So many times we have people complaining about the now, while often times dismissing the future with regard to the cause and effect years later. What typically happens is that many times fantasizing about the future based on our current behaviour is unforgivably taken for granted, and we seldom take the opportunity to allow things to reduce themselves to their core essence of what may be likely events taking place somewhere down the line.
I for one can assure you that no one can accurately predict the future, even though on many times I have been right more often than not. Rest assured from my own humble testimony that it's 95% of the time I'm right. So, far be it from me to stand in the way of telling you or anyone the great seer that is I, basking in my glorious rightness and prophetic wisdom, only to be outshone by my radiant halo of knowledge and infinite enlightenment.
Surely of course I jest, seriously. However, ruminating over the factors that can shape, and are in fact shaping our country, is what many people, particularly in politics, both active participants and their operatives, whether from the base community level or to the pulpit, try to convey to us on a daily basis.
Thinking about the future and how it would look like in The Bahamas, twenty, thirty, and even fifty years down the line, has to be broken down in several concepts and ideas that all weave into the landscape one may envision. Too lengthy to give justice to one concept, let alone several. Thusly, we will stick with one concept or social construct: The Christian Church.
One of the most fundamental pillars of our society is the Church. Or as we have been seeing it increasingly being referred to as persons of the faith.
The Church in The Bahamas has gone through, and is currently going through, several challenging periods, grappling with modernity and coming to grips with the notion that the State, the citizenry and how it all interacts while all are increasingly becoming divergent in their opinions on what is right, fair and just.
In fact, one only has to look at the phenomenon of smaller, non-denominational churches springing up out of, and in the face of, established faith-based organizations like The Catholic Church, The Anglican Church, which is the State recognized Church of The Bahamas, The Baptist Church and so on and so forth.
Moreover, members of the "faith" have sought refuge in the solace of smaller, non-denominational sects and what can be titled in a politically correct form as "worship centres", with persons looking for a slightly more intimacy with God their creator as well as sharing in the congregation of other members already dissatisfied and disaffected with the traditional and established organizations.
This should come as no surprise, because the early Roman Catholic Church had many dissidents and persons having difficulty in appreciating the management and tenor of their overbearing theocratic behaviour.
For example, Lutheranism broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, as did Calvinism, while both sharing different ideas on faith and worship and remained distinctively different during a period of the late 15th century into the early to middle 16th century and beyond.
To go even further, the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during this period and accepted the teachings of Lutheranism into the English society.
All of this to say that having understood that the spread of Christian based "worship centres" and enclaves in The Bahamas that allow for separate thought and understanding on Christian principles is nothing new that never happened anywhere else in the world. In fact, it was what the spread of Christianity relied upon.
No doubt this trend will continue on well into the future, with persons opting for what many would brand as cults, wayward sects and apostate ministries, thankfully without anyone having a care in the world because the culture of the Christian movement within itself has historically been about such evolution and reformation in thought, practice and pattern.
Where does that leave established Churches in The Bahamas? Well, this continual shift will not leave established church and their organizations any more or less off. Established Churches have not served their usefulness, in fact they are well organized gatherings of persons that need that outward appearances and displays of Christian sanctimony and piety.
What has been trending is that the "Church", as it is also designed for from it's core, is a collection of people that share similar beliefs and understandings. This too goes both ways. Both ways in the rationalizing of their particular brand of beliefs with regard to faith, but their understandings of the world around them, from their professional life and interactions in politics and government.
We have to remember that the Church is not primarily a place where persons that share in their beliefs and understanding of faith-based principles, but for persons that gravitate towards others of similar cultural and economic backgrounds, as well as with persons wanting to meet and greet persons of that ilk, calibre and culture in an attempt to reach a different plateau of the social strata that the established Church organizations lend themselves to and represent themselves as.
Of course the established Church based organizations will not be outdone by smaller, more nimble and spiritually responsive Churches. Of course not!
They have, in turn, approached this Bahamian-centric Reformation the way they have learned to do it over the years being the only games in town: Controlling thought on what is acceptable doctrine of the Church, albeit from the same established faith-based frames of references that is causing the schism to begin with. Entrenching themselves in their principles, marketing that as their beacon to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
These opulent displays on Christendom and "who is" faith-based and principled are clever and to some extent effective marketing strategies for their target audience. In fact, you see it every Sunday morning: The who's who, decked in their finest, taking photo-op's with the other "who's who" in a glorious display of the righteous gathering in Christ. How fine indeed.
Of course, this is not to be tongue in cheek, or gratuitously dismissive of organized religion of the established and conservative mode and model. I too am a fairly recent member of the Anglican Church, having being fully confirmed after years of just attending the worship ceremonies.
My thoughts rather should not be taken in the context of abject mockery, condemnation or the showmanship of either/or particular branch or sect of the Christian Church. It just simply is what I would term as testament to what I see happening now, and how that may change within the next few years as more and more of these separate organisms, both great and small, play out in the "Church" and by extension the wider population.
What is important through this all is that one cannot extrapolate any of the characteristics of any of the methods of worship because it is what was meant to happen based on the historical concept of what the Christian Church means, how it developed over the years and how it initially started.
This is also not to say one cannot find Christ or salvation in any or either over the other, whether it is a small non-denominational, medium sized, offshoot affiliate Churches, satellite Churches or one of the larger organized groupings, what we cannot mistake is the interaction that those opportunities offer and what they represent for us now and for the future. Just that, yet again, this is what it is and will continue during this period of Bahamian-centric Reformation.
This changing of attitudes and beliefs of Christian thinking also is ushering in differences of fundamental opinions on social behaviour and interaction as much as it is being influenced by it.
This symbiotic relationship is evidenced in the varying differences in opinion on politics, social living, professional habits, child rearing, parenthood, health and wellness and the like. The divergences is startling and also telling.
Based on what we see, it would not be difficult to presume that the Church will continue to diverge and separate from one another, both internally and externally.
These separations will continue to shape average, every day thought on a wide array of areas. Thoughts that would have once be deemed heretic even 30 years ago, but thoughts that are happening and quite clearly challenging the notions of what The Bahamas is and what it may look like, and quite frankly, what it needs to be and look like.
Needless to smaller enclaves will continue to develop. While in the short term they will not outstrip the larger, more organized Church agencies, they too will have their place. Filled with heretics, dissidents and persons not feeling the rigour of what established Church represents.
While the larger, more established and organized Churches continue their marketing strategies to attract those looking for the outward displays of Christendom, their too will be a consolidation of classes that will be influenced and look to influence what thoughts shape our nation.
Confusions will continually abound as all sides will try to consolidate "what's right" in their eyes. Blames will be cast, and aspersions will be enough to share for everyone. But, I must caution you, these blames this will not happen via Church vs. Church, small vs. large, within itself. However, the individual memberships will take what they now know to their places away from their Church, then come back with what they have heard or experienced outside of their Church, only to be then re-affirmed with their "right" of knowledge, or alternatively find difficulties with what they see going on.
We will continue to see this play out, year after year, decade after decade, until the idea of Christendom, and being faith based, is so totally far and set apart from what we once knew it to be, even here in our own country, but from what it means and represents world-wide.
This is not to cast doom and gloom, or put one on the edge of one's seat with titillating notions of the glory days that are head of Christendom here in The Bahamas, just to let us know what is to be expected is what is meant to take place. How we take it for the good or the bad is based on how we perceive the stimulus and how it affects our ethos.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
The leaks that rocked the nation!
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
The Walter Scott shooting: Driving while Black?
The shooting death of a middle aged Black man, Walter Scott, at the hands of a South Carolina police officer, Michael Slager, after a routine traffic stop for a broken tail light, has yet again added another shocking ripple into the debate about excessive force used by police officers in America.
This case is particularly stark because it was all caught on film by a young man by the name of Feidin Santana, and showed Mr. Scott apparently running away from the officer and instead of the officer giving chase, he instead emptied 8 bullets into Mr. Scott, killing him within seconds.
Of course you know that police profiling, police brutality and police shootings of Black men in the United States is a very controversial and dark side of America. One area in which America just seemingly can't turn the corner on the racial divide.
What was also strange about the video was that it's alleged that officer Slager filed a false police report on the matter, stating that Scott was reaching for his Taser, a struggle ensued and that he had to use deadly force. A report he filed before video evidence of the incident went viral on social media.
Upon review of the video, nothing of the sort happened the way officer Slager had stated. In fact, it appears as if the victim had no Taser in his hand, was not in a life and death struggle with officer Slager and appeared to have been running for his life as if it were in imminent danger.
There is also a second video that emerged as a result of the initial shooting video, this time of dash-cam footage of officer Slager in the initial traffic stop and the subsequent first attempt to flee by Scott.
Persons close to Mr. Scott claims that Scott feared going back to jail on child support issues, as he had a warrant out for his arrest from his children's mother.
In addition, the initial viral-murder-video indicates that officer Slager after having shot and killed Scott, went back to the spot where Scott ran from him the second time, picked up something in his hand and dropped it near the body of Scott, which investigators are now alleging to be the Taser officer Slager said in his report that Scott had wrestled from him during the scuffle, a scuffle that did not happen.
What's surprising is that Mr. Scott was 50 years old and officer Slager was 33. Scott also appeared to be a shop-worn 50 year old with officer Slager as an in-shape 33 year old. The questions must be asked: How much of a struggle could it have been for officer Slager to use deadly force on a man running away from him? Also, why was it so hard for officer Slager to give chase on a man, who appears, to be barely able to get out of the way fast enough for his own life let alone break out into a Usain Bolt-esque 100 meter dash?
All of this it appears to be "proof" of what persons in the Black community have been saying all along: Police officers are hunting down Black men for sport. And, if it was not as a result of the video by Mr. Santana that incontrovertibly shows a middle aged man running away from a fairly young police officer and being shot in the back 8 times as a result, officer Slager would have been able to plant evidence and get away with filing false reports on what actually happened during that fatal afternoon.
This recent shooting is on the back of another controversial police shooting in Ferguson Missouri, of a black teenager, Michael Brown back in August of 2014. The shooting and subsequent verdict in the case sent shockwaves through the world, as Ferguson Missouri was torn up as persons rioted and clashed with state and local police in very intense protest stand-offs. Police stand-offs complete with riot squads, the National Guard, mini tanks and military style SUV's and Hummers.
The Michael Brown incident was not like the Walter Scott incident however. Brown was a teenager (which seems to fit the narrative of police officers killing black teens and statistics will show this quite definitively), the shooting was not caught on film, Brown was a pedestrian walking down the street with a friend of his that testified at the trial of the officer charged with the killing.
Of course, police advocates claim that there is no distinction with who they profile, stop, arrest or kill.
To give some obvious evidence of this was the lesser reported case of police using deadly force back in April, 2014 with the shooting death of a White-Hispanic male, Richard Ramirez, also during a routine traffic stop.
Ramirez was shot while sitting in the back seat of a car. Not known at the time of the shooting was that Ramirez was high on Crystal Meth, and was unable to coherently respond to the officers request, prompting fear from the officer of Ramirez and the other passengers in the car that resulted in Ramirez being fatally shot three times.
As a result of the Brown case in particular however, which ignited the already smouldering sentiments from within the African-American community about the White establishment's treatment of their race, which also can be traced back to the brutal beating of Rodney King and the subsequent riots that followed the case and with the acquittals of the officers involved, slogans started popping up like "Hands up. Don't Shoot!", "Stop the Police!" and "Black Lives Matter!".
Yes, Black lives do matter. Having a brother die in police custody in the United States, who was known to have a medical condition and was in the cell for about 6 hours before any medical attention was brought to him after his initial request for treatment, which looking back at it seems very suspicious, Black lives must matter!
Regardless of the under-supported narrative on police killings and how they claim not to target Black men and Black people in general, in that they are no more profiling Black men as they are just doing regular police work, the fatal statistics are somewhat telling.
Reported by Propublica.org, young Black men were shown to be 21 times more likely to be killed by a police officer between 2010 and 2012 than Whites. Also more startling was that between 1980 and 2012, there were 41 teens that were 14 years or younger reported to have been killed by police: 27 of them were black; 8 were white; 4 were Hispanic; and 1 was Asian.
The numbers are startling. While police advocates state that Black on Black crime is the real killer in African-American cities, with the same can be said for Caribbean countries as well and it is a legitimate fact, but it is an inconsequential fact because what we're talking about here is police killings of Black men and not Black on Black crime.
I, myself, have had my run in with law enforcement in America as well. During my brief two and a half year study period, I was stopped a total of 5 times and booked on two separate occasions. Both for traffic violations. Oddly enough, one stop was for a broken tail light. The other was for speeding, just a "little" over 30 in a Residential area. Seriously, it was just a little!
With the broken tail light incident, what happened afterwards was startling: It started off with the one initial female police officer that stopped me and asked me to come out of the car, and within 3 minutes I was surrounded by 6 other police officers; two additional squad cars behind me; one to my passenger side with two officers; one head on; one squad car adjacent; and another catawampus, all just apparently stopping in to observe the proceedings. All were White and White-Hispanic. All of this just for a tail light I did not even know was broken, and also with me being five minutes away from home.
Looking back now and seeing what does take place with Blacks in America, it is not a difficult thing to say that I was extremely lucky.
Needless to say it ended without an incident that would have garnered national and international attention. The booking officer was so polite afterwards that she helped me to push my car across the street because it has stalled. Yes, even my little Nissan Sentra was shaken into stalling.
Another "alarming" incident happened on the way back to my dorm room from a party, and it has some relevance to the situation that Walter Scott faced.
That night an officer rolled up quite silently behind me, turned on his sirens and asked me to pull over. Then, with his blow-horn, asked me to turn off the car engine. I promptly complied. I then proceeded to hop out of the car as if it was "the norm", having being asked to do so on two prior occasions, one in which was the broken tail light incident.
He then retorted to me with shock and alarm in his voice, and then briskly asked me to get back into the car. After about 2 minutes of him ruffling around in his squad car, he came up to my window and asked me a few questions: Did I know where I was, where was I going, do I have any documentation to prove who I was, etc? I promptly complied, showed him my student identification, where I was coming from and where I was going, and he then said quite calmly to continue on after he ran another check on my status.
The officer also asked me why did I get out of the car? I told him, quite calmly: "Isn't that the normal procedure?"
Looking back at that incident now, I felt a little more in danger considering what getting out of the car can represent to a police officer if you are Black and it being in the middle of the night and was not asked to do so.
Even though I was not ticketed for that stop, what was odd was that the other ticketed offense with the broken tail light happened at night as well, but the procedure was different. Totally different!
With all that being said, from the unfortunate death of Walter Scott, to the Michael Brown incident, to the Rodney King beating, to the overwhelming crime statistics that show, quite clearly, that while blacks are a mere 13% of America's population they are 21 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than whites, to my own issues while living in America while Black, America has a long way to go with regard to sorting this problem. And it is an "American problem"! Because myself having lived in London for just about the same amount of time as I did in America, I note that I was not stopped or questioned at any time by the police or district constables. Not one time.
One thing seems to be important to this entire phenomenon however: Running away from the problem only raises the level of seriousness, no pun intended.
***Officer Michael Slager has been fired by the Charleston South Carolina Police Department and is facing murder charges for the killing of Walter Scott.****
This case is particularly stark because it was all caught on film by a young man by the name of Feidin Santana, and showed Mr. Scott apparently running away from the officer and instead of the officer giving chase, he instead emptied 8 bullets into Mr. Scott, killing him within seconds.
Of course you know that police profiling, police brutality and police shootings of Black men in the United States is a very controversial and dark side of America. One area in which America just seemingly can't turn the corner on the racial divide.
What was also strange about the video was that it's alleged that officer Slager filed a false police report on the matter, stating that Scott was reaching for his Taser, a struggle ensued and that he had to use deadly force. A report he filed before video evidence of the incident went viral on social media.
Upon review of the video, nothing of the sort happened the way officer Slager had stated. In fact, it appears as if the victim had no Taser in his hand, was not in a life and death struggle with officer Slager and appeared to have been running for his life as if it were in imminent danger.
There is also a second video that emerged as a result of the initial shooting video, this time of dash-cam footage of officer Slager in the initial traffic stop and the subsequent first attempt to flee by Scott.
Persons close to Mr. Scott claims that Scott feared going back to jail on child support issues, as he had a warrant out for his arrest from his children's mother.
In addition, the initial viral-murder-video indicates that officer Slager after having shot and killed Scott, went back to the spot where Scott ran from him the second time, picked up something in his hand and dropped it near the body of Scott, which investigators are now alleging to be the Taser officer Slager said in his report that Scott had wrestled from him during the scuffle, a scuffle that did not happen.
What's surprising is that Mr. Scott was 50 years old and officer Slager was 33. Scott also appeared to be a shop-worn 50 year old with officer Slager as an in-shape 33 year old. The questions must be asked: How much of a struggle could it have been for officer Slager to use deadly force on a man running away from him? Also, why was it so hard for officer Slager to give chase on a man, who appears, to be barely able to get out of the way fast enough for his own life let alone break out into a Usain Bolt-esque 100 meter dash?
All of this it appears to be "proof" of what persons in the Black community have been saying all along: Police officers are hunting down Black men for sport. And, if it was not as a result of the video by Mr. Santana that incontrovertibly shows a middle aged man running away from a fairly young police officer and being shot in the back 8 times as a result, officer Slager would have been able to plant evidence and get away with filing false reports on what actually happened during that fatal afternoon.
This recent shooting is on the back of another controversial police shooting in Ferguson Missouri, of a black teenager, Michael Brown back in August of 2014. The shooting and subsequent verdict in the case sent shockwaves through the world, as Ferguson Missouri was torn up as persons rioted and clashed with state and local police in very intense protest stand-offs. Police stand-offs complete with riot squads, the National Guard, mini tanks and military style SUV's and Hummers.
The Michael Brown incident was not like the Walter Scott incident however. Brown was a teenager (which seems to fit the narrative of police officers killing black teens and statistics will show this quite definitively), the shooting was not caught on film, Brown was a pedestrian walking down the street with a friend of his that testified at the trial of the officer charged with the killing.
Of course, police advocates claim that there is no distinction with who they profile, stop, arrest or kill.
To give some obvious evidence of this was the lesser reported case of police using deadly force back in April, 2014 with the shooting death of a White-Hispanic male, Richard Ramirez, also during a routine traffic stop.
Ramirez was shot while sitting in the back seat of a car. Not known at the time of the shooting was that Ramirez was high on Crystal Meth, and was unable to coherently respond to the officers request, prompting fear from the officer of Ramirez and the other passengers in the car that resulted in Ramirez being fatally shot three times.
As a result of the Brown case in particular however, which ignited the already smouldering sentiments from within the African-American community about the White establishment's treatment of their race, which also can be traced back to the brutal beating of Rodney King and the subsequent riots that followed the case and with the acquittals of the officers involved, slogans started popping up like "Hands up. Don't Shoot!", "Stop the Police!" and "Black Lives Matter!".
Yes, Black lives do matter. Having a brother die in police custody in the United States, who was known to have a medical condition and was in the cell for about 6 hours before any medical attention was brought to him after his initial request for treatment, which looking back at it seems very suspicious, Black lives must matter!
Regardless of the under-supported narrative on police killings and how they claim not to target Black men and Black people in general, in that they are no more profiling Black men as they are just doing regular police work, the fatal statistics are somewhat telling.
Reported by Propublica.org, young Black men were shown to be 21 times more likely to be killed by a police officer between 2010 and 2012 than Whites. Also more startling was that between 1980 and 2012, there were 41 teens that were 14 years or younger reported to have been killed by police: 27 of them were black; 8 were white; 4 were Hispanic; and 1 was Asian.
The numbers are startling. While police advocates state that Black on Black crime is the real killer in African-American cities, with the same can be said for Caribbean countries as well and it is a legitimate fact, but it is an inconsequential fact because what we're talking about here is police killings of Black men and not Black on Black crime.
I, myself, have had my run in with law enforcement in America as well. During my brief two and a half year study period, I was stopped a total of 5 times and booked on two separate occasions. Both for traffic violations. Oddly enough, one stop was for a broken tail light. The other was for speeding, just a "little" over 30 in a Residential area. Seriously, it was just a little!
With the broken tail light incident, what happened afterwards was startling: It started off with the one initial female police officer that stopped me and asked me to come out of the car, and within 3 minutes I was surrounded by 6 other police officers; two additional squad cars behind me; one to my passenger side with two officers; one head on; one squad car adjacent; and another catawampus, all just apparently stopping in to observe the proceedings. All were White and White-Hispanic. All of this just for a tail light I did not even know was broken, and also with me being five minutes away from home.
Looking back now and seeing what does take place with Blacks in America, it is not a difficult thing to say that I was extremely lucky.
Needless to say it ended without an incident that would have garnered national and international attention. The booking officer was so polite afterwards that she helped me to push my car across the street because it has stalled. Yes, even my little Nissan Sentra was shaken into stalling.
Another "alarming" incident happened on the way back to my dorm room from a party, and it has some relevance to the situation that Walter Scott faced.
That night an officer rolled up quite silently behind me, turned on his sirens and asked me to pull over. Then, with his blow-horn, asked me to turn off the car engine. I promptly complied. I then proceeded to hop out of the car as if it was "the norm", having being asked to do so on two prior occasions, one in which was the broken tail light incident.
He then retorted to me with shock and alarm in his voice, and then briskly asked me to get back into the car. After about 2 minutes of him ruffling around in his squad car, he came up to my window and asked me a few questions: Did I know where I was, where was I going, do I have any documentation to prove who I was, etc? I promptly complied, showed him my student identification, where I was coming from and where I was going, and he then said quite calmly to continue on after he ran another check on my status.
The officer also asked me why did I get out of the car? I told him, quite calmly: "Isn't that the normal procedure?"
Looking back at that incident now, I felt a little more in danger considering what getting out of the car can represent to a police officer if you are Black and it being in the middle of the night and was not asked to do so.
Even though I was not ticketed for that stop, what was odd was that the other ticketed offense with the broken tail light happened at night as well, but the procedure was different. Totally different!
With all that being said, from the unfortunate death of Walter Scott, to the Michael Brown incident, to the Rodney King beating, to the overwhelming crime statistics that show, quite clearly, that while blacks are a mere 13% of America's population they are 21 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than whites, to my own issues while living in America while Black, America has a long way to go with regard to sorting this problem. And it is an "American problem"! Because myself having lived in London for just about the same amount of time as I did in America, I note that I was not stopped or questioned at any time by the police or district constables. Not one time.
One thing seems to be important to this entire phenomenon however: Running away from the problem only raises the level of seriousness, no pun intended.
***Officer Michael Slager has been fired by the Charleston South Carolina Police Department and is facing murder charges for the killing of Walter Scott.****
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Do US presidential elections matter to us?
The United States Presidential elections of 2016 is just over 18 months away. Which means it is still a good ways off, but some hopefuls have already come forward and others have expressed keen interest in running for the biggest most important job on the planet outside of being the Catholic Pope, the Chairman of the Republic of China or the European Union Commissioner.
In The Caribbean this apparently matters a great deal to some, even though to others the claim that it doesn't matter who the president of the USA is, American foreign policy doesn't change a great deal in favour of partnering nations unless there is some new and salient point for mutual assistance on certain matters. I lean more on the side of the latter!
Allow me to set the table for explaining the reason why I lean more towards a "bleh!" side of things: People in The Caribbean claim that US foreign policy has gotten worse over the last 15 years or so. Some of them may be too young to remember the Cold War period, or just flat out forgot what that meant. That period was a particularly tough time for smaller nation states that may have given the appearance of being Marxist or "left leaning" in their economic and political focus.
They also may be suffering from information gap to a large extent. Even ten years ago the amount of information from the media outlets and the information super-highway called the internet was not a part of the knowledge bundle. So, key dates, persons and issues were left in blind patches in history that one may have to research a little deeper on the matter, and use what was found in the context of the rational human behavioural patterns and expectations of today in order to make sense of the times back then and the trials of those who were not Western-European or North-American during the Cold War.
Be that as it may, persons are now stepping forward to become the new president of the USA and ultimately the leader of the "free world". Seems like a misnomer to use the term free world when most of us are being spied on, travel habits and plans altered since the attacks of 9-11 and that countries have clamped down on dissent in favour of more governmental intrusion. Yes, governmental intrusion: It isn't just your country!
The gauntlet has been thrown down very early in the campaign. Republican Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has officially entered the race. He is the only elected member of the US government to come forward formally to announce his direct intentions for the office, in addition to being the most prominent name to come forward thus far.
The other persons already out of the gate are inconsequential. In fact, they either border on radical outriders or are all out radicals on the ultra looney side of the political process and are loosely affiliated, if at all, with the two major parties in the USA: The Democratic Party and The Republican Party.
For example, perennial candidate and conspiracy theorist, Jeff Boss entered into the race for the Democratic Party first. Boss is a "9-11 truther", meaning that he believes that the US government was behind the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. Yup!
But, to be fair, as we have the "truthers" on the Democratic side of the fence, we have the "birthers" on the other, conservative and Republican side. The "birthers" are the ones that believed that US President Obama was not a naturally born citizen of America and hence was ineligible to be president.
Also on the Republican side of the candidates already out of the gate and sprinting, retired engineer and once a Prohibition Party candidate and also a perennial candidate has put his name in the mix. Yes, The Prohibition Party represents a small group of individuals wanting the alcohol laws repealed all the way back to the 1920's Prohibition era. Good luck with that!
So, as it stands now, along with Senator Cruz, we have a few other oddballs that make the race interesting. All we need is former New York Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidate in 2010 from The Rent Is Too Damn High Party (yes, this is the official name of the political party), Jimmy McMillan to enter the race and we would have a full fledged early campaign special. But, with all due respect to Mr. McMillan, he received over 40 thousand votes in the 2010 New York Gubernatorial election, and he did not finish hot last either. Just thought you should know that!
Since coming out of the gate however, Senator Cruz has faced major criticisms. The first mover (so to speak) out of the gate always gets the flack. The backlash he received is nothing we should be totally worried about. He is a sitting US Senator, so he is not a nitwit, he is not a dummy and he certainly has some political savvy about him.
What we never thought would happen to Senator Cruz was that he faced, and still is facing, a lot of pressure from his own political party. Statements from sources like Fox News and online media blog The American Conservative have labelled Senator Cruz as "weak" on foreign policy, and "thin" on legislative achievements. In all fairness, that did not stop president Obama. But it is in keeping with the experience mandate of the conservative right.
Be that as it may, a strong but understanding foreign policy record is all we in The Caribbean and Latin America really "should" care about. I put the word should in quotations because we may be focusing on the wrong thing for the wrong set of reasons.
To put it very bluntly: People that have been around the block at least once don't mind or care to any large extent who is elected as the next US president. Unless we have a particular fancy for someone's handling of certain matters (particularly internal economic matters) that we may be able to glean from and incorporate into our own economic policies, it really is welcome to the world, nice to meet you and when do we get the next instalments of freebies from you. Just about!
America's international trade policy may come into play to a certain degree, but only when certain crops may be affected, which to that extent, when the USA moves in concert with the European Union, there is very little one can do in the face of that.
However, any move America makes with regard to international trade that may affect certain commodities can be equally offset by America's tremendous generosity towards affected countries. Say what you will of them, America is still, by far, the largest aid and resource donor in the world taking into consideration the entire block of the European Union that accounts for 28 nation states. $32 billion in 2013 in development and resource aid doled out by America to the European Union's $87 billion in that same year as reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These figures also do not account for the multitudinous private sector groups, NGO's, civic organizations and faith based groups that have been a hallmark of America's international good-will and generosity.
Back to the topic, to this author in particular, I have seen just about enough of American foreign policy to know that it does not matter who the president of the USA is. The policy typically remains the same, or just about, with minor alterations for persons who the current administration favours to a significant extent.
Take for example former president GW Bush's liking for our former prime minister, Hubert A. Ingraham. Former prime minister Ingraham was able to visit Washington to meet with president Bush on two formal occasions, and God knows how many other times he was allowed access to top officials or go-between's in order to achieve whatever it was he was dealing with at the time.
However, any particular favourability with regard to national objectives in The Bahamas was not really seen. We did not see looser immigration regulations for students and persons wishing to travel to the United States. We did not see the banking laws in The Bahamas change with the tacit approval of the Bush administration, or a fresh wave of openings in our financial services industry. We did not see a sharp rise in tourists under the Bush administration, and neither was the US Embassy here particularly softer on it's tone with regard to crime and other seedy little items that may arise as a result of developing nation tom-foolery.
On the same token, all of the matters we were concerned with under the Bush administration can be said to remain the same, or just about, under the current Obama administration albeit tourism arrivals have accelerated to a significant level as a result of employment growth in America.
I don't know what this represents in your neck of the Caribbean, Central American and South American parts of the bushes, but take it as it is.
To be very candid about this American foreign policy issue, there is not a lot one can do about it. It is what it is as long as they are the Super Power. There is even less we can do about American domestic economic policy as well, when primarily this affects us just as much and to some extent more than American foreign policy directed towards our grouping.
So, with regard to the other potential candidates and hopefuls looking to take the reins of the world's toughest job, to me and many others it's just the same person with just a different tone of voice.
Whether it is the presumptive female candidate Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, or her internal Democratic Party rival and female Senator Elizabeth Warren (apparently president Obama's top choice to succeed him). Or, on the Republican side with the brother of the last Republican president, GW Bush in that of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or another presumptive front runner, retired neurologist and an African American Republican hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, for me it's all a matter of who's next.
Our main focus should be watching now and waiting then to watch more about what America does internally with regard to it's economy. That itself is something we can do and guard against with regard to buffering our respective economies from shocks as they will emanate from our big brother to the North.
In The Caribbean this apparently matters a great deal to some, even though to others the claim that it doesn't matter who the president of the USA is, American foreign policy doesn't change a great deal in favour of partnering nations unless there is some new and salient point for mutual assistance on certain matters. I lean more on the side of the latter!
Allow me to set the table for explaining the reason why I lean more towards a "bleh!" side of things: People in The Caribbean claim that US foreign policy has gotten worse over the last 15 years or so. Some of them may be too young to remember the Cold War period, or just flat out forgot what that meant. That period was a particularly tough time for smaller nation states that may have given the appearance of being Marxist or "left leaning" in their economic and political focus.
They also may be suffering from information gap to a large extent. Even ten years ago the amount of information from the media outlets and the information super-highway called the internet was not a part of the knowledge bundle. So, key dates, persons and issues were left in blind patches in history that one may have to research a little deeper on the matter, and use what was found in the context of the rational human behavioural patterns and expectations of today in order to make sense of the times back then and the trials of those who were not Western-European or North-American during the Cold War.
Be that as it may, persons are now stepping forward to become the new president of the USA and ultimately the leader of the "free world". Seems like a misnomer to use the term free world when most of us are being spied on, travel habits and plans altered since the attacks of 9-11 and that countries have clamped down on dissent in favour of more governmental intrusion. Yes, governmental intrusion: It isn't just your country!
The gauntlet has been thrown down very early in the campaign. Republican Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has officially entered the race. He is the only elected member of the US government to come forward formally to announce his direct intentions for the office, in addition to being the most prominent name to come forward thus far.
The other persons already out of the gate are inconsequential. In fact, they either border on radical outriders or are all out radicals on the ultra looney side of the political process and are loosely affiliated, if at all, with the two major parties in the USA: The Democratic Party and The Republican Party.
For example, perennial candidate and conspiracy theorist, Jeff Boss entered into the race for the Democratic Party first. Boss is a "9-11 truther", meaning that he believes that the US government was behind the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. Yup!
But, to be fair, as we have the "truthers" on the Democratic side of the fence, we have the "birthers" on the other, conservative and Republican side. The "birthers" are the ones that believed that US President Obama was not a naturally born citizen of America and hence was ineligible to be president.
Also on the Republican side of the candidates already out of the gate and sprinting, retired engineer and once a Prohibition Party candidate and also a perennial candidate has put his name in the mix. Yes, The Prohibition Party represents a small group of individuals wanting the alcohol laws repealed all the way back to the 1920's Prohibition era. Good luck with that!
So, as it stands now, along with Senator Cruz, we have a few other oddballs that make the race interesting. All we need is former New York Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidate in 2010 from The Rent Is Too Damn High Party (yes, this is the official name of the political party), Jimmy McMillan to enter the race and we would have a full fledged early campaign special. But, with all due respect to Mr. McMillan, he received over 40 thousand votes in the 2010 New York Gubernatorial election, and he did not finish hot last either. Just thought you should know that!
Since coming out of the gate however, Senator Cruz has faced major criticisms. The first mover (so to speak) out of the gate always gets the flack. The backlash he received is nothing we should be totally worried about. He is a sitting US Senator, so he is not a nitwit, he is not a dummy and he certainly has some political savvy about him.
What we never thought would happen to Senator Cruz was that he faced, and still is facing, a lot of pressure from his own political party. Statements from sources like Fox News and online media blog The American Conservative have labelled Senator Cruz as "weak" on foreign policy, and "thin" on legislative achievements. In all fairness, that did not stop president Obama. But it is in keeping with the experience mandate of the conservative right.
Be that as it may, a strong but understanding foreign policy record is all we in The Caribbean and Latin America really "should" care about. I put the word should in quotations because we may be focusing on the wrong thing for the wrong set of reasons.
To put it very bluntly: People that have been around the block at least once don't mind or care to any large extent who is elected as the next US president. Unless we have a particular fancy for someone's handling of certain matters (particularly internal economic matters) that we may be able to glean from and incorporate into our own economic policies, it really is welcome to the world, nice to meet you and when do we get the next instalments of freebies from you. Just about!
America's international trade policy may come into play to a certain degree, but only when certain crops may be affected, which to that extent, when the USA moves in concert with the European Union, there is very little one can do in the face of that.
However, any move America makes with regard to international trade that may affect certain commodities can be equally offset by America's tremendous generosity towards affected countries. Say what you will of them, America is still, by far, the largest aid and resource donor in the world taking into consideration the entire block of the European Union that accounts for 28 nation states. $32 billion in 2013 in development and resource aid doled out by America to the European Union's $87 billion in that same year as reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These figures also do not account for the multitudinous private sector groups, NGO's, civic organizations and faith based groups that have been a hallmark of America's international good-will and generosity.
Back to the topic, to this author in particular, I have seen just about enough of American foreign policy to know that it does not matter who the president of the USA is. The policy typically remains the same, or just about, with minor alterations for persons who the current administration favours to a significant extent.
Take for example former president GW Bush's liking for our former prime minister, Hubert A. Ingraham. Former prime minister Ingraham was able to visit Washington to meet with president Bush on two formal occasions, and God knows how many other times he was allowed access to top officials or go-between's in order to achieve whatever it was he was dealing with at the time.
However, any particular favourability with regard to national objectives in The Bahamas was not really seen. We did not see looser immigration regulations for students and persons wishing to travel to the United States. We did not see the banking laws in The Bahamas change with the tacit approval of the Bush administration, or a fresh wave of openings in our financial services industry. We did not see a sharp rise in tourists under the Bush administration, and neither was the US Embassy here particularly softer on it's tone with regard to crime and other seedy little items that may arise as a result of developing nation tom-foolery.
On the same token, all of the matters we were concerned with under the Bush administration can be said to remain the same, or just about, under the current Obama administration albeit tourism arrivals have accelerated to a significant level as a result of employment growth in America.
I don't know what this represents in your neck of the Caribbean, Central American and South American parts of the bushes, but take it as it is.
To be very candid about this American foreign policy issue, there is not a lot one can do about it. It is what it is as long as they are the Super Power. There is even less we can do about American domestic economic policy as well, when primarily this affects us just as much and to some extent more than American foreign policy directed towards our grouping.
So, with regard to the other potential candidates and hopefuls looking to take the reins of the world's toughest job, to me and many others it's just the same person with just a different tone of voice.
Whether it is the presumptive female candidate Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, or her internal Democratic Party rival and female Senator Elizabeth Warren (apparently president Obama's top choice to succeed him). Or, on the Republican side with the brother of the last Republican president, GW Bush in that of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or another presumptive front runner, retired neurologist and an African American Republican hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, for me it's all a matter of who's next.
Our main focus should be watching now and waiting then to watch more about what America does internally with regard to it's economy. That itself is something we can do and guard against with regard to buffering our respective economies from shocks as they will emanate from our big brother to the North.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
