← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Hartley Henry – DLP Political Strategist

Congratulations on the passage of the Health Reform Bill. I am impressed and truly inspired by your vision, conviction and determination!

Many political observers in Barbados have come to compare and twin the politics of Washington to that of Barbados. They liken the Democrats in Washington to the governing Democratic Labour Party and the Republicans on Capitol Hill to the current leadership of the Barbados Labour Party.

Sir, in relation to your recent experience with the health care issue, we have an almost identical scenario existing here in Barbados, where absolutely nothing the government does is supported by the opposition.

I can well understand your frustration at having to fight so hard to effect positive and meaningful change. But that, I suppose, is the nature of politics in 2010. The Health Reform Bill, as I understand it, would bring both immediate as well as long term benefits to millions of Americans.

Straight off the bat, health insurers would be required to let young people stay on their parents’ policy up to their 27th birthday. Also, insurers would be barred from denying coverage to kids with pre-existing health conditions, and tax credits, to the tune of 35 percent of premiums, would start to flow to businesses with fewer than 50 employees to enable them to take out and maintain policies.

Mr. President, it is hard to consider how anyone, voted for by beneficiaries of these changes, could oppose them. Yet, we know that every single Republican, all 212 of those who voted, gave the thumbs down to this measure. This is almost as ridiculous, Mr. President, as our Leader of the Opposition here in Barbados persistently opposing free bus fares for school children. Can you imagine that two thirds of the Barbados Labour Party’s Parliamentary team represents rural constituencies, where many children take two buses to school, and these guys violently opposed the abolition of bus fares for school children?

I know how you must feel, Mr. President, because here in Barbados we also had a situation where the opposition opposed holiday camps for school children, constituency councils that would empower ordinary Barbadians and even more recent, the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to oversee the day to day operations of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Imagine you have a situation in Barbados where over the last five years, it became commonplace for ordinary Barbadians to spend as much as 24 hours at the main, general hospital waiting to see a doctor. Also, where there were persistent reports of less than flattering experiences at the hospital by patients, staff and visitors alike.

Your counterpart, Prime Minister David Thompson, determined that in addition to having an energetic and competent minister of health that he would reinforce the oversight of government, by putting in a Parliamentary Secretary who has developed a reputation for getting things done. Do you know, Mr. President, the opposition in Barbados opposed that as well?

And it gets even worse! We have a serious water problem in Barbados. There are residential communities that have had to put expansion on hold, as a result of a shortage of or inaccessibility to water. Eighty per cent of callers on the call-in programmes complain of nightmares in respect of the Barbados Water Authority. The situation called for urgent and meaningful action. The Prime Minister acted. He appointed one of his then ministers to the position of Executive Chairman of the BWA in an effort to get ageless issues addressed and resolved. The number one problem at BWA is said to be human resource and industrial relations driven. Arni Walters is one of the foremost experts on HR and IR issues in Barbados. Do you know, Mr. President, that Mia Mottley and the opposition opposed that move as well?

So this opposing for the sake of opposing is not unique to Washington, my friend, we encounter the same nonsense in Barbados on a daily basis.

We have school children doing as they like both on and off the school compound. The Prime Minister and Minister of Education are at their wits end to find a solution to this problem. Do you think the Leader of the Opposition or the former Prime Minister has said a word in support of the government’s effort to check and stamp out incidents of antisocial behavior among school children? No! Not a word! Their obsession is with talking arithmetic.

Everything that flows from their mouths is GDP, deficit and foreign reserves related. No one is saying that these are not important, but, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, Barbados is more than an economy. It is a society. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition, and presumably Prime Minister-in-Waiting, cannot find a single social issue to associate with or to champion.

Indeed, she and her predecessor attended and spoke at their first party meeting in months (I am going to give you the joke about that another time) and when they discovered that the economic techno-babble was not resonating with even their supporters, do you know what they ended up talking about? Mr. President, you won’t believe it. Their time was spent calling for a member of the cabinet to be fired over some incident they say took place in the Members Room of Parliament.

I am waiting, Mr. President, to see where they and their mouthpiece newspaper are going to take this issue, because I recall hearing of a gun being fired among a gathering of BLP government ministers a few years ago. It was never denied or confirmed whether a then representative for a rural constituency received a gunshot wound, but I can tell you no one messed with the then representative for a very urban constituency thereafter. Interestingly, that incident was never reported in the newspaper.

Furthermore, Mr. President, have you ever heard of a pigtail bucket? Well legend has it that a senior Member of the current Barbados Parliament beat his father to a pulp with a pig tail bucket and when he was confronted with the tale of this in the Parliament of Barbados, a fight broke out with a now deceased former member, and an ex-cricketing great was struck by a flying chair thrown by that senior member. A former deputy Speaker also fractured a colleague minister’s nose with a cuff, right there in Parliament yard.

So I am waiting patiently to see how the Barbados Labour Party and its newspaper arm treat this issue of a recent fracas in Parliament, because, while I do not condone such; perpetrated by friend or foe, I will not sit silent and permit the impression to be given that such is unprecedented.

Mr. President, I agree with you. Such sanctimonious grandstanding is an abomination!

Hartley Henry is a Regional Political Strategist. He can be reached at hartleyhenry@gmail.com

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

246 responses to “Dear President Obama”


  1. One question to the authorities.

    California has strict, indeed seemingly the strictest laws against chemical products that are believed to cause cancer etc, such as weed-killers.

    Yet, they seem willing to legalise marijuana.

    Interesting, no? What are the authorities there saying by this?

    By inference, it seems that they are either negating or down-playing the danger of marijuana.

    But, we can legally buy many weed-killers here, that are banned there as being causes of cancer.

    But not marijuana, legally.

    What a conundrum!


  2. Finally, what is ‘morality’?

    We can tell a man that he cannot smoke weed, but we can also tell him that he can go suck salt if he cannot afford a small piece of land to live and grow vegetables?

    Is that ‘moral’?

    We can tell a man that he will have to work all his life and not leave a lil piece of land for his children?

    We can tell a man that while one man may own thousands of acres, he cannot even have a five thousands sq foot plot?

    Morality my ..s!!!


  3. Mr Halsall

    Do you have something to say on the substance of what I wrote?

    Kindly let us know, on what facts and reasoning. (Pardon my directness, but we already know about your habitual animosity and too often supercilious dismissiveness based on strawman caricatures and rhetorical taunts.)

    Otherwise you are simply yet again indulging in a slanderously loaded false accusation: you know or should know that I have repeatedly and publicly pointed out that three are three main appeals in argument: emotions, authority and fact and logic, explaining their characteristics and limitations. I have publicly taught principles and techniques of critically aware dialogue on facts and logic as the basis for the views we should hold and the policies and causes we should support, at college level. (And you know my remarks on the core warrant for the Christian view I have, and my remarks on the inescapable deficiencies with today’s ever so popular pseudo-scientific evolutionary materialism. I note that over months you have been utterly unable to address these on the merits.)

    If you look above you will see plainly I have appealed to the third, the only appeal that grounds conclusions. I have done so on the strength of background knowledge and relevant qualifications.

    Now, let us hear a substantial response, please.

    1 –> For instance, can you show that Mr Alinsky did not declare himself and advocate as excerpted above in his Rules for Radicals, c. 1971?

    2 –> Can you show that he did not found the Chicago school of Community Organisers?

    3 –> Can you show that Alinsky’s son David, reflecting on the Democratic Convention 2008, did not endorse Mr Obama in a newspaper article, as having learned his Alinskyite lessons well?

    4 –> Can you show that the Alinsky principles are not routinely taught to change agents today, including to educators and community/NGO activists/ organisers? That the book is not routinely assigned as course reading in this sort of context?

    5 –> Can you show that the USA is credibly capable of meeting its formal debt obligations and implicit social welfare commitments across time — here the next 20 – 50 years — on its demographics and economy, without falling into hyperinflation or similar self-destructive collapse?

    6 –> Can you show that US social welfare programmes established since the 1930’s and 1960’s have not grown far beyond original projections, contributing materially to the growth of Government and transfer payments as a fraction of the US GDP across time?

    7 –> Can you show that a growing, realtively large, g and t in the basic national Income macroeconomic equation [Y = c + i + g etc], coupled to a large trade deficit are credibly sustainable? [That is, tha they pass the test of inter-generational equity and soundness.]

    8 –> Especially when government grows to and well beyond about 25% of the economy, on a sustained, peacetime basis?

    9 –> Can you show that the recent enactments will not not bring under de facto government control — legally mandated regulation — some 1/6 of the US economy? That his has not created consternation not only among insurers etc but among practitioners of medicine, etc? That sobering issues over ethics — starting with the right to life and to confidence that medial praxis is protective of life — are not a major part of that concern?

    10 –> Can you show that the main concerns expressed by people in the streets and by many commenters on the economics, on ethical matters and on the growth of state control in general are on balanced, reasonable and factual considerations ill-informed, inevitably extremist and ill-founded?

    11 –> That national crises tied to economic chaos triggered by economic mismanagement are not historically a gateway to revolutions that are often destructive in effect, and that there is not a widespread advocacy to bring the USA into line with the agendas of globalist elites that are heirs of the line of global dominance thought espoused by say Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill et al at the turn of C20, up to and including the foundation of the League of Nations and the UN?

    12 –> Can you show — on say the track record of the UN — that such a global community led by the global intelligentsia as may well develop out of a crisis of the US in the years to come, would be to the benefit of liberty and justice for “all,” instead of probably a platform for a manipulative, destructive and tyrannical politically messianic ideology and its media-anointed, fawned over leaders?

    13 –> That such a scheme does not bear more than a passing resemblance to the apocalyptical warnings in the Bible on Nero Caesar 2.0, aka The Man of Sin or The Beast? [Don’t forget Nero started out as the great hope for the Roman World . . . (And note how I am drawing out a “learn from history” implication.)]

    ________________

    G’day

    D


  4. David: sorry, but a comment is waiting in the mod pile: it has several links.


  5. Another thread for the measuring of dicks (no pun intended) by educated men……stupse!!


  6. Sigh:

    Another thread for ill-bred loutishness to be on public display, by those who should or do know better . . .

    D

    PS: For those interested in moving towards resilient communities and technology bases [that will DV make us less vulnerable to the all too predictable chaos that seems to be ever closer], try this post here.


  7. In other words, where you cannot speak your mind, where you will be moderated, where there is no discussion, no disagreeing, just what the blog owner says.
    Nice place for sheep to graze.


  8. Onlookers:

    Really now!

    Surely these men know that one may disagree and discuss serious issues at a serious level without being disagreeable.

    (Onlookers, look here for a major case in point [87 comments back and forth on thermodynamics], and I am sure Pixie ent no sheep!)

    D


  9. Legalising WEED .The tobaco industry would never let that happen. They have too much to loss.


  10. @ac: “Legalising WEED .The tobaco industry would never let that happen. They have too much to loss.

    Not to mention the natural fibre industry (paper, cotton, rope, et al), the law enforcement industry, the prisoner detention industry, the military industry, the medial industry, et al….


  11. @Chris

    While you at it You forgot to mention Lawyers!


  12. @ac… “While you at it You forgot to mention Lawyers!

    ROTFLMAO… I did say “et al”. But your point is very well taken.


  13. Cuh Dear,
    Can’t a few of you BU bloggers go over to the Dick’s site and pretend to be interested -post something; or at least provide a few hits on his visitor statistics..

    Wanna can’t see how the man begging for hits?
    Wanna ain’t got a conscience?
    Don’t mind Techie, someone should help out the Dick.

    Bush Tea feel for the fella in truth….

    …..unfortunately, I am unable to assist him due to a serious, ongoing allergy to idiots.


  14. @ D…

    ..”(Onlookers, look here for a major case in point [87 comments back and forth on thermodynamics], and I am sure Pixie ent no sheep!)

    Ammmmm Sir…was clicking that link supposed to show us something in particular?
    All it does is show us BU’s page….nothing on therodynamics….no Pixie (do they exist really lol).
    Guy, a man of you esteemed character should always have his ducks in a row.


  15. While we are on this cannabis (love the sound of that word) tangent, can any of the Religious folk explain to me what qaneh bosm translates to?

    SOS to GP.


  16. F/N: Link to exchange on thermodynamics. (I do not know how it got misdirected.) Comments are welcome at my blog, but ill-bred manners will not be tolerated, inclduing the now routine vulgarity at BU.

    –> Notice, onlookers, no discussion on substance but he familiar distractions, (often slanderous) distortions and denigration. And we have been warned on what such routine hostility breeding incivility can do, with already a call to arson in this blog.


  17. @ D…

    You sound like a Mercedes dealership worrying about what goes on at Toyota.


  18. Can you imagine The Tobaco stocks free falling and the marijauna having the bull by the horns.Jamaica would be able to pay off all their debts .


  19. President Obama: Drill Baby Drill!. Offshore on the atlantic seaboard.


  20. Onlookers:

    It is obvious that the usual “if you can’t address the real issue, drag a smelly red herring across the track” rhetorical tactic — phase one of he distract, distort demonise tactic — is being used here.

    (Let’s just say on that that if we could turn back the clock, Tobacco and distilled alcoholic beverages should be banned. Adding stronger, more destructive psychoactive substances to the society’s already destructive list of “acceptable” drugs that we cannot effectively make and enforce a law against is a counsel of folly. And by the way, the variety of Cannabis sativa used for rope making and paper making etc, as well as being a potential biofuel, is utterly different from and far less psycho-actively potent than the indica variety that is the familiar smoked “weed.” But more broadly, it is only an en-darkened understanding that would not see that multiplying the exposure to known damaging psychoactive substances is a most destructive policy, not a benefit to society. I have seen too many promising young men damaged by smoking he weed, that seems to often trigger latent tendencies to going “mad” or “half-mad and stubbornly irrational.” [I was just looking at yet another case, on the weekend. H’mm, could some of the mind-locked behaviour that is ever so evident at BU trace to history of weed and weed-influenced thinking? LSD is another similar case, known to rewire the brain.])

    Back on focus, there is a review of Ch 1 of the book, Rules for Radicals, that will help us set what is going on in the US and is being splashed on our media screens in context. It will also help us see what the long term agendas are liable to be, and it will also show a powerful sidelight on what is going on in our region.

    Providing we remember a warning on the potential suicide of democracies:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. [Often attr. to a fairly obscure C18 Scottish writer, Tytler, but unverified]

    Regardless of actual source, the above raises a serious issue, that of the long term sustainability of welfare state democracies; essentially through the temptations of inflationism and factional interest. Indeed, it is reflective of a deeper, moral problem: Infflationism is a species of regressive taxation by fraud, gradually eroding the currency through running the [these days digital] printing presses and so preying on those who have saved money in the bank of the like and/or have a more or less fixed income. As onward impact multipliers, the increasing dominance of government in spending in an economy distorts its markets — which through price and scarcity signals [I here echo the Austrian thinkers] communicates messages on where to invest and where to refrain — and dries up enterprise, tending to stagflation and onward hyperinflation, or to outright depression. (In the case of the ever popular rent and price controls to “fight” the type of inflation triggered and fed by running the printing presses [oil shocks can cause inflation, and other sources too], the result is to trigger artificially induced scarcity and deterioration of the quality of offerings in the market.)

    In turn, the underlying spiritual malaise is highlighted by the apostle Paul:

    Eph 4: 17So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all [moral] sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

    20You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness . . .

    Now, here is the tickler. There are those who advocate using the trend to their own advantage, in this case to hasten the destruction of democratic states to usher in the new political messianic statist, mass based tyrannical age [often disguised as “real” democracy. In fact, the secret of the American experiment and the rise of modern liberty it helped foster, is that it restrains democracy — which tends to become dictator-led mob and police state rule [cf. 1 Sam 8] — through incorporating elements of other classical systems, and separating and balancing legislative [preferably in two chambers], judicial [preferably independent] and executive [time limited!] powers. ]

    Excerpting the above mentioned review of Rules for Radicals, first ch:

    _____________________

    >> . . . those claiming most passionately to be “for the people” [often] use them as pawns for their own angst-driven ideology. And worse, that those driven to redistribute wealth to the “have-nots” end up as blind and selfish “haves” themselves, worse than the ones who came before (as Animal Farm describes in parable form.)

    In chapter one, Alinsky says he has written Rules for Radicals to show how the have-nots can take from the haves. The book will show how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. For nearly forty years, Alinsky’s radicals have been building those organizations . . . .

    I wonder what Alinsky would make of the fact that rather than giving power to the people, these organizations have become political juggernauts exploiting people to build political power for one political party . . . . buil[ding] a solid voting block of citizens dependent on government, even as they continued to foment a “never enough” mentality and racial hostility to keep that block at their disposal.

    Alinsky describes this strategy as “charitable handouts dressed up in ribbons of moral principle and ‘freedom,’ but with the price tag of unqualified political loyalty to us.” (p. 9) . . . .

    Alinsky’s goals churn with noble abstractions:

    To realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment [?], health and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life.

    But the underlying premise is far from noble: a man or group presuming to create “those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life”? How to determine the circumstances? Who decides? And is our freedom to live meaningful lives a gift of the state or a gift of God?

    . . . . In the politics of dialectical materialism, there is no room for individuals to judge for themselves whether their lives have meaning or value. It’s about dehumanizing people so they can be exploited as a group — Alinsky’s have-nots — to crusade for against the evil status quo [evil being as percieved based on demonising spin tactics] . . . >>
    _________________________

    And, of course, that brings us right back to the force of Paul’s remarks in Eph 4 and Rom 1: when we turn our backs on God as a culture, we lose the anchor for a sound worldview and a frame for basic morality as we have no is-es that can solidly ground oughts. And as Plato warned in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC, the result is a modern version of that now too often forgotten cynically manipulative power hungry messianic politician, Alcibiades.

    Of course, for Athens, the result was suicidal: overweening pride and manipulative leaders of a democracy full of angry people led to disaster after disaster, injustice after injustice, and ruin.. (Imagine, making Sparta look good by contrast! At least, the Ephors did provide some veto-based checks and balances.)

    G’day

    D


  21. PS: Above I think I could be construed as speaking to/ accusing specific individuals in my discussing of weed influenced thinking. Sorry, that is not intentional. I am thinking here about the effect of the UWI’s radical generation whose thought was definitely weed influenced — I was there at the time in Jamaica and recall the strong, frequent ganja haze on the halls of residence: unwillingly, I learned the variety of smells of the different versions of the weed: Collie, Lamb’s Breath, Sensi etc] — and has been embedded in our region’s thought through that institution, and through the influence of those influenced by that scholarship . . . I must include here at least one Barbadian scholar I met and had exchanges with on campus in Ja in the late 70’s after his conversion to rastafarianism. I recall too a promising potential physicist from another island who was sidelined through psychoactive effects and his threats of violence — he once nearly had a fight with a lecturer in a classroom DURING a physics lecture. [I do not include the Math Department, who the joke was they kept a suite in Ward 21: “Maths wi mad yuh” is just a joke folks . . . Cantor had a problem separate from his Math genius! As did Nash!] I note how we have a whole religion that focuses on using the weed as a means of “enlightenment.” I am also thinking at the more personal level where I have seen this effect in my own circle of acquaintances and in my own family as I was growing up. On those observations and experiences, I am now raising the point that weed influenced thought has done more damage at personal and regional levels than we may recognise — already. (And I should add that in my observation and the opinion of knowledgeable and experienced persons ministering in exorcism, the induced suggestibility and altered states of consciousness induced by drugs is a gateway for demonisation of the personality and external control of the suggestible.)


  22. So, Dictionary

    I take your point that the weed can have some disastrous effects in various cases. BUT, my issue is the hypocrisy in the treatment with the plant itself i.e. the practical acceptance in California, while it is demoinsed in the Caribbean, to the extent that foreign forces are used to destroy Caribbean ‘crops’.

    Then we also have the treatment of alcohol, which also has disastrous consequences, is fully legal.

    Indeed, some would argue, but for exceptional cases, that alcohol is far more dangerous to others than weed.

    With weed, you might destroy your own mind.

    With alcohol, you could very well, destroy the lives of others by drunk driving, persons taking advantage of others while intoxicated (and yes, other drugs could be involved).

    A completely hypocritical view.

    Not to mention, we wish to ‘control’ lives and choices, but we do not wish to ensure that every man / woman has a right to at least minimal, satisfactory dwelling, food etc, without worrying about where the next payment is coming from?

    If one wishes to be ‘moral’, it has to be holistic. This may sound idealistic etc, but it is as it should be.

    The only and main area you can fairly dictate to a man is to prevent any of his actions that can impinge on the rights of others, in whatever manner.


  23. Crusoe:

    You first need to address the main topic: implications and contexts of the recently passed health “reform” — these days, every advocated change is a “reformation” but change does not equal progress! — act in the US Congress.

    Second, you need to understand the American system a bit more: it is a federation as opposed to our own unitary nation-states, and individual states make real laws and do real law enforcement within their borders. (Though it is growing beyond all constitutional limits — especially by exploiting legalistic gambits to find penumbras on their Constitution’s provisions, such as regulation of interstate commerce [never mind Amdts 9 & 10 in the Bill of rights attached to the original draft as a condition of ratification] — the federal government is supposed to be quite limited.)

    In that context California and in a former day Alaska — which subsequently repealed the attempted leagalisation — have taken oddball positions. (And, note: this is California here . . . the original definition of an oddball state.)

    Further to this, what we are discussing is in the first part a committee vote of 4:3, and in the second part a related ballot resolution measure, by petition of 500,000 — in a state of population just under 37 mn — so we are dealing with a radical faction so far not even a state government:

    WIKI article: On February 23, 2009,[14] Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D) introduced the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, a proposed bill that would “remove all penalties under California law for the cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, and use of marijuana, natural THC and paraphernalia by persons over the age of 21” and “prohibit local and state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal marijuana laws”.[15] The bill would help with battling the 2008–2010 California budget crisis by allowing the state to regulate and tax its sale at $50 per ounce.[16] According to Time, California tax collectors estimate the bill would raise about $1.3 billion a year in revenue.

    Critics such as John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers’ Association, argue that too many people already struggle with alcohol and drug abuse, and legalizing another mind-altering substance would lead to a “surge” of use, making problems worse.[16] Apart from helping the state’s budget by enforcing a tax on the sale of cannabis, proponents of the bill argue that legalization will reduce the amount of criminal activity associated with the drug. Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray estimates that eliminating arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonment for nonviolent offenders due to legalization could save the state $1 billion a year.[16]

    The bill was delayed until January 2010, when the Assembly Public Safety Committee approved the bill on a 4 to 3 vote—this marked the first time in United States history that a bill legalizing marijuana passed a legislative committee.[12] However, the bill was unable to move forward to the Health Committee, where it was required to be heard before reaching the Assembly floor, before the January 15 deadline for proposed 2009 legislation. Ammiano plans to re-introduce the bill later this month or wait to see how a ballot measure for legalization fares in November 2010

    LA Times, Mar 25: Measure to legalize marijuana will be on California’s November ballot

    Supporters of the initiative collected well more than the 433,971 signatures needed for it to go before voters in the fall, again putting the state at the forefront of the nation’s drug debate.

    March 25, 2010|By John Hoeffel

    An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November ballot, state election officials announced Wednesday, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation’s debate over whether to soften drug laws.

    The number of valid signatures reported by Los Angeles County, submitted minutes before Wednesday’s 5 p.m. deadline, put the measure well beyond the 433,971 it needed to be certified. Supporters turned in 694,248 signatures, collecting them in every county except Alpine. County election officials estimated that 523,531 were valid.

    So, I doubt that you can fairly slap accusations of hypocrisy broad-brush across the USA because one state may pass legislation along the general lines several commenters seem to have been advocating above. The vast majority of states are not easing up on the weed at all, and the Feds are not either.

    What I reiterate is that the weed is a known mental health hazard, and is associated with the rise and entrenching in our folk-ways of destructive patterns of thought and behaviour all across our region. There is no good case for opening the floodgates, and frankly, if it were reasonably possible we should be going the other way: tightening up dramatically on tobacco and distilled alcoholic drinks.

    Now, can we return to focus on a serious matter?

    D


  24. PS: Crusoe, you need to address me not a strawman.

    Just above and earlier I have made it plain that were it socially possible, I would opt for far tighter restrictions on both alcohol and tobacco; precisely because they are destructive. But also don’t try that “nearly harmless ganja” ploy on a Jamaican: I have seen the psychotic damage up close and personal.

    But I am aware that when attempted legislation lacks consensual support, and requires enforcement against a widespread behaviour, it may not be feasible. So I advocate voluntary restraint — e.g. church covenants that include temperance pledges [an inheritance from C19 when distilled hitgh percent alcoholic drinks first became widespread and cheap mass production products] — and serious education that builds a consensus that will support tight regulation and restrictions on trade.

    Here in M’rat, you can get your cancer sticks, but you must ask for it, and it is behind the counter, so no underage smoking is likely to happen; at least not easily. Rum shops are supposed to restrict sales to minors. For that matter, diabetics under government care are restricted from getting excess sugar, through informal arrangements with grocers regarding those who would try to sneak some into the Golden Years homes in defiance of doctor’s orders.


  25. Here is an interesting article from a former White House economist on Obamacare.

    Manufactured Healthcare Crisis

    Former White House Economist Reveals The Shocking Truth About Obamacare

    by James Simpson

    “THESE are perilous times. The November 2008 elections of Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in both houses allowed a virulent criminal cabal to capture our nation’s seat of power. As with the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, it was a disaster of epic proportions. With one shocking, ernormous, blatantly partisan, self-serving and destructive proposal following on the heals of another, the sheer enormity of their power grab defies description. But as each new proposal moves forward, the hand of the Crisis Strategy becomes clear.”

    “It there was ever any doubts that Barack Obama personifies the Crisis Strategy, it should long since have been removed fron anyone with a mind. Since so many Americans seem to have lost theirs, I address this to the rest of you. For with God’s help, it is you and I, not our gutless, hapless, corrupt politicians, not our sleeping poplace that will save this country or allow it to fall.”

    “For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, the Crisis Strategy was the brain-child of two radical socialist college professors, Richard Cloward and Francis Fox-Piven. The idea was to overwhelm government with demands for services to the point where the system would collapse and provide an opening for the socialists to take over.”

    “Their staregy was behind the creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization in the 1960s and 1970s which dramatically increased the welfare rolls and caused the near bankruptcy of New York City in 1975; creation of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), prime instigators of the mortgage meltdown; the national Motor Voter law signed by President Clinton in 1993, which opened the floodgates to vote fraud by ACORN and similiar groups; and the illegal immigrant amnesty movement. As we all should know by now, Barack Obama worked with and trained ACORN workers for many years, and is known and supported by all the major players in this movement.”

    “Healthcare nationalization is a major component of this stategy. The left has agitated almost since the turn of the last century for some kind of socialized healthcare system. In fact, from 1939 forward, practically every congresstional session proposed national healthcare legislation. As aptly described in an incisive analysis of Medicare by the Cato Institute:

    ‘For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment
    of Medicare, the American people repeatedly
    rejected the idea of government-mandated health
    insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power
    inside and outside of government did not take no for
    an answer. Year after year they kept coming back –
    pursuing incremental strategies, misrepresenting
    their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid
    for with government money in apparent violation of
    existing laws.”

    “Their dream was partially realized with creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Jognson’s ‘Great Society,’ The stated goal of these programs was to provide comprehensive healthcare for seniors and the poor. As the program grew, the left clamored for ever more benefits to these groups and ever expanding definitions of covered individuals. Illegal immigration, also encouraged by the left, contrinuted to a rapidly growing pool of beneficiaries.”

    “Like any free good, demand for services under these programs has skyrocketed. Spending levels were insignificant in the early years, but Medicare and Medicaid today comprise 36 percent of total U.S. healthcare spending.”

    “…In 2006, Medicaid spending alone totaled $316 billion. For perspective, this is roughly equivalent to the baseline defense budget (i.e., excluding war spending like Iraq/Afghanistan). State Medicaid programs are the largestr single recipient of all federal grants, comprising 43 percent of the total.”

    “In 2008, federal Medicaid and Medicare spending totaled $656 billion. Comprising only 2.8 percent of the federal budget in 1967, these two programs today consume 22 percent of total federal spending. This is the largest component of the federal budget, even exceding total wartime outlays for national defense.”

    “Corrected for inflation, Medicare and Medicaid spending has increased by 2, 735 percent since funding began in 1967. That is a real annual growth rate of 8.5 percent, almost three times the annual rate of economic growth for the same period. (Calculations based on Office of Management and Budget historical tables using OMB deflators, combined with state and local spending estimates provided by http://www.usgovernmentspending.com.)|”

    “The increasing costs of medical care resulting from Medicare, Medicaid and the dramatic growth of malpractice lawsuits have provided activists with the rationale they need to agitate for socialized medicine. But this has been their strategy all along. Medicare and Medicaid were designed to undermine private healthcare, making it ever more expensive and unmanageable, until enough interest could be generated for systemic change. similarly, changes in tort law aimed at turning our courts into vehicles for income redistribution have overburdened our legal system with massive caseloads and the highest liability costs in the world.”

    “While doubtless many thought they were doing good, the ultimate goal, as elucidated by the left, has everywhere and always been Socialism.”

    “Furthermore, they grossly overstate the problem. We hear constantly about the “47 million uninsured.” These figures include 10 to 25 million illegal immigrants, 14 million people who are already eligible for medical benefits but haven’t availed themselves, and 10 million people earning $75,000 or more who could presumably afford their own insurance if they chose to. Even assuming the lowest estimate for illegal immigrants, the true number of uninsured would be only 13 million. Yet the Democrats want to nationalize the entire industry, currently 17 percent of GDP, to provide bebefits to 4 percent of the U.S. population.”

    “And while medical costs increase due largely to government manufactured problems, shrinking returns in the healthcare industry put doctors and hospitals out of business. Meanwhile, the astronomical cost of medical school plus this increasingly hostile atmosphere toward the private medical market is turning more and more qualified people away from the medical field entirely. Costs increase while supply decreases, the classic consequences of government intervention.”

    “Yet Obama and the brain-dead Democrats want to give us a government-run system that will guarantee magnitudes more of the same.”

    “Can you see the left laughing at you?”

    “However, their true motives have finally been exposed. For seniors Obamacare essentially advocates euthanasia. Benefits will be drastically cut, and in some cases will become completely unavailable As Obama said publicly: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking a painkiller.” in other words, if you think you are going to die anyway, why don’t you just save us the money and go ahead…”

    “The left has relentlessly insisted for decades that we pay every penny for care of indigents, the poor, illegals and elderly to the point where hospitals are closing their doors because they can no longer afford it. But once given the opportunity to transfer this responsibility to the government, their message to the elderly and the rest of us, is essentially DROP DEAD!”

    “Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The left has never cared about the elderly of the poor, but ruthlessly uses them as part of its long-term strategy to overburden private healthcare, until it ultimately collapses. The same Leftists who so passionately demanded free healthcare for all, now want euthanasia for seniors and dramatically lower levels for the rest of us. It is a power grab, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it.”

    “The Dems won’t cut benefits to the poor just yet though, because they still need their votes. Later on they will need them as hired muscle. But once they secure unchallengeable power, do you think they’ll care? They have willfully worked to destroy every beneficial thing in our society. These are vicious, selfish, utterly corrupt parasites. they have spent a lifetime abandoned to a philosophy that makes excuses for everything and anything in the service of one ultimate goal: absolute power.”

    (James Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences (truthandcons. blogspot.com). This article was originally published by American Thinker).


  26. I love weed. Most Bajans who were around in the 60s love weed and the popularity of weed has grown. It has the same effect on us over-stressed people as a few rums, but it causes far less damage, lasts a far lesser time and does not produce side effects – like vomit. For some of us who suffer from arthritis and asthma and cancer, it is far more effective than the usual drugs – and it is soocially friendly too. After all, you cannot share your traditional medication with people at a party. The fact that it is illegal has not stopped a single person from using it – irrespective of age.

    So why not legalise it and get rid of drug runners and money launderers like that?

    But of course, since it is something that anyone can grow in their back gardens, it might be like trying to tax a person on their own kitchen garden pumpkins and beet and cabages – impossible to enforce. So why enforce it and why not legalise it?

    Simple answer. Governments worldwide want to step into the shoes of the drug cartels themselves and to, themselves, reap the billions and trillions of dollars profit on selling weed. After all, these governments don’t really make a great deal of money from us taxpayers who then have to pay tax on every other thing we own or buy.


  27. Oh, and weed makes it possible for us to relax and put into perspective the ramblings of people like Zoe and Dictionary. So it has a theraputic use as well. It allows everyone to cope with people who ought to be on a LOT of meds, but refuse to take them. If they will not take the ganga and chill, then clearly the rest of us have to cause they are going to do their best to make sure that we cannot chill. Now, could it be that they simply do not want us to chill at all, but to pay excvlusive attention to their pearls of wisdom, hence this objection to the wonderful weed that permits us to zone out? Once upon a time, there was a religious organisation that went through a period like that. The period of time was called the Inquisition and the organisation was….guess!!!! Monkey see, monkey do.


  28. Amused, lol.

    Humour, as you ahev just provided, also makes good medicine.

    Thanks for that first thing this morning.

    I wish to emphasise one of your points, that everyone should remember ‘put into perspective’.

    Three very important words.

    Merci.


  29. By the way, I wonder if anyone here has seen the Nation cartoon from yesterday…?

    I mean, Zoe would have a conniption…..

    That said, there is also a completely tasteless advert in yesterday, that should be pulled and apologised for.

    It is for ‘pure water’ and shows what is perceived to be the Titanic, with a caption ‘many a party has been ruined by bad ice’?

    Talk about tasteless, even if long ago, many thousands died on the ship.

    Maybe it was commenter ‘Negroman’ or ‘X-Man’ who wrote the caption, seeing their written hatred of a certain ‘hue’ (or more than one)?

    That said, with falling standards it should not be surprising that the ad got through management of both companies i.e. advert and water company, nation editors et al.


  30. Zoe (and onlookers not befuddled by de weed):

    Interesting indeed, though of course this is one man’s say; however credible such a man may be in his own technical right. And, however much one may tend to attribute more to the usual failure to see the unintended consequences of actions and policies — the march of folly — than to outright broadscale malicious conspiracy.

    (Of course, there are always radical profs, and sometimes their ideas take on a life of their own, especially when they catch the winds of the times. It was a commonplace management observation in Jamaica, decades ago that if you want to get changer first you need to create a crisis. That sounds uncomfortably like Alinskyite Marxian social engineering, and it is. But it was the conventional wisdom, without recognition of the potential consequences.)

    If you want my take, I think the political power backed enlightenment mentality has pushed for seemingly “reasonable” and “compassionate” — note the emotional appeals here — demands over the years that in aggregate are beyond the capacity of even the world’s largest single economy to sustain, multiplied by the polarising, thus judgement- warping debate over racism and tendency to brand objectors to jumps in social welfare as “racists,” etc. That holds for Social Welfare, it holds for the importation of medical care into social welfare, and it holds for the de facto takeover of 1/6 of the US economy. That remark often attributed to Tytler is key again:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. [Often attr. to a fairly obscure C18 Scottish writer, Tytler, but unverified]

    The USA is now plainly bankrupt as the explicit and implied debts across time cannot be met on the demographics and growth trends of the US economy, and the day of reckoning draws ever nearer. As for the “import new immigrants to grow the economy beyond trends” idea, the problem is that in a high tech age, mass immigration no longer pushes economic growth, only select immigration by the highly educated and entrepreneurial. Which, the US is already soaking up as much as it can.

    So, Mr Hartley Henry’s optimism in the OPabove notwithstanding, we need to prepare our region for some serious economic storms ahead within 10 – 20 years, faster than that if the ongoing ME crisis over nuclearisation of radical Islamist states — religiously motivated global conquest tyrannies per Q 9:5 and Q 9::29 –boils over. (I have already noted on how globalist ideologues might want to use such crises, and the possible connexions to end times teachings in the OT and NT. That is of no further detailed interest for me.)

    From my take, we in our region therefore now urgently need a new development paradigm, one that is less vulnerable to energy shocks, to tourism shocks, and to single point disaster events like quakes, tsunamis and hurricanes or volcanic eruptions. Surely the past few years have taught us this, if we were inclined to listen?

    For that my take looks to (a) some redeemed sustainability ideas and in that context (b) to some of Murcin Jakubowski’s open source industrial base, resilient community construction set ideas:

    1 –> We need to reckon with the long term and the complex interactions across the bio-physical, economic and socio-cultural, presenting us with a development problematique.

    2 –> So, we have to move beyond blinkered, march of folly thinking and soberly assess our real situations.

    3 –> Within that, we need to reckon with our major vulnerabilities to economic shocks and to natural disasters, noting that our region has now lost two capital cities in 13 years; with poor assessment and management of the portfolio of potential disasters making a major contribution to the vulnerabilities so harshly revealed by events.

    [ . . . ]


  31. 4 –> We need to move to credibly sustainable alternatives based on genuine stakeholder participation and a sober assessment of the range of informed scientific opinion.

    5 –> For instance on the much trumpeted climate change issue, we should realise that we need to start from history not speculative and now questionable computer models in the aftermath of Climategate revelations. If we start with the hurricanes of the 20’s – 30’s and with cases like Hugo and Gilbert, we see the scope of damage that can his us over the course of a day in almost any given year. Whether hurricane trends are linear or cyclical, natural or human driven, that is an undeniable reality. So our policies and actions must reckon with Cat 3 – 5 hurricanes.

    6 –> Likewise, where applicable, with Mag 7+ quakes. Therefore we need to institute and enforce building codes and affordable technologies that build in quake and hurricane resistance without bankrupting our societies. (That means we need to move beyond the 1950’s techniques that dominate our construction industry; as I have pointed out in many recent threads and in the second link above: bamboo, bahareque, foamed concrete mouldings [cf Moladi], autoclaved aerated concrete, tilt up panel construction etc should be practically explored with an open mind..)

    7 –> Industrially, we first need to break the Microsoft monopoly, especially now that open source software (from Linux Operatign System to Open Office productivity software to Open Proj to Inkscape to GIMPshop to GNUCash to Moodle to Wiki and Blog technologies to Scribus desktop publishing, and on and on . .. ) is an increasingly credible alternative. For that we need to pilot transition to the OS paradigm, and our IT and Computer Science depts need to break out of the Microsoft mentality too.

    8 –> Once Open Source software is working, we can then develop the insight that we can develop and economy based on a publicly and/or charitably funded open source commons, that commercial developments make money off by adding value added modules. (Cf here Sun’s OO and Star Office and the way Linux and Java are being embedded into ever so many projects, e.g. likely the cell phone you have next to your PC..)

    9 –> We can then leverage Jakubowski’s open source industrial technologies ideas, using digital technologies to transform the architecture of industry. So, we can use Disater Offices to work with engineering and physics depts to pioneer new building, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, tractor, car, biofuel, fuel cell, hydrogen, alcohol etc technologies, then made available to all as open source technologies. (For instance, on biofuels, I advocate looking not only at biodiesels and methanol/ethanol alcohol fuels but a serious look at butanol, which looks like a pretty good direct substitute for gasoline.)

    10 –> Then — as the Schools of Hope, Haiti proposal I earlier developed points out — we need to transform education, moving from the bright/dunce model to the lifespan learning empowerment model with digital technologies as learning enablers. (Mr Henry, why not take a look? David, could you pass him a copy?)

    11 –> We need to think about a new generation of regional trading vessels including a C21 schooner design, in collaboration with the Caribbean Maritime Institute, towards a regional merchant marine. And so on.

    Time to break out of the box!

    A happy holy Easter season to all

    Dictionary

    PS: Amused: sadly, you seem to be modelling/influenced by the exact sort of weed befuddled, in denial of destructive impacts mentality I saw on the Mona Campus of UWI 30+ years ago. Have a read of Jn 8:31 – 47 or so — very appropriate Good Friday reading — and reflect on how locking oneself into a false mindset can benumb conscience and deafen one to the truth, to the point where as Jesus warned his ex disciples: BECAUSE he told them the — plainly unwelcome — truth, they were unable to hear what he had to say. [if you think an error or a lie is the truth, you will often ignore corrective information and deny obviously contrary reality, to the point where everything crashes and burns; as happened in 66 – 70 AD for the Judaeans. The march of folly and its end, in a nutshell.)


  32. Dictionary,

    I certainly agree with your points on the economic scenario, indeed have also been suggesting the changing sustainable approach for some time.

    Unfortunately, it will take a rather blunt shock to make people realise that world balance (if it can be called such) will not survive much longer and act as such.

    As a very simple example, bajans are still importing a whole load of useless junk.


  33. Amused April 2, 2010 @ 4:00pm
    “I love weed. Most Bajans who were around in the 60s love weed and the popularity of weed has grown”.
    ***********************
    As one of those from the 60s, may I “respectfully” inform you that neither myself or my friends smoked weed in Barbados.

    With regard to its popularity among certain groups and the reasons that underscore its use, that is a “moot” point. However, to advance the view that people can only relax – or as you wrote chill – and have an enjoyable time through the use of an illegal substance like marijuana; is not borne out by the evidence of many happy, homogeneous, productive, and fully functional societies…who may I add readily enjoy themselves.

    Finally, your effort to advocate the use of an illegal substance – marijuana – is one thing but to suggest the contrary opinion is “only” held by those who advocate Christianity on this blog is not the case. My position is not based on any christian edict or values but on what I believe is in the best interest of the wider Barbadian society.


  34. Crusoe and Yardbroom:

    Thanks for the thoughts, and moreso for the generally positive tone.

    C, I suspect you are likely to be right that only harsh reality will wake us up.

    Sadly.

    Just y’day I was working out implications of the mortgage terms on “low cost” post disaster corrective housing — round 1 built temporary houses that promptly began to fall apart — and saw that the land you had to encumber to join the scheme was then in effect potentially forfeit on a payback that easily will extend past the length of a typical career. And meet your new landlord: the friendly local town planning agency!

    But, how many will see through the glittering promises of help to the devils in the financial details?

    Similarly, how many of us in our region are thinking about 10 – 20 years down the road, and beyond?

    We NEED to move to a resilient model, but we are addicted to the failing mass consumption, mass production and stick built systems of the dying past.

    Y, I do note that the objections I have to Ganja, distilled beverages and tobacco stem not from so much specific Christian authoritarian edicts but from generally held and hard to challenge moral principles that — though grounded in the Judaeo-Christian frame — are far wider, via, e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (which if you see the link on SD, I derive the sustainability principle from). I think you are imposing a strawman here, cf for instance C S Lewis’ argument on the roots and generality of morality in His Mere Christianity etc.

    Basic morality is obvious, and pretty nigh universal, but we like to make self-serving exceptions and use twisted rhetoric to feel good or persuade others about that. Kant uses the destructive impacts of that to warrant the universality of key moral norms. In short, these things end up in absurdities.

    (And BTW, Rom 2:14 – 15 discusses exactly that pattern of the intuitive reasonableness of core morality as expressed in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. As CS Lewis said,t hat makes sense as the point is not that one is injecting a novelty and demanding compliance, but one is calling us back to common sense and facing the truth about our misbehaviour, then laying on the table the good news of forgiveness and transformation through Jesus.)

    We need to do a serious re-think and act before we pay a terrible price.

    I hope that we are listening to the 230,000 ghosts of Haiti.

    G’day

    D


  35. There is little doubt in the minds of the BU household California will legalize marijuana. The lure of 1.4 billion dollars in taxes and other cost savings to be had by eliminating court prosecutions will drive the decision. It will not be a moral driven decision but one based purely on economics. To compound the issue for the USA is their suffocating debt.

    A natural flow from the decision to legalize is that the Caribbean will follow because other US states will follow. How can we arrest people travelling in from the USA?


  36. The use of medical marijuana is becoming acceptable in Canada and the USA, recently a judge in Nova Scotia ruled that the Provincial Gov’t must pay for the marijuana used by a woman who is on social assistance.

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9015883.html


  37. I guess Hartley is a ‘Yes We Can ‘ man.


  38. C’mon man you really need to wake up..check out the stories on these sites and decide for yourself.

    http://www.sott.net/

    http://www.infowars.com/


  39. @ David
    “There is little doubt in the minds of the BU household California
    will legalize marijuana.”
    **************************************************************************

    Man David, what legalize what marijuana what??!!

    …what you really mean is that they will finally end the nonsense of trying to enforce a stupid, counterproductive, unenforceable ‘law’ that has always been idiotic.

    The funny thing is that they are only doing it now because they are now too broke to continue to put valuable resources behind this idiocy….. this is also why other states will follow….

    You would think that after the experience of prohibition, and the “Al Capone” society that resulted, people would learn that it is not the state’s role to protect its citizens from themselves ‘vi et armis’, ….but by education, community spirit, and social development.

    Force, (or force of law,) should be used to protect citizens from others – not from themselves.

    All that these laws have managed to do, is to create an ideal environment for drug lords to prosper; to create criminals out of victims; to manufacture petty criminals, and cost endless billions of tax dollars…… with ZERO benefits to law abiding citizens.

    It would have been far better to have tolerated a few pot heads…… look how intelligent ‘amused’ turned out to be…… and how, despite his likely avoidance of the ‘tampie’, Dick is still……well….Dick…!


  40. Yardbroom and others

    If you take out the word “illegal” and replace it with “chemical” (which will include alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, narcotic substances, etc) I believe it will be near impossible to find a society and a period in history that chemical substances of varying psychotropic (not for nutrition) effect were not extensively used during periods of relaxation and celebration and even religious ceremonial occasions. Certainly we see recorded in Bible no less a Person than Jesus using his Power to produce wine (of superior quality) from water on the occasion of a wedding. So while I never saw marijuana being consumed during the sixties, it was commonplace to see more than a few severely drunk men on the streets particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings.

    I will thus “advance the view that a majority of persons can only relax – or “chill” – and have an enjoyable time through the use of a chemical substance like coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, coca, marijuana, cocaine, heroin or other drugs; and this is borne out by the clear evidence of the pervasive use of these substances in all fully functional societies throughout all of human history”.


  41. Looks like the Bushman indulged in the tampie?

  42. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    LOL David… wonder what kinda bush he using to make his tea.


  43. Anonymous said ‘I will thus “advance the view that a majority of persons can only relax – or “chill” – and have an enjoyable time through the use of a chemical substance like coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, coca, marijuana, cocaine, heroin or other drugs; and this is borne out by the clear evidence of the pervasive use of these substances in all fully functional societies throughout all of human history”

    Lol!! I will pose the possibility, based on the above comeback, that ‘Anonymous’ is a lawyer!


  44. You know, the one concrete thing that is assured for the future, is that despite increased technology and experience from the past, socio-economic analysis and practice is getting and will continue to get more complex, instead of easier.

    My opinion as to cause?

    Man’s inhumanity to man, greed, sheer wuflessness!


  45. May I humbly suggest, that the following appointments be made:

    – Dictionary – consultant to the Planning Department, with special consideration for major developments and direct reporting to the Minister. I think his attention to detail and his genuine interest in long-term development will provide a source of genuine strength and also serve to prevent inappropriate use of resources and implementation.

    – BushTea – special advisor to the Minister of Social Transformation – a genuine, seemningly much experienced individual with a wider view of things

    – Amused special advisor to the Minister of State, PM’s office – as per Bush Tea, but with a more general scope

    – Halsall and ROK – Advisors the FTC and direct reporting to the Minister responsible

    – David – special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs – a global view from a Barbadian perspective.

    – Georgie Porgie – consultant directly reporting to the Minister of Health -to give a matter of fact medical approach to the Health Service

    How about it?


  46. @ Crusoe…

    Love that team…..but where Zoe?


  47. @ Crusoe
    …you think bushman is Hammie….?
    The bushman was hoping for a bigger pick……. but I would take the half a loaf….

    @ David and MME
    Never touched or used the stuff (except unintentionally, when passing near south block LOL). ….never even used tobacco or the legal stuff. ….Purely legal bush in my tea, MME

    Mine is a position of principle… remember the bushman is also against our seat belt law – a lot of foolishness!!…. big able policemen peeping in my car to see if the bushman is taking steps to protect himself….

    …a seat belt law should require that all cars be fitted with a proper seat belt and that children must be belted – PERIOD!

    A marijuana law should require that all packages be labeled to specify their contents and carry a warning of possible consequences (like all other food / drug products including cigarettes)


  48. Hi, Anonymous April 2, 2010 @ 11:19 am

    ” So while I never saw marijuana being consumed during the sixties, it was commonplace to see more than a few severely drunk men on the streets particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings.”
    **************************************

    You are quite right, I could not dispute the above as it is a statement of fact.

    I only responded to the general observation of Amused, because I did not want the youth of today to believe that most oldies were as high as kites in the 60s…it being Easter and all. Therefore we -some oldies – are hypocrites to complain of illegal usage today.

    I used the word “illegal” with reference to marijuana on purpose.

    When men/women first walked the earth apart from food, they sought out special herbs, roots, leaves etc to give them a high of sorts. Even in today’s ordered societies a “few” still seek the same. You may deduce that I separate frowned upon from illegal.

    There is a belief held by some that in the legalization of marijuana, all our problems will be solved…I fear not. Brevity does not allow elaboration.

    With regard to prohibition in America 1920-33 the issue there was that alcohol was legal before prohibition. Therefore some felt what was legal yesterday has suddenly become illegal today and there was not only need, but a feeling of deep resentment…a different situation to what appertains with marijuana.


  49. Further to my post of March 29, legalisation of marijuana will boil down to a question of economics. With nearly a million arrests for marijuana related offences in the USA last year, even if those charged with simple possession are not jailed, there is still a tremendous amount of manpower and resources that is needed from the arresting officers to the court officers etc. The states save money on prosecutions and recoup funds on collection of taxes for the sale of the drug, some politicians will say it is a “win-win”.

    In 2007 there were 1,841 million drug arrests in the USA of which 47% (872,000) were for marijuana possession. There are many prosecutors who delight in sending people to jail for simple drug possession ( A 54 year old man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years in jail for 4 ounces of pot). Admittedly he seemed to be trafficking but I am not sure what that the sentence proves but the state and taxpayers will have to foot the bill for keeping him in jail for the rest of his life, however lawyers and judges have to earn their keep.

    We know that the last three US Presidents tried marijuana (even if one didn’t inhale Lol). I am not advocating the use of marijuana as I believe the studies which indicate that prolonged use is harmful to individuals, but so does excessive consumption of alcohol, sugar etc.

    Apart from marijuana, man has always sought a stimulant of some kind whether it was the ancient civilisations with wine and other alcoholic beverages or the newer ones with stimulants like Betel nut and khat.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading