A BRIEF ON INSURGENCY AND GOVERNMENT

Written By Carol Lawton

In the timeline of history one thing holds true in regards to governments, liberation movements and paramilitary groups and that is they wrestling for power within the state. These struggles between the factions may be covert, overt or collaborative. But the end result is always the same as the formal structure now has to deal with the dynamics which will always lead to social unrest.

In the development of dictatorships, it is the state failure to control and maintain society because of the compromise given to the factions. Democracy is a scaring concept if the parties involve are not willing to safe guard it. Theocracy in of itself cannot be avoided as in any society one religion will be dominant but with this dominance it must allow all to seek their own enlightenment in the belief of a higher being. Socialism is an artificial state because of the availability of limit resources yet unlimited wants and the difference in talents and ability between people. Capitalism in its pure state is by far the best but pure capitalism without safeguards to protect the weakest of society will lead to corruption and social unrest hence no system is superior.

What is striking is the balance needed between them all. The strong arm of the state while give the citizen the choice to choose which opportunity to purse to build wealth while protecting the weakest to allow them to have access to the capital that they need to survive. Such a system is the ideal but where to the system begin or end.

To have seen democracies where there is none. Socialism in Capitalism is a paradox. The ism of government is an illusion as good governance is about making decisions based upon the need of the state. Hence to allow covert or overt groups to develop system above the platform of government will lead to strife and the eventual takeover of government. In war torn region, it is the warlord who governs not the state, in inner city fiefdom it is the don through the collection of gains from transaction (unofficial tax), in war, the military rules the ground while the insurgency rules the night, and then the terrorists who rule by fear due to their ability to strike without regards for damage human or material.

The state of government can only exist in peace. Hence peace is the objective of all government in the end regardless of the form. So when a state foster insurgency groups or terrorists with agenda against another state. They have entered into a formal war under the veil that they are in the country as unknown participants. Functionaries of the state will always have access to the information hence it will always move information up the chain of command and the objective is the survival of the state and information is key. So when a country like Lebanon allows for Hezbollah to organize, finance, set support social systems and military logistics system it should not be surprise that if Hezbollah cannot destroy its enemy, it will turn against its host like a parasite as it has already undermined the state in that an entity can wage war against sovereign nation and undermine the state ability to protect its borders and deploy diplomatic policy that leads to peace. Woe be unto a state that believe that it can exist in peace while pseudo governments exist within.

TIRADE ON RIGHTS IN SMALL STATES AND GDP

Written by Carol Lawton

Liberty is nothing less than willingness to compromise my rights for the rights of others. Hence for societies to be free there has to be boundaries of the state, the citizen, and the government. The long standing premise of rights has been long discussed as too the responsibility of states but much has not been discussed about the health of the economies. In the globalization of states in world economies where a tree falls in the jungle and it’s heard in the financial markets where do small states fit into this process.

Small States economies are barely the size of a small multinational but with the full responsibilities of sovereign states. The functions of these states must be dependent on the human capital to expand the reach of the state. The citizens’ development and ability to produce acts as a force multiplier which in the end impacts the taxes need to make a small state viable. We all want our countries but do the citizens know what is required to hold this sovereignty.

I believe that this answer is no as a balance is not there between the services offered by the state and the consideration rendered by the citizen. The state has become the mule on which the citizen depends yet many are unwilling to produce to enable the mule to survive. Jamaica is for Jamaica but given a chance most will migrate as it has become our prison as well. Governments are not machines but made up of the human element.

Countries are not land alone but people bounded by a common history, language and culture. Hence for productive government and countries to function the common factor is the people. In a sense the state is the creation of the people. Why then should we be puzzled by the state of Jamaica? The balance is what is missing. Money, Policy, Planning is for nothing if the mass is unwilling to offer the state their all thus expanding opportunities for development and the expansion of the gross domestic product.

Revolution Evolution and Devolution of Jamaica

Written by Carol Lawton

Jamaica! What is it really to the people? We are in the time of Olympics and Independence where all eyes are glued to the track including myself and party out from last week. Have we evolved from the plantocracy or have we devolved into a mess of garbage that even we don’t know who we are, where we are going or where we are at. Many young speak of revolution but to what purpose whether it is social, economic or political what will it benefit us if we are unable to channel that energy to building a nation. All a revolution will due is adding more chaos to this volatile mix.

Here it is a bare face materialism with nothing tangible holding it together other than the fact that we are stuck on a rock in the sea. First world plans are just that plans, that will remain a myth to keep the population dreaming of a world to come when it is here. And while this may sound angry or aggressive, I would I would yes and no . I am not angry or am I aggressive in simple language I would say I am piss off has I am tired of this drawn out saga of words that lead to nothing. Why tell the youths about 2030 for First World . When up town or Mobay it’s at your fingertips. Why tell them 22 years for it when we can fly to it in less than a hour in Miami or Cayman? I will be 60 when that day arrives in Jamaica. I lived it, worked in it, and got educated by it as did many like myself. Why should we wait on this plan? This first world does not mean that you have to live abroad but the use of systems that make life easier. That’s first world!

But our system has failed us and is flatling on life support through loans for overseas and remittance. As a Trinidadian told me this week, do business in Jamaica is a foolish move just get a container of goods and market it, they will consume anything, that’s how you make money here. And he is right as even simple products are now imported into the country. Labor does not want to work because of the hustle paradigm of the black market and capital does not want to invest as the risks are too high. Our economy has devolved to nothingness as we have evolved to a nation of dependents live on remittances which is even figured into the GDP.

Public administration has failed us and that a fact as that is the only constant as government change but the civil administration remains the same. Its failure is placed at the feet of one man as a woman has not held that position has yet. Mr. Governor General it is you would is in charge of the Civil Service. You have the power to fire, hire and change. Get some political balls and do something as this figurehead deal is wearing thin on this generation. You don’t seem to be fulfilling the responsibilities that the constitution says. So either this guy works to help in the evolution and stop the devolution of the governing system so that aggressive elements do not respond with senseless revolution to leads to nothing as they have no common vision of what they want!

So to end this tirade by being brief, revolution in what, we are already killing each other as one just has to look at the murderer rate. We are killing each other by having so many functional illiterates in our mist. We are killing each other as there is no bond between country and self as symbols, folklore and history, constitution and rights are not known by masses. So where are we at in this process is the final question to you all that read this tirade as we have a 2030 plan that no one has ever seen, the masses don’t know where they fit into it, the middle class already living it and the rest want to fly a hour to it or live it through the cable TV. In order for Jamaica to evolve, devolve, or have a revolution, it has to have vision and our leaders can’t seem to relate that to us.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Development

Written by Carol Lawton

The market is pure and the market will correct itself is a premise I adhere to. Now as it states you will say Capitalist and I will say no. The wealth of the nation cannot be held by a few but should be for the welfare of all stake holders in equity. Now you will say Socialist and I will say no. Development of the nation can be realized by objectively analyzing key sectors using statistics and other analysis tools. I will again say no, but why these entire no? Too long have we stuck to the idea of measuring the correct course as far as social equity, capital development and national development using philosophies of centuries pass without acknowledging how far the systems have evolved?

Let again be frank and wipe the slate clean. Most economies were developing because of human farming heritage. The rich and the poor have always existed and man have sought various ways to determine equity for each other based upon many factors such as race, .status(citizenship), class, skills, education. For this we will use the latter four as this is where the world is at now. Most nation states as we know them today are political creation of less than 200 years. I will say less than 200 years because of the wars that were fought to secure or give up land to form the borders. Hence the stake holder of a nation may share numerous borders as these borders secured by might and political decisions. So we created a mess.

We have always been a globalize world in vision as empires always though their empire was the world. Alexander the Great may have started the model we now use as he left in tack the ruling class of regions that fell to the Hellenist. The Romans would further push this as one could be a Roman but never see Rome thus the creation of a borderless citizen. With massive military machines, the works to support them became more complicated even utilizing many of the principle of Adam Smith to produce their stock piles. Let’s not forget a to thank China for the printing press which open the minds of people in Europe which lead to the Reformation and yes ‘paper money’. By the time the Union Jack came to fly at its might, the development of the isms had began with mercantilism being the word of the day. The French with their revolution would bring about the vision of all citizens being equal and the removal of heredity rights and the spread of the vote. It must be noted that it was the French who removed barriers of religion as a requirement of citizenship to assimilate their Jews and colonial residents. Liberty was then the word of the day which caused fear among its neighbors hence small nation states forge a national unity with other nation state (Germany) to counter the might of France and its new equalitarian government. The next great moves was the Industrial revolution and humans move to rethink how he fits into a capital model that was not dependent on land hence the isms to understand the ideals (Capitalism, socialism, Marxism). It was also the time of Max Weber and the development of bureaucracy. A model that most do not give much credit to but allowed all this to take place as it is the only model to create segmented with using skills and intellect as a capital element. But all this took place over 1000s of years and not in the timeline of 30 years, the internet changed all this. The world is one for Global in reach, local in action and global in response.

Capitalism and Socialism fought to see each fighter knocked out by their own might. When the USSR went down we all cheered of boo. Now the USA is in a mess with 42% of its debt held by other countries, its money value help up not by gold or silver as the pass but good faith hence invisible which allowed for the development of a credit system which created the world largest consumer nation. With a war on the field and the credit system see the extent of its ability to grow a country without production. It went against the very principle on which Wall St stand and that is management and the not so invisible hand. The riskiest would be the hedge funds and the derivatives. Basically Derivatives are simply fancy futures which can be as silly as there will be a hurricane in Montana where people bet, hedge, and conduct arbitrage with billions of dollars that belong to other people. Coupled with lending to people with low capital base to maintain a mortgage and a inflated real estate market the market had to correct itself as it has gone too far right. Now 700B to correct it is nothing for what most should look at is the connection of all world market, multinationals, national lending/borrowing and movement of goods and services. If the greatest capitalist state does not act like a socialist it will cause a global collapse of the system affecting food and other commodities, travel, “what is considered money”, social services, housing, and an increase in poverty as there will no doubt be a transfer of wealth to those who have from those who were merely grabbing for the dream.

The real winner here is China but they will have to decide the development worth it as the intangible cost of the environment will bear down on it. China a socialist country with a capitalist mind set is streaming along to develop but its cost will be the environment. But since I really hate long tirade I would like you to consider one point where all countries are trying to sort out as we speak. Is it worth it to be listed as developed when the price is the physical environment, the interpersonal relation of people vs. machine, eating organic vs. not, paying for H2O a price higher than gas or milk, increase materialism where life has no value. It is the intangible factors that will determine if countries like Jamaica is considered develop as well as balancing the need for the market to do its work with the need for the people to find equity and balance. Basically all this is about is work hard and be productive, expand markets, PAY YOUR TAXES TO SUPPORT THE SERVICES, protect the environment (JOB ONE) and be human beings who can empathize and sympathize with each other. That is the long and short of Capitalism, Socialism and Development.( how humans relate to each other and their environment). That my definition of development without the technical support systems diving into it.

HOW CAN WE ERIDICATE POVERTY AND INCREASE EDUCATION IN THE INNER-CITY COMMUNITIES?

Written by David Chen

Jamaica - over the years - without a doubt is one of the most popular destinations worldwide...


Actively, VOICING FOR JAMAICA and other think tank lobby group have realized that the BRAND JAMAICA is larger and more IMPORTANT than we think.

Since this current journey to Jamaica - 99% of Jamaicans who we have lived with across the island - believe that more can be done to brand JAMAICA positively.

Our natural resources is one that is being "used and abused"

Have you visited St Thomas recently? If you are not familiar with the parish St Thomas - from a natural point of view - without the westernized hype - St Thomas and other Eastern parishes on the island - need major assistance as to where development is concerned.

THE ROADS ACROSS JAMAICA

Admit tingly - over the past 6 weeks - we have been experiencing serious rain - and the heavy water settling on the roads - this has made the driving conditions - even worse than it was - before the hurricane season kicked in.

The Jamaicans have even turn a bad think into a joke - where it is now being said that every Jamaica hold a PHD - ... in this PHD term - it means that every Jamaican is a POT HOLE DODGER...

THE YOUTH AND EDUCATION

It is sad to say that many youngsters between the age 7 - 14 - can expect to hear from their parents - "sorry, you can't go to school today - because I haven't got the money to send you this morning"

OPEN LANDS AND YOUTH/COMMUNITY CENTRES

If you are familiar with Jamaica - you will agree that there are many wasted land across the island - the question being asked at the moment - is "How wise is it to build more community centers across the island?"

HEALTH AND ELDERLY

This is an issue that needs attending to - with immediate effect!

SUMMARISE

The roads across the island is an eye sore with pot holes - at times - it takes the residents and local businesses to assist greatly with the repair of the roads...

See the website http://www.voicingforjamaica.com/
You can contact us directly on 001 876 505 9186 or 001 876 864 1113

Tirade On Youth Constitution And Rights

Written by Carol Lawton

There are fundamental right that all human beings have that can not be intruded on except in cases of dire emergency of the state. Today I still see why we are backward in the respect of human rights. Call it whatever you will. Soft hearted, criminal hugging, fighting against authority but there are limits and when these limits are overstepped that is where the rule of law comes in with the highest being the constitution which govern the land.

Our children learn at an early age not to read. Yes not to read. Reading requires a yearning for knowledge and explanation in facts not word of mouth. The first thing a good citizen learns is what is the rights and responsibility of the individual to the state. Thesecond is state’s functions and accountability to the citizen. The first persons to feel this intrusion of their rights are not the upper class or the middle class who have the luxury of the legal profession to answer their calls and question and lash out like a morey at all who intrude, it is the poor. The Nazis did not start with the rich they started with the poor.

This tirade is based upon the role of school once the child is out of school in their uniform but it is just one of many where the state or private entities in Jamaica invade the constitutional rights of Jamaicans. To the best of my knowledge all Jamaican including teens have a right of freedom of movement. How is it then legal for a school to force children out of a supermarket because they are in their uniforms. The students come from the poorest areas. The supermarket offers the cheapest prices hence the large number who purchase from the supermarket. The supermarket did not even care until a “representative from the school “showed up forcing them out. If that was my business I too would sue them for loss of earning from potential customer based upon their directives. Can a school override the individual right of freedom of movement just by virtue of the student putting on their uniform or does the rules of the school end at the gate or does the constitution only cover those above a certain age or with enough money to care about intangible as rights. As old rules are applied to a new generation, they will rebel unless given compelling rational reasons that empower them to respect rules that are intrusive to their every day activities.

Frankly, most young are thinking that the law or rules don’t apply at this age hence the disorder we face in present Jamaica where the majority is under the age of 35. These are not the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s, even the meekest is aggressive now for a simple thing as their rights. The hardest part of the whole thing is to take the illogical argument that its for their own good to give up right to a higher group hence the aggression as the higher group usually does not have a good moral argument as to why only we said so.

Personally if they were my children, I would get it in writing and sue the school. I would not even follow to even have a discourse because as educators they should also be teaching the students what are their rights and responsibilities in order for them to become functional citizens of Jamaica . Defend your rights at all cost is how I was brought up. Some may term it aggressive; some may term it uncompromising or even rude. But the moment the door is open for the abuse of your rights it’s a slippery slope. We love to talk about caring for the children but personally its all talk. Build their minds to understand who they are, what they are, where at in the globalize world, how the rule of law exist to create equity between the rules of society and the constitutional and natural rights of the citizen of the state. Teach the constitution in High School as Mandatory.

ARE BLACK MEN TOO CONTROLLING

by Fiona Whata




Like all young girls, I grew up fantasising about a Prince Charming coming to sweep me off my feet to a fairytale wedding and a happily-ever-after marriage. Now that I’m older I would like to believe that I have a more mature and realistic perspective of matrimony. However, not having yet entered into this institution, I can’t deny that I still retain a little of my girlhood idealism regarding marriage. I suppose it is this optimism that despite discouraging reviews from those within, ensures that so many young women eagerly apply for membership to join the marriage club.



Pretty much all of the reviews I hear about married life are negative. The only time I hear or read about anyone praising their partner and recommending marriage is in romance fiction books and in movies. In real life all I hear is complaints - the last one from a cousin of mine. “Do me a favour”, she sighed to me in exasperation, “don’t get married. It is hell”. She told me she often seriously contemplated hooking up with a white man instead. Her main grievance on this occasion was that she felt her husband was oppressing her, and refusing to regard her as an equal. This wasn’t an isolated incident either. Whenever I am around any gatherings of female relatives or just black women in general, this is a complaint that is reiterated the most and takes precedent over any other problems.

“My husband is too controlling”.

“My husband expects me to wait on him hand and foot”.

‘My husband wants me to show deference to him all the time.’

The opinion has slowly taken hold in my mind that black men tend to have a problem with viewing black women as their equals. To make it clear: I don’t think all black men are like this, just some. So why am I singling out black men? Well it’s just that I have noticed that there seems to be a greater number of black men who are in the ‘some’ category than men of other races. If you’re a black guy who treats your woman as an equal and does not seek to dominate her, there’s no need to feel attacked on reading this. For me, it’s ‘some’ black men I am referring to. I’ve had acquaintances with married white women and while they might moan about husbands being addicted to sports or not being romantic, I rarely, if ever, hear them complaining that their men deny them equality in their marriages. I’m not saying that there aren’t any non-black men who don’t treat their women as equals, but oppressiveness doesn’t appear to be a trait that afflicts them in the epidemical proportion evident among certain black men. I could be wrong, but it does appear to me that there are more black men than white who are threatened by sharing power in a relationship. I wonder why this is so and if it is possible to have a truly equal relationship in black partnerships, in terms of decision-making, responsibilities and power.



Coming from an African environment, I am acquainted with the traditional roles assigned to women. Wives are the homemakers; they tend to the housekeeping chores and look after the children. It is the husband who has a job, brings home the bacon and makes all the decisions which the wife complies with and plays no role in. Good wives submit to their husbands and serve them. This traditional role expected of women is not restricted to just Africans of course, but it appears to persist more in the African culture than it does in Western culture. While this master-servant like relationship is not a rule that is strictly adhered to the letter in this day and age because women have jobs and aren’t literally servants to their men; it is still a rule that however loosely applied, is expected to set the dynamics of partnerships. Normally husbands have no problem with their wives working and don’t treat them as slaves, it is only when they find themselves battling to overrule their wives regarding a decision or when she starts earning a salary equal or surpassing their own, that power and equality suddenly becomes an issue. “The trouble with women”, they’ll lament, “is that they don’t know their place”, or “the trouble with women of today is that they have become too westernised and want to be on an equal footing with men”. The number one reason these men give for refusing to treat their spouses as equals is that “..it is our African culture.’ Even in places away from Africa like the UK, some black men defend their stance similarly: “as black people this is our culture”. It is however, difficult to take these men’s comments seriously upon the observation that they don’t appear to be all that devoted to other aspects of African culture, like wearing traditional African clothing or worshipping the ancestors of their forebears. The culture card that is whipped out is, I suspect, simply an excuse and the real answer lies elsewhere.



So why do some black men who complain so much about the inequality and oppression their race has faced in the past, insist on inequality and oppressing their own women? One would have thought that being black, they, of all people, would be repulsed by the idea of oppressing anyone themselves. The only answer I can think of is one I base on logic. If a man is secure in himself, he doesn’t feel the need to go around constantly over asserting himself to show that he is a man. It is only an insecure man who seeks to dominate and control those around him to cover up his insecurity. In marriage, this would explain a man’s need to control and oppress his wife. It is only an insecure man whose ego is so fragile that he finds any notion of equality a threat to his masculinity and can only deal with women if he places them in an inferior position to him.



The men, who seem to bleat on the most about women ‘not knowing their place,’ are those from an older generation who grew up in times when racial discrimination was most rampant. Perhaps these men felt so oppressed and powerless in society that the only way they could feel like men, was to place themselves in a superior position to women by being controlling with their wives. And perhaps the black men of today that have problems sharing power in relationships have subconsciously picked up the idea from their fathers that the only way to be a real man is to suppress and rule over women. It would explain why there are more black men than white who are threatened by sharing power in marriages. All this is just speculation on my part of course, and I am aware that it is a flawed theory. The traditional role of the wife was in place long before the white man came to Africa, so fragile egos created under the oppression by white society cannot be the main reason why some black men today can only handle playing a superior role in marriage. It is however the only theory that makes the most sense to me at the moment. Perhaps I might have a better idea of the psychological motivations of these dominating men if I were to marry one of them.



From the viewpoint I have now, I can only conclude that it is insecurity, not dedication to culture, that drives some men to be so repulsed by women who challenge them as equals rather than meekly submitting to them. I am not criticising traditional partnership roles in general; there is nothing wrong with women being homemakers and men being the sole breadwinner, but it would be nice if women could play a role in making decisions if they wish without a fuss from their men.

Because not all black men deny equality to their wives, I would like to believe that my optimism in the institution of marriage is not misplaced. Hopefully there are a number of Prince Charmings’ out there who will respect their black wives enough to have an equal relationship with them.