregnant woman has to make a decision regarding an organism within her body.
Those who argue that abortions are morally irresponsible are the usually the same people who cry for fiscal responsibility in government and for fewer social services. By their argument, a poor woman who becomes pregnant should not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy - even if she knows she is financially unable to support a child - and the government should not be allowed to provide social services, such as health care, to her and the child.
The same mouths that argue vehemently that healthcare reform makes America a "little less free" amazingly argue with the same conviction and intensity that a woman should not be allowed to determine when she is fit and able to be a mother. According to them, the federal government does not have the right to make you carry health insurance to your own benefit, but they should have the right to make you become a parent.
It does not matter if one agrees that abortion as medical procedure is right or not. It does not matter if one would have an abortion, or support a loved one having one, or not. It does not matter if one believes there are better options than abortion available in cases of unwanted pregnancies. A woman's right to do as she deems best with her own body and life is the single matter of consequence in the abortion debate. As long as the organism within her relies on her for sustenance and life a woman should have the untethered right of choice. The strength of America's freedoms is reliant on our commitment to protecting everyone's rights to act as they please within the law - whether we like and agree with them or not. We cannot be selective with our principles. Freedoms, privacy, and fiscal responsibility cannot be applied like quilt patches just to make ourselves feel comfortable.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
(Un)fit to serve
Mistress Rielle Hunter's photos in GQ magazine has dragged the John Edwards affair back into the news. (For which Tiger Woods must be grateful.) Now turncoat Andrew Young gets another 15 seconds to shill his book and wring out the remnants of media interest.
I find it interesting that Young's betrayal of Edward's trust has not drawn the same consternation as Edward's betrayal of his wife's trust. It could be that Elizabeth Edward's ongoing battle with cancer makes her a particularly sympathetic victim, or that most people believe that trust between friends carries less weight than trust between spouses. (I hope none of my friends think that.) Either way, Andrew Young is as much a crud as John Edwards. He was complicit in John Edward's affair, went to great lengths to try to cover it up, then at the first opportunity sought to benefit financially from it. I wouldn't let him sell me a car.
The other interesting aspect of the story is how appalled people are at how close the cheating bastard came to being president. America has a long tradition of using a morality ruler to determine political fitness. A candidate or incumbent is far more likely to lose constituent support for stepping outside the parameters of acceptable social behaviors than for his/her agenda or political record. If DNA testing had existed then, revered President Thomas Jefferson (and author of the Declaration of Independence) would have been ousted over his affair with Sally Hemmings, which he had denied. In recent weeks former Reps. Eric Massa and Hiram Monserrate, both of New York, found themselves out of favor and out of office for groping male aides and for roughing up a girlfriend respectively. Their voting records and platform mattered little.
But is someone inclined to an affair, or other socially-inappropriate behavior, incapable of carrying out the functions of political office? Thousands of financially successful corporations are lead by men and women whose morality is considered far less important than their effectiveness on the bottom line. With mid-term elections coming in November and the balance of government up for grabs, horns will lock and dirt will fly on the campaign trails. We must focus on the issues though. And the issues are big: jobs, the economy, manufacturing, education, and responsible energy use and production. We have to be a responsible electorate. We must refuse to be fed a stream of information that has no bearing on progress and growth. We must be knowledgeable about the factors that affect us, our families, and our communities and know which candidate's agenda will serve us best. I would vote for John Edwards if he were running in my constituency. I wouldn't marry him or introduce him to my sister, but I agree with his stance on the issues that most affect me. That's what most important.
I find it interesting that Young's betrayal of Edward's trust has not drawn the same consternation as Edward's betrayal of his wife's trust. It could be that Elizabeth Edward's ongoing battle with cancer makes her a particularly sympathetic victim, or that most people believe that trust between friends carries less weight than trust between spouses. (I hope none of my friends think that.) Either way, Andrew Young is as much a crud as John Edwards. He was complicit in John Edward's affair, went to great lengths to try to cover it up, then at the first opportunity sought to benefit financially from it. I wouldn't let him sell me a car.
The other interesting aspect of the story is how appalled people are at how close the cheating bastard came to being president. America has a long tradition of using a morality ruler to determine political fitness. A candidate or incumbent is far more likely to lose constituent support for stepping outside the parameters of acceptable social behaviors than for his/her agenda or political record. If DNA testing had existed then, revered President Thomas Jefferson (and author of the Declaration of Independence) would have been ousted over his affair with Sally Hemmings, which he had denied. In recent weeks former Reps. Eric Massa and Hiram Monserrate, both of New York, found themselves out of favor and out of office for groping male aides and for roughing up a girlfriend respectively. Their voting records and platform mattered little.
But is someone inclined to an affair, or other socially-inappropriate behavior, incapable of carrying out the functions of political office? Thousands of financially successful corporations are lead by men and women whose morality is considered far less important than their effectiveness on the bottom line. With mid-term elections coming in November and the balance of government up for grabs, horns will lock and dirt will fly on the campaign trails. We must focus on the issues though. And the issues are big: jobs, the economy, manufacturing, education, and responsible energy use and production. We have to be a responsible electorate. We must refuse to be fed a stream of information that has no bearing on progress and growth. We must be knowledgeable about the factors that affect us, our families, and our communities and know which candidate's agenda will serve us best. I would vote for John Edwards if he were running in my constituency. I wouldn't marry him or introduce him to my sister, but I agree with his stance on the issues that most affect me. That's what most important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)