Climate Change Conference - 2 Degrees of Exhasperation

'A non-binding agreement' that certain nations 'agree' that global warming should be kept to 2 degrees at the most in the coming years. Or something like that. All that money, carbon-emission and time for that?

This 'agreement' is akin to concluding that the sky should be a deeper shade of blue or it would be delightful, and even aesthetically pleasing, if the ocean had a greener tinge. With all the controversy surrounding the cause, and even the existence of global warming, how do the consenting nations propose to control climate change when there is no consensus on the cause and no practical steps to the stated end?

Apart from that, however, the 'agreement' itself is not even an agreement. It seems to be a mutual conclusion/observation that the world would be a nicer place if 2 degrees cooler. Now I understand why there are such vehement protests at these events - the event itself a massive waste of resources.

Obama, while a charismatic figure, is not bigger than the status quo, and if he tried to be he would undoubtedly go the way of all who truly opposed the status quo (no need to elaborate on the Ghandis, MLK or Sadat). His announcement of the 'meaningful' advances took him down a notch though, mainly because of the abject meaninglessness of that empty consensus. The descriptor 'meaningful' suggests a wilful denial of the obvious, disguised as diplomacy on Obama's part. Granted, he qualified his determination with the assertion that, 'we have much further to go' but when you haven't gone anywhere can't you can't 'go further'. Rather, you must go somewhere.

In the end it's been proven yet again that talking vigorously at a problem solves nothing. But it seems that the World is all about proving that as much as it can, as often as it can.

What Does 'The Right' Relationship Look Like?

There's something sensible about the phases of courtship that exist in various cultures. Whether the marriage is arranged or progresses according to some understood societal norm, it is a good thing when both parties know where they stand and there are clear rules of progression and engagement in the relationship. This doesn't mean that the rules are always fair, but at least they are clear. Western society has done away with many rules turning relationships on their head and they often look something like this:

Sex-dating-friendship-love-marriage-kids-who the hell are you?!-divorce-alimony

Sometimes the order changes and some things are excluded. In general some things occur simultaneously. In other societies courtship looks like this:

Betrothal-marriage-sex-kids-dating-friendship-love (maybe)-divorce-bankruptcy (for the woman, a new wife for the man then bankruptcy)

Neither is a particularly attractive option and surely no one really plans things with bankruptcy in mind. But since we live in a 'Westernised' world we will proceed with the according understanding. A relationship that has no true beginning save for sex is built on insecurity. Are you 'dating', just sexual partners, a fling - what are you? This confusion is often what makes the 'dating' world the jungle that it is and is a good foundation for a shaky relationship.

The Biblical proposition that we order our relationships something like the following makes sense somehow:

Friendship-dating-love-marriage/commitment-sex-kids-death

Yes, idyllic, but it's something to shoot for isn't it? That's why we have ideals. Complications later in a relationship often arise because of mis-ordering earlier in a relationship - not that mis-ordering cannot be remedied or overcome. But one of the advantages of abstinence, for example, is the absence of the temptation to compare past sexual experiences with your present partner. That can be a real downer.

Now one can say experience is a wise teacher. But experience can also be a stubborn master, carving out habits and tendencies in an individual that make it that much more difficult to form subsequent relationships successfully. Mind you, very few ever 'get it right' the first time out. But deciding what form your 'first times' will take might have a real impact on the really big 'first times' that have even deeper impacts on life and love*.

Of course, everything is easier said than done, and there are a few variables that we often have no control over that potentially change our lives and selves in ways we perhaps wish they didn't. That said, we do the best we can with what we have, and one person's 'best' may differ greatly from another's.

Keep in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you get something from this...then clearly I'm a genius.

What Love Isn't

Falling in love is fun, scary, exhilarating and an event that rarely strikes twice.  It is often mistaken for physiological reactions and chemical processes. Most often it is mistaken for...

1. Sex. Love isn't sex, though love should result in sexual contact. Sex doesn't 'make love' though we call it 'making love' (it can make babies though!). Sex is definitely an intimacy that is often thought to be without its own impact and many try to have it without attachment - then somebody gets hurt. Love is not self-centred pleasure.

2. Romance. 'Tonight will last forever', you hear that line in a lot of songs and it sounds nice. But the night will  always last about 12 hours give or take a few, depending on season and latitude (things get dicey in the places where night is 6 months - that kinda romance could be a health hazard). People get easily carried away with sweet talk, roses, chocolate and a pretty face - anyone can buy those (they're called players). But they are a fairly convincing artifice if one is willing to be fooled.

3. Indulgence. No it's not 'anything he/she wants'...well it is as long as 'what he she/needs is already fulfilled, and even then. Two do become one, but they are still two and losing oneself in a relationship is not a good idea. Why? Cause then where's the person your partner fell in love with?

4. All the right things. Some folks surmise that since they 'tick the boxes': ambitious, attractive, petite, tall, knows 5 languages...whatever, then they should officially be in love with X. We all know that it just doesn't work that way. Now that doesn't mean, 'his little homicidal manic  problem' should be overlooked, but you get the idea. Some people are wrong for us cause we are wrong for them. They become what we hate because we're their partner. Ha! Put them with someone else and voila! Decent human being.  Still, sometimes what rubs us the wrong way can help us to help us react in the right way.

5. Needing each other. Falling in love? Involuntary. Loving, a totally elective surgery. Need implies dependency and dependency implies absence of choice and freedom. More like blackmail than love. Though the idea of needing does come in to play when one realizes that life wouldn't be as lifey without that certain person, the need comes into play after the free choice of mutual commitment.

'To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others'. That saying is why there are some things that just don't qualify as love. Because they can be shared with any stranger or weirdo. Love is the kinda thing that wants only one object and to be the only object. Now that only qualifies for the 'love relationship' love, but the universal phileo, brotherhood love - well that's another kind of kind.

How Do You Know When It's Love?

We all have asked this question. We ask because we want guarantees. We ask because we don't want heartbreak. But if it is love...

1. You won't be scared...eventually.Yes when it's serious it can be scary. The deeper you are the harder you land. The potential for pain and disappointment increase proportionately with how bad you got it. But, when you're in love you get over that because love is willing to take the risk. And once it's willing, it's no longer afraid.

2.There is no future...there is a future. When it's real you simply can't imagine life without that person. Now, wanting what's best for them means being willing to let go - but that doesn't mean you're gonna be happy about it. Don't get this mixed up with wanting to keep them tied up your basement - that's something else entirely. Still, if you're happy being bored with them - that's a good sign.

3.They are home. No they won't always be home, but you always.feel at home with them. No need to impress, no anxiety and silence is ok. It's the kind of comfort that doesn't need roses to feel romantic. You like who you are with them.

4.You don't need a reason. There's no need to check the list of 'things you want' off because intuitively they are there. While romance is all nice, real life without the fancy decor is good enough to enjoy them. At the same time you don't need a special occasion to splash on some bells & whistles.

5.The more you know them, the more you like. That's a good sign that you like what's beneath the skin, not just the skin.

I knew this guy who once said, 'you can fall in love with anybody' I now know that was a steaming pile of verbal manure. You can't fall in love with anybody. You hardly have a choice who you fall for, though you do have a choice about what happens after. But that's not what these thoughts are about, that's part II.

The Thing About Racism...Part 2: The UK Brand

Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called How Racist Are You? where a 40 year old exercise devised by former US school teacher Jane Elliot, subjects a group of volunteers to discrimination on the basis of eye colour. She first conducted the experiment in the 1960's with a her all white class of 9 year olds. She told her pupils that for a day, blue-eyed children were inferior to brown-eyed children. The impact was disturbing and led to verbal and physical abuse of the blue-eyed group and even lower academic performance in the 'inferior' group, amongst other things. She does the same with adults from diverse racial backgrounds, but obviously only whites are blue eyed. However, the brown eyed groups do include white and non-whites.

Elliot has conducted the exercise all over the world and Channel 4 documented her UK incursion. Taking my own experiences as well as what came out of the programme, I have noted some peculiarities of the British attitude to racial prejudice. Below I have noted these arguments and my rebuttals.

Racism is merely a subset of prejudice - Some subjects argued that racial prejudice against non-whites is like any other prejudice (i.e. weight, age, class) . Blacks are not unique and should not attempt to make their situation more severe than it really is. 

The problem with this argument is it completely ignores historical facts altogether. When one considers the 4 century slave trade, Apartheid and the Holocaust, it becomes difficult for weight discrimination to compare. At no time in history were the obese rounded up, systematically dehumanized (in their own eyes and in the eyes of their captors), routinely raped, killed and tortured, separated from family or forced to work without pay. The elderly have yet to be demonized through any country's education system then herded into concentration camps, poisoned then burned. The duration, savagery and the systemic state sponsored effort behind slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust are unprecedented to say the least, and one would have to take great pains to remain ignorant of history in order to maintain the view that racial prejudice is not unique. It naturally follows that centuries of indoctrination and conditioning on either side of racism, as well as the kind of social and economic divide that resulted still affects us today. To say the least the white dominance that resulted from Colonisation and slavery has given them a slight headstart. The fact that media, amongst other things, has been dominated primarily by white imagery undoubtedly has had a real impact on self-perception and accomplishment amongst non-whites. Further, the intentional withholding of resources and opportunities from non-whites was a reality in the West up until recently (though it was only weeks ago a white judge refused to marry an interracial couple).

I am not prejudiced so there is no problem with racism in the UK - Subjects determined that their 'colourblindness' meant that racism is not a problem. They were outraged at the thought that they should experience discrimination when they do not discriminate. 

Using oneself as the touchstone for race relations is not only naive and simplistic but arrogant as well. It presumes that the overarching status quo and systemic influence of policies and culture have no effect or significance. It also presumes that the individual's position can magically change history and social realities. Ironically, the blue-eyed participants refused to be subject to the discrimination meted out by the exercise but couldn't seem to make the connection to what other persons might feel or experience. There seemed to be a willful ignorance that refused to see the issue from another perspective purely on the basis that they themselves simply didn't believe they deserved to be treated with such disrespect. This view is exceptionally self-centred.

Racism doesn't exist - Some subjects flatly denied that there was any racial discrimination in the UK at all. It simply didn't exist and names like 'gollywog' are just names and carry no inherent offence. They asserted that there was nothing to be offended about - nothing to discuss.

This point betrayed the greatest deficit regarding UK race relations: knowledge. Ironically, it was universally agreed that ignorance was the primary cause of racism, but it was never determined what had to be known in order to alleviate this ignorance. Sadly, colonisation and slavery are not taught in British schools and this leaves much of the white population ill equipped to deal with this sensitive issue. Generations of under education on Britain's role in the world regarding the establishment of Apartheid, the slave trade and the developing world as we know it, has left some feeling exceptionally defensive about the nation's brutal history.

That said the preceding ideas have defined the kind of racism common in Britain. It does not seek to reconcile, because it does not seek to understand. Because it does not seek to understand it does not go away. However, this does not mean that there aren't a great many white Briton's who are colourblind and completely at ease with racial diversity. This does not mean that racial discrimination isn't multi-directional. But it certainly does emphasise that no matter the direction, racial discrimination is truly hurtful nonsense.

Wives of the BNP Video

The Thing About Racism...

BBC's Panorama broadcast an undercover expose on racism within the Bristol inner city housing estate of Southmeade recently. It was frightening to say the least. A pair of BBC reporters posing as a married couple spent 8 weeks on the estate and in that time experienced 50 racial assaults of various kinds.

They were stoned, called names, the man was punched once and an 11 year old threatened to rob and kill the woman. These were just a few incidents.

But I wonder about the effectiveness of these exposes. Such things, as the female reporter noted, conjure feelings of isolation, fear, suspicion and anger from both sides of the issue. Mind you, the declaration by Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) head, Trevor Phillips, that all was well in race relations in England, has the potential to water down a serious problem.  It certainly wasn't a cathartic investigation though perhaps necessary.  One must wonder what is next, as to leave the viewer stewing either in his anger at the prejudice or justification thereof simply won't do.

If there is one major problem regarding this issue in the UK it's that it can only be discussed in certain fora. Like the Panorama programme or in the media through official channels like the EHRC. But it seems that open discussion between non-white and white groups in more informal settings is a no-no. We see advocates of equality like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and of course, Martin Luther King as part of US culture and history, but no such figures exist in British culture - save in the former colonies. Again, public agitation for equal rights amongst non-white ethnic groups seems to be frowned upon. One can only go through the sanctioned, official channels.  There is a distinct discomfort with a broad-based discussion of the issue, even though there are certainly moments when acute and stark points are made. These points seem only to be momentary.

The thing about racism is that it is, and must be, completely oblivious to itself. A racist will never refer to himself as such. The BNP's (British National Party) policy on refusing membership to non-whites is currently being challenged, and defended, and the position of the party seems to be easily rationalized. But like the US Louisiana Judge who refused to marry an interracial couple (because mixed race children would suffer - ironically at the hands of folks like himself, in my opinion), racist reasoning, or lack thereof,  makes perfect sense to itself.

But for every racist that exists, a discussion has occurred to bolster their position. A discussion that has gone unchallenged by any other reasoning because it only occurs amongst the proponents thereof. One woman reasoned (in a programme called Wives of the BNP) that because her father died in Jamaica (a heart attack) and his body was robbed of its belongings, that all immigrants are undesirable. An undoubtedly painful experience that led to a proportionally unreasonable conclusion.

There may be wisdom in the cautious, controlled approach, however. Since the Brixton riots in 1981, the British Government has been keen to avoid a repeat of anything similar. That would entail not just subduing the violence, but the confrontational environment that can lead to the same. Some practical elements are sacrificed along with the impractical. Not a perfect compromise but prudent in some sense.

The drawback is of course the simmering frustration that can build up due to unexpressed concerns and under-acknowledged prejudice, and the circle starts again. Fear and prejudice begets fear and prejudice. Who is at fault is not as important as who will help solve the issue; that being all of us. Seeking out the views of the 'unprejudiced' is difficult as hardly anyone considers themselves thus. But those willing to dialogue are perhaps the ones from whom we hear the least. Certainly, just as the racist view is based on generic, broadly drawn stereotypes and flawed reason - we could walk away thinking that this flawed reason is that of the average white Briton, but that too would be a harbinger of prejudice.

Cool British Words & Phrases You Can Use (or not)

Stuff I 've heard and picked up. Give up a try if you like.

Bit: part, piece. Being who he was Cheney thought the best bit of the movie was where the puppies got eaten by the troll.

Bits & Bobs: Odds & ends, bits & pieces.  Searching high and low for WMD's all that could be found were innocuous bits and bobs.


Chuffed (to bits): Happy, delighted, pleased. Not entirely sure if 'he could' Obama was chuffed to bits to have won the Presidential election.

Doddle: Easy, a snap. With practically the entire Western media at their command invading Iraq was a doddle for the Bush Admin.


Dosh: Money. I don't have any dosh. Seriously, I don't. Other terms for Money: wonga, readies, spondulicks

Faff: Mess around, goof, play about. Considering himself all powerful, Cheney loved to faff about with human life. Faffing around with peoples money, Madoff found himself in the Big House.


Gob: Mouth. Obama wanted nothing more than for Biden to shut his gob.


Gobsmacked: Speechless. Gobsmacked at Kanye's tirade, Taylor simply stood by and watched.


Gutted: Hurt, disappointed, rueful. Offering repeated and bumbling apologies, Kanye was gutted upon considering his actions at the MTV awards ceremony.


Innit: Isn't it. 'Dat new song is really swish innit?', said Daz.


Jeremy Kyle: Jerry Springer. Jeremy Kyle often does lie detector and paternity tests on his show, but has more gravitas and credibility  than the his US counterpart Jerry Springer.


Kit: Clothing, shirt, equipment. Celebrating his goal against Chelsea Rooney pulled his kit over his head.


Manky: Filthy, rancid, stinking. Taking baths irregularly and seldom using deodorant some folks in this part of the world are rather manky.


Minging: Ugly, homely. If the US comedy Ugly Betty were British it would be called Minging Elizabeth. Prince Charles' second wife is a minger.


Put (My) Hands Up: Accept responsibility. Backed into a corner Letterman put his hands up and admitted his indiscretions. 


Snog: Passionately kiss. He wondered how he would bring himself to snog Miss Bowles. Snogging is repeatedly mentioned in the Harry Potter series.


Swish: Cool, trendy. Having fleeced millions from innocent investors Stanford bought a rather swish sports car.


Uber (Oober): Very, ultra, extreme.  Donning his shades and leather jacket, Bill Gates went from being uber geeky to uber cool. Not!


Wodge: A sizeable chunk/slab/portion of something like cake or money. He relished the huge wodge of cash afforded to all banking CEO's. 

Anti-America and Uncle Sam

Have you ever been called anti-American? I have. I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it had something to do with my perspective on the Iran uranium enrichment debacle.

My view is that the most outstanding feature of the conflict is the hypocrisy of the West. It seems they want to be the only ones who possess and use nuclear weapons or should decide who can possess them. It seems fine for Israel to have these WMD's and to be slowly but consistently eating away at Palestinian territory.

But the idea that disagreeing with aspects of American foreign policy (or perhaps US banking oversight - emphasis on oversight) makes one anti-American is arrogant at best, fascist at worst (there I go again). The Bush/Cheney Admin made it easy to be 'anti-American'. I found it bemusing that they compared Al Quaida to the Nazis. A rag tag loosely associated group of religious radicals? The Nazi's were a well established, organized and centralized body with the suits and propaganda to match, set on targeting a specific group of people based on their religious belief. They took these people and corralled them into secret detention camps. You could say the Nazi's renditioned them off to these extraordinary camps. Sound familiar?

You know what I found strange? The reaction to the Dixie Chicks opposition to the Iraq War. Remember that? Folks trashed the Chicks CD's because one of their number expressed disdain of W. But by far the most in-your-face attack on the war, as far as music celebrities go was Green Day's American Idiot album (Eminem did say 'F**k Bush' in his pre-election Mosh). It was called 'American Idiot' - can you be more anti-American? I love that album. I love Green Day. Chant down Babylon boys. But they only got album sales (12 million worldwide I understand). Hmmm. Maybe the Dixie Chicks protests were all attended by paid protestors like the 'death-panel-healthcare-screaming-people-protestors'?

Anyway, I was suspect of Obama's UN speech on stemming nuclear proliferation and decreasing warhead numbers when it was quickly followed up by the Iran enrichment revelation. Mind you, I'm for nuclear disarmament, but we've forgotten about that now and it seemed to be a nice segue into 'let's get rid of the arms by dropping them on Iran' implication. Going too far? I agree.

The best approach would be to 'take the nuclear missile out of your own eye so you can see clearly enough to take the nuclear missile out of your sworn enemy's eye'. It's Scriptural.

The fear/war mongers who think that bombing people somehow 'protects' America, need to seriously rethink their...thinking. Making America intolerably savage and violent so that many begin to fear and hate them and then want to bomb the country - now that is anti-American.

Why We Need Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad

We don't agree with all their ideas but they say what no one else says to those whom no one is willing to say it to. Indeed, they may say some things purely for the shock factor - but it gets people talking.

Take the encroachment of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Even the official US position is in accord with Iran's view. Holocaust denial? Extreme and perhaps vindictive as is the assertion that, 'Israel has no future'. But one can't escape the fact that Israel's stranglehold on Palestine is unjust as is its disproportionate response to Lebanese attacks. Let's face it, not many speak up for Palestine. And for all intents and purposes Israel seems to be wiping Palestine from the face of the Earth.

Gaddafi's tirade might have been rambling, but his criticism of the UN was justified. It's a toothless organization that often stands by and allows carnage (Rwanda?). CNN reported the following as part of Gaddafi's 'musings,

 He called for reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, including expanding it with more member states. He called for abolishing the veto power of the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- which he said used the veto to serve their own interests and treated smaller nations like "second class, despised nations."

Sounds like a reasonable demand to me and a believable interpretation of smaller states dilemma. Still, no one wants Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, indeed, no country should have such weaponry. But the hypocrisy of the West is highlighted through this issue. The US continues to be the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons...twice. Over 300,000 people were killed when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed and many have lived with illness related to the bombing to this day. But the subtle implication is that some countries have a right to nuclear arms and some don't. We need not mention 'pre-emptive strikes'.

The extremism of Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad is decidedly unattractive and undesirable, but doesn't negate the legitimate issues they raise. The West often plays the 'Hero in White' defending the world against the maniacal and pointlessly 'Dr. Evil', but Michael Moore's many documentaries and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine would suggest otherwise.

Bush's post 9/11 'they hate our freedom' claim was rhetoric so extreme one would think the US was the nation state version of Snow White.  But Dick Cheney as Grumpy dwarf advocating torture sullies that complexion. What makes US torture ' better' than torture conducted by any other nation? Nothing obviously. But a recent article questioning the efficacy of torture (excuse me, 'enhanced interrogation') was, perhaps unintentionally, tacit support for its moral acceptability...at least for the US. To say the least, Bush rhetoric and action was at least equal in extremity to Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad's.

The difference between the actions and rhetoric of Middle Eastern and Western nations is often down to the packaging. Don't get me wrong, there is obvious freedom and better practised democracy in the West which is good for the citizens therein, but not for those whom are exploited by Western economic and military might. Hence the Morales' and Chavez's of the world have an easy      target and become easy targets.

No doubt Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad are troublemakers at large. But they aren't the only ones, they just suck at PR and need a better wardrobe department.

The Plot Thickens: Blam Blam Johnson, He'll Shoot You With His Weaponry

Hortical Johnson or 'Blam Blam', as he is known to himself and 3 others, is a man of action who plays by his own rules while wearing a black leather jacket.

Constantly on the prowl for intricate criminal conspiracies that involve shooting, he stumbles upon a conspiracy that involves a sexy seductress that can't be trusted, millions of dollars in contraband and armed white men in black suits inexplicably devoted to their criminal overlord, Gentry Topanaaris.

But Blam Blam's highly evolved action skills may prove too much for the thugs who outnumber him 500:1. Equipped with the ability to use a motel balcony for cover, he manipulates thugs into shooting the 1/4" rail supports rather than him. Indeed, his muscular green thumb allows him to use potted plants for cover against AK47 fire. A green thumb of gunnery proportions.

Topanaaris may have bitten off more than he can bite. But gains the edge over justice with his hatred for pre-teens. Blam Blam is thrown into self-doubt when he finds himself incapable of delivering snappy one-liners in response to the cold and long-winded threats of Topanaaris who is holding a pre-school hostage.

Surviving explosions, massive car wrecks and slaughtering dozens of innocent bystanders in the ensuing carnage, our hero must survive the nasty scratch he got on his forehead. Only time will tell if the Neosporin's effect will prevent a mild infection.

Blam Blam! The onomatopoeia of Justice!

The Plot Thickens: Margin for Terror

Manley De La Vega, a land surveyor with a distinct cleft chin and attitude to match, is contracted to map out a mysterious plot of land in a small village of inbred idiots, somewhere in hinterland of North America.

All seemed well in the small town of Stankonya. Initially the scattered slabs of rotting flesh puzzled De La vega, but he wrote it off as 'expected of inbred idiot villages'. What really sent our hero into a world of confusion and stomach-upset was the fact that no woman in the village was attractive enough and of the same race as he, to be an appropriate love interest.

Our Hero's killer instinct really kicked in when he noticed 3 teenaged white American middle class couples making out in dark, dank and creepy locations in the town. Something was going to happen. But what?

Furious at the dearth of  racial minority characters to die 25 minutes into this cavalcade of bloodletting, Manley slashes his way through Zombies that inexplicably rise out of the earth once every Memorial Day Weekend - on the very day of his arrival. Well, the day after his arrival.

Fortunately, De La Vega had a horrible experience with a pet gerbil as a child. The experience with dead furry things equipped him to kill the undead, somehow.

But will he save the village of idiots -  indeed should he? What secret does the town keep? Will he finish surveying the plot of land in time to submit his tax returns? What ever happens, Manley De La Vega must navigate this horrific nightmare of exacting standards, because his occupation suggests he has no Margin for Terror.

Carib Cinema: Lines, Swines & 2 for 1 in Jamaica

If you're Jamaican you've probably been to the Carib cinema. It's been around for years and often premieres films on the same dates as US cinemas. Pretty cool. You probably know about the 2 for 1 days too right? On Mondays and Tuesdays you and a friend can see the latest film for the price of one. These are understandably highly attended days, but there is another price to pay for economy: your dignity, but it's optional.

There are two entrances to the cinema. Most people flock to front entrance about an hour or more before the gates open. At the very moment the box office opens any semblance of a line - or humanity - vanishes into a swinefest of hoggish...hoggishness. The soundtrack to this activity is something like Professor Nuts 'Inna Di Bus'. It really is bad.

But around the back, the soundtrack is  a nice classical piece. Not only do people stand patiently in a well-defined cue (as it's called in the UK - they love cues here - in fact I think they stand in line to join a line) but they unwittingly think there is only one line to the right, which is inevitably longer than the neglected lesser known line to the left. In any event, folks at this entrance retain their brought-upsy. Why the difference?

One thesis is that those at the back entrance drive (there is a parking lot around the back) and are used to entering their vehicle without fighting 30 other people to do so. The folks at the front take the bus and are in 'sideways-and-go-round' mode. But that can't be true, walk-foot folks often enter from the back along with the alleged more civilised drivers.

The solution is simple really. There are narrow stairs at the back that force patrons into a cue. Now when folks approach the cue the collective order and decency is catching. So catching, in fact, that persons often refuse to join the neglected left line (which is not visible from the parking lot) because no one else is in it. People often think this left line is for persons with reserved tickets only, or brown people (just a guess, I don't know). Amazing. 

Order and decency is catching. If narrow passageways force people to be orderly we might have a solution to Jamaica's crime and violence. Indeed, the UK is known for its very narrow roads and small-roomed houses. Maybe they have applied this theory already, after all the UK is very epitome of order (except of on Weekends and during Happy Hour at the pubs...and footy matches).

I suggest the Government should hire a few hundred thousand citizens to simply stand together in orderly groups doing things in an orderly fashion in strategic places around the Island. We can give them specific roles like 'garbage-throw-awayers', 'not-block-the-road-when-the-traffic-lights-don't-workerers', 'I-have-no-desire-to-kill-youers' and the like.

Surely if enough of us gather together, in say Half-Way Tree Square (I know - eeew!) and frown disapprovingly at drug dealers, junkies, corrupt politicians, taxi drivers and lazy career beggars they will stop doing what it is they do because of the peer pressure alone. The hard part is getting all of these perpetrators to stay still long enough (in Half-Way Tree) to get a good frown going.

Thank me in British pounds.

What Can We Learn From Caster Semenya's Pain?

The lessons and issues that are budding from this single controversy are potentially many and significant. Significant to at least at least one in every 3000 persons (and their families) who have one of the 46 intersex conditions.

There is no doubt the issue is complex. According to Dr Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 'The sporting bodies don't have an agreed definition of sex. Cases like this may force them to define this particular issue.' Surely the IAAF has learned its lesson and that definition is being determined as you read this. It certainly must be done as must proper enforcement of the protocol surrounding gender verification tests. There can be no doubt that protocol exists - but it certainly wasn't followed, but I am fairly certain this situation won't be repeated.

Nevertheless, one of the positive by-products of this tragic debacle is the rising awareness about intersex conditions and the plight of those who live with them, or struggle to live with them. Fortunately there has been much sensitivity and sympathy offered to Semenya, but also much vitriol, apathy or dogmatic assertion about the unambiguousness of gender. But, we are all learning, things aren't so simple for some of us.

We have also remembered that the spectres of racial and gender prejudice are alive and well. Certainly concerns about the definitions of beauty and womanhood come in to sharp focus as there are persons of both sexes who may struggle with similar cosmetic issues without the biological complication - but are burned by the fallout nonetheless. Regarding race, some argue that had Semenya been white, none of this would have come out in the way it did. Well, if there are any white 'female' athletes in a similar position to Semenya's we can safely say their cases were handled with extreme discretion.

To be sure, we have learned that athletes have been the most professional amongst all the players in this dilemma. None of her competitors and no other athletes have said anything degrading or untoward about Semenya through this all. At least none that have received any coverage to speak of. Jenny Meadows of Great Britain was asked her opinion on Semenya after finishing 3rd in the World Championships, but she gave as diplomatic an answer as one could wish for. However the media, the IAAF and even the ASA and South African Government have demonstrated something along the spectrum between  incompetence and oversight.

There will be more lessons and issues arising from this young 18 year old who plunged the world of athletics into turmoil. But it can yet have a happy ending. How? Let's hope we find out.

Caster Semenya: Once a Victor, Twice a Victim

Australian Newspaper The Daily Telegraph has scooped the long awaited results of 800m World Champion, Caster Semenya's gender verification tests. According to the Telegraph she is a hermaphrodite.

It turns out that Semenya has no womb or ovaries and 3 times the testosterone of a 'normal' woman. On top of that, she has 'internal testes'  which produce testosterone in men. The Telegraph's source was quoted as saying that the South Africa Athletics Association (ASA) 'have known for months, for years, that she's not normal. They could have set in process these kind of tests if they had been more responsible.''. They do have explaining to do.

If this is true Semenya has been twice shamed, first by the IAAF's insensitive and public handling of the controversy and now the her own Nation's athletics authority that may have had the ability to protect from international media scrutiny and ridicule. No doubt, the South African Government which objected to the IAAF's approach to the allegations of sexism and racism, will be running feverish damage control and madly trying to wipe the egg that is squarely on its face.

This revelation comes after a spread in You South Africa presenting Semenya in very feminine fashion shots. But behind the concerns of gold medals and protocol is the apparent serious health concern for the athlete. She is apparently being urged to undergo corrective surgery as soon as possible.

Beyond even the medical concerns is what the cumulative effect of all the attention and the discovery of her physical ambiguity may be having on the 18 year old. Still more questions abound. Was Semenya aware of her ambiguity? Does this negate the concerns of sexism and racism (no doubt a rabid hatred of blacks did surface in the blogosphere)? Is the IAAF still guilty of impropriety in handling the publicity of the inquiry? And will the IAAF allow her to keep her gold medal? The really big question though: how did the results reach the media and who is this so-called 'leak'?

The answers will come. And if this report is to be trusted we can only hope that the strength Semenya has exhibited thus far will take her though the challenges ahead. 

Waist Not, Want Not: The Odd Fact About UK Jeans Size

For years I was a 32 inch waist. For years I've been an average man - at least in my jeans size. It seemed almost impossible to find a 32/30 pair of jeans because every other guy was the same size, or so it seemed. Always sold out. I did most of my shopping in the US by the way.

Then I moved to the to UK where, for some strange reason, I achieved a 33 inch waste. Eureka! One inch over the average and free to find my size of choice! But I say thee nay! Alas, it was not be. UK trouser sizes (they don't call em pants - pants are underwear in the UK) do not come in odd numbers.

That's right. You can get 32 and 34 - but not 33 or 35! Now, you can understand that I felt especially picked on by the fashion gods. At the very moment my waist grew, my size option evaporated into a geographic and cultural vortex. Now everywhere I look, what do I see? Size 32/30. My option is to squeeze into a 32 - which I can't, unless I follow the trend and wear my jeans at my knees. Or fladdap around in a 34/30.

Still, the deities (nay Imps) of couture have not yet triumphed! I, like Kratos of God of War I, II and soon to be III, fame (Copyright Playstation or something like that), will carve and/or tailor my own destiny! With careful thought I have calculated that a low-rise, button fly 34/30 can fit me like a glove - but only if it is purchased at a Next store. If I buy the same at a Gap outlet I will look decidedly hippie (in terms of physiognomy not ideology).

What baffles me is how the British male manages to ensure that his waist size is only even-numbered. Is it genetic programming or a product of evolution? Has fashion sense crept into our biology? Perhaps British men have been secretly bio-engineered to achieve only even numbered waist sizes and this is a conspiracy to reduce immigrant numbers! Surely there is something in the food (making Tesco complicit) that causes non-Brits waists to shrink or grow to odd-numbered sizes as is appropriate. This inability to find proper trouser size renders them a walking fashion faux pas and sends them running teary-eyed back to their country of origin and their foolish odd-numbered trouser boutiques!

It is an ingenious and diabolical plan, if it is indeed a plan. Truly ruthless. Still, this strict adherence to even-numbered waist sizes may explain the Brit males odd fashion sense (hahaha 'odd'...forget it). UK sizes seem to fit smaller than US (or I am just trending to lardiness) and UK men seem to like a nice tight pair of jeans that sags (if something tight can sag) just below their upper butt crack - which I will refer to as the bruptk. The British bruptk seems to be of vital importance and must be displayed as often as possible (a tradition long practiced by plumbers and handy-men the world over). This is not to be confused with the African American Hip-Hop trend of showing off the brand of underwear (or pants in the UK) one is currently wearing. Bruptks don't make an appearance in such cases.

All told my choice is to either drop a Jeans size or put on 1.4 Kilos. I shan't risk the latter as middle age and the ominous threat of a genetic predisposition to a spare tire growls at the door. The former is more likely, though running teary-eyed back to the Motherland is always a viable option. But with any luck I will trip on the jeans that would have fallen around my ankles. The Fashion gods will point derisively and laugh with uproarious laughter as I lay prone and weeping on the catwalk of life.


I thank you!

Usain Bolt: A New Kind of Champion

The focus of many commentators, reporters and other athletes regarding Usain Bolt has been (apart from his speed) his colourful personality. He has shown us all, not a just a new way to finish a race, but a new to start one.

The old school athletics dripped with aggression, intimidation, bravado, over-seriousness and an insular kind of focus that now palls in the face of Usain's joy, mischievous spirit and relaxed inclusive approach. It even seems to have rubbed off on Asafa Powell - and helped!

When the Americans were dominant (and they can still run - don't get me wrong) we looked on as they grimaced intimidatingly in the pre-race warm-up ritual (as demonstrated by Gay's stony display at the IAAF World Championship 100m final). And the finish? Well an American victory meant there was shouting, ripping off of jerseys and showing off of abs and the dominant alpha-dog posturing (mainly among the men) that made us just that much more grudging of their success.

Now Bolt showboats like nobody's business, but one wants to celebrate with him - not grudge him. Mind you, the massive gap between himself and his nearest competitor helps justify his exuberance - but that's the point - we are not intimidated by his approach, just his performance and ability. We are entertained by his approach rather than insulted.

Now more than ever, Ato Bolden's (NBC commentator) and Jacque Rogge's (IOC President) admonition of Bolt's celebration after his record breaking Olympic performance, seem petty, even irrelevant. As it is, some seem to think that NBC is now ignoring Bolt. Sour grapes?

The other side of course, is that Bolt is a sponsor's dream. Indeed, he has all the players in the track and field industry salivating at his marketability and pulling power. He fills stadiums and his personality can, will and has sold products (take note of the Bolt Arms). Whether we like it or not, money talks, and as long as Bolt being Bolt keeps the cash registers ringing, everybody will be happy, except those losing to him, and even then. But one can well imagine sponsors pressing the networks, media houses and governing officials to let Bolt do what he does best for the sake of the bottom line.

There is no doubt that Bolt is more than the best thing that happened to Jamaican athletics - he's the best thing that happened to athletics, period. He is doing for track and field what Michael Jordan did for the American NBA franchise and what Tiger Woods has done for golf. And like all products (and Bolt is fast becoming a brand) there are competitors.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that some shoe brand or country or track club with the resources, is now scouring every corner of the earth to find a six-foot five sprinter. Every Britney Spears needs a Christina Aguilera. Every Coke needs a Pepsi. Every Nike needs a Puma. Will they find Bolt's Federer? Michael Johnson suggested during the IAAF coverage, that another like him wouldn't appear in his (Johnson's) lifetime.

Perhaps we should just sit back and enjoy the show that we have all been privileged to see.

Your Dedications to Jamaica's Athletes

As a Jamaican I am filled with not just a sense of pride - but of self-respect because of how well our athletes have represented our country as a whole, and by extension myself as a citizen thereof, both on and off the track.

Greatness begets greatness. Even if it is merely the hope of greatness that springs from seeing a fellow countryman or woman attain it. But all greatness begins as hope doesn't it? The effect of what we are witnessing through the success of our athletes, and Usain in particular, is continually sending a simple but profound message to every Jamaican: You can do it too.

The power of precedence should never be underestimated. Now that it has been set - now that our potential has been realized we can no longer deny who we are, it has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt far too often. It is not just that we can run fast - it is that we do it with a laugh and a smile, and ask the world to join us - not just watch us. True greatness doesn't monopolize the spotlight, it wants as much company as possible.

Indeed, it is not just that we run with a laugh and a smile - but what that says about how we live when we are at our best.

Nuff said.

If you have any thoughts, dedications, emotions that you want to share in the wake of Jamaica's amazing experience at the IAAF World Championships - please share them whomever and wherever you are.

Is George Bush Really Male? To Verify or Not to Verify

In the wake of 18 year old 800m World Champion, Caster Semenya's gender ambiguity the world has been thrown into turmoil, chaos and calamity.

With her gender verification well underway, the world at large has suddenly realized that there are a vast number of public figures whose gender have not been decisively publicly verified. 'Truly, how can we be sure unless we subject each and every one of them to a battery of tests to make sure we have been idolizing and attracted to the person of the gender appropriate to our orientation', said one concerned man...or woman. Panic-stricken gay men worldwide have voiced horror at the possibility of finding they have been pining after a female Brad Pitt. One young man was seen in a foetal position clutching a photo of Halle Berry, his only words were 'please...please'.

At the centre of this genderific controversy, however, is George W. Bush. Some are theorizing that without concrete proof of gender, Bush may have in fact been the USA's first female president. Indeed his masculinity has not been proven beyond doubt, though there is strong evidence that he may be closely related (at least in terms of chromosomic make up) to a notorious chipmunk with a disturbed past.

Still, the relevant authorities are making the necessary steps to begin the verification process on former president Bush. Former vice president Cheney was reportedly quoted as saying 'George was always kinda like a daughter to me...I should have questioned it'.

The questions and rumours abound as do gender verification advocacy groups that have long been regarded as blockheads - but their blockhead status has yet to be verified depending on the successful lobby of blockhead verification groups. One group in particular, Fictional Characters Decide Who the Heck You Are (FCDWHYA), is demanding the gender verification of Oscar the Grouch, Big Bird, Spongebob Squarepants and Miss Piggy. Their application is being considered by the US Senate.

Gender verification clinics have reported a sharp rise in clientele made up of mostly persons who are questioning their own gender. Many of said persons also ask to have their bodies searched for any sign of the Mark of the Beast.

August 2009

CAY

Caster Semenya: Mixed a Gender?

The young 800 meter World Champion, Caster Semenya's gender has come into question and is currently being verified by the IAAF. In truth, on seeing her for the first time one can't help but notice just how masculine she is - she is very masculine in appearance. The querying of her gender is quite understandable. (Con't after picture)

BBC1 reporters and commentators repeatedly stressed how embarrassing and inappropriate the investigation was - they repeated it so often one had to wonder if they were really concerned about Semenya's dignity and privacy. The loss of the gold would mean a silver medal for Jenny Meadows, the hard-working Brit who placed third in the 800m final. When asked what other athletes thought about Semenya's gender, Meadow's diplomatic but evasive answer spoke volumes.

Michael Johnson acknowledged the need for the test but said that the IAAF was going about it all wrong. This is true - but so is the media. The extreme attention and copious expressions of sympathy come across as disingenuous - if not downright hypocritical. Would the very public airing of this very private matter, at the time it took place ever have happened if the media wasn't complicit? Instead of singing on the issue, why not downplay it and let the IAAF do its work?

Certainly the IAAF is doing what is has to do - but could it not have been done with even a modicum of discretion?

Johnson also noted that cheating was rife in the past 10 years, but with regards to doping - would the extreme of gender reassignment really be worth a gold medal? And in Semenya's case, it wouldn't have been a convincing reassignment (no disrespect meant). At least one athlete, Stella Walsh, a Polish Olympic medalist in the 1930's, was found to be hermaphroditic decades after her victories (upon her tragic death). That is not something for which she can be blamed. The point is that something as intimate as one's gender can have any number of complications that don't include the intervention of man. Semenya could be one such case - or simply a masculine looking female.

Kudos to Semenya herself who, at just 18, has risen to the top of her field despite almost getting herself and the former 800m world champion disqualified and then running under the fickle microscope of public opinion only to win confidently and convincingly. Good for her.

The results have yet to come out and may take weeks or months. But whatever happens it's too late to be discrete or sensitive about the situation. If there is some wrongdoing involved it might just be more than Semenya who is guilty of it.

Watch the video

Great Has a Number: An Ode to Usain Bolt on a new world record

Great has colour: black, green & gold

It has a name and a number - it is lightening and thunder.

Great has a new name for the old one is old

Because new stories of greatness are about to be told.

Great has a number and now the world knows

The greater the number, the lower it goes.

It has shape and form, swagger and style

And makes minutes look longer - much longer than miles.

If Great has a number, what is the number of Great?

It's one number in three: 9.58

5ive Things I Don't Get: from Jazz notes to Horn Tooting

1. Jazz - Have you ever watched someone listen to Jazz? They get this expression that's a cross between severe constipation and extreme discontent with the state of the world's economy - chin on fist. Music that has this effect can't be good for you. Jazz was invented by people who want to feel that what they listen to is real music but is actually a group of people doing whatever they feel like with what happens to be a musical instrument. Jazz is the modern art of the music world. If used soap or a toilet bowl can pass as art - then I guess Jazz can pass as music.

Honk if you're Hangry

2. Darn Tootin' - in places like the UK and Canada horn tooting is reserved only for very, very special occasions. In Jamaica we horn toot every chance we get. We have the 'thanks for giving me way' short beep, the 'the light just turned green .000001 milliseconds ago I can't believe you're still sitting there motionless' double-toot (preferred by taxi drivers), the 'you must be a confounded idiot can't you see I'm trying to run you off the road to get the red light to stop moving abruptly just in front of you' blare (also taxi driver preferred) and finally the 'blouse and skirt bredrin long time mi no see you which part yu deh, tell Aunt Maisi hello for mi and I will see you lata and remember dat ting whe yu have fa mi but no worry bout it still cause wi a good bredrin' rapid fire multi-toot long distance blurt. In the UK they only beep if they are absolutely certain that an approaching vehicle is going to smash into them at a rate that could result in multiple lacerations and the possibility of permanent skeletal and/or motor neurone damage with the likelihood of a lengthy inquiry into the cause of the smash-up coupled with a change in legislation and traffic management. If these things aren't likely then an accident is an acceptable outcome and the polite thing to do.

Route of all evil

3. Jamaican Taxi Drivers - If you don't know then point 2 would have already cued you in. They hold the firm belief that logic, courtesy, traffic laws and the laws of physics do not apply to them. They possess the skill to convince 12 people to squeeze into a 4 seater, successfully naviagate 2-wheel drive sedans in places that 4-wheel drive SUV's dare not go,cause & survive accidents that kill every one of the 12 people they convinced to get into their 4 seater and somehow manage to remain license holders in good standing albeit with 20 traffic citations while I lost my confounded license for 6 months after only 2 tickets! We all secretly want to be Jamaican taxi drivers (and are happy for them to law-break when we upon hiring their service are late).

4. The 12 People Who Squoze Into The 4-Seater Taxi - do I have to explain?

5. Bloggers - yes that's what I said. Especially the narcissists who somehow think anyone should give a hoot what they think about arbitrary lists of stuff nobody really thinks about anyway. Furthermore, who cares what they did or thought yesterday at Cousin Renford's house blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...blahdiblahblah.

Jamaica Gleaner News - Britain to track slave trade money - Lead Stories - Sunday | August 2, 2009

Jamaica Gleaner News - Britain to track slave trade money - Lead Stories - Sunday | August 2, 2009.

But Seriously: The 5ive Things Women Most Want

1. Someone they can respect - this comes first only because a man worthy of respect will show the same. Every woman craves a worthy man though power, physical aggression & wealth are often mistaken for the primary qualifiers of integrity, confidence, and diligence. A woman wants a man who can 'handle' her (even testing their partner by crossing the line - sometimes too far - life has enough real tests ladies). But a partner who wins their respect fulfils another valuable female need...

2. Security - women often seek out powerful, rich or physically aggressive men because such things, on their face, should provide a safe environment. One can't run a secure home without a sense of physical, financial and emotional security after all. But the shortfall occurs when actual security is sacrificed for its authentic looking evil brothers. True safety is found in fidelity, honesty & industry.

3. Love & Affection - this could be a lot of things: romance, thoughtfulness, gentleness even predicting/anticipating her needs & fancies. This doesn't mean round the clock concierge service but some demonstration of endearment, physical attraction (not just sexual desire) and understanding of her moods & what influences them. That her partner knows her range of preferences from choice of movie to a dry toilet seat. A dry toilet seat in the down position can be a real turn on. Weird but true. The evil siblings of love & affection are sweet nothings (or lyrics in Jamaica), sex, material gifts (not inherently evil but without sincerity often lead to disappointment at the hands of a Playa) & domination/control of her partner.

4. Laughter - who doesn't want and need to laugh? A man who can help her see the lighter side of situations, challenges & herself is prime real estate and easily beats a hard body or pretty face. A sense of humour is the difference between a conversation & an argument - a problem & an adventure. Laughter's doppleganger is excitement and here sensual stimulation through overindulgence in alcohol/drugs, over-the-top partying & even danger, replace a genuine love for life. Laughter is often a measure of friendship too, and that is the last point.

5.  Friendship - this is where the whole listening phenom comes into play. Friends can be goofy together, mess up and even be at their worst without fear of rejection. Pretty self explanatory. The distortion of friendship is co-dependency: the unrealistic expectation that the partner is her source of happiness and thus responsible for her well-being and vice-versa. It is this relationship that a woman can receive the sense that her opinion & feelings are highly valued.

The points are nothing new and really won't change with time as they are our most basic relational needs. The thing to consider is where we go wrong in our search to fulfil these natural requirements. All dissatisfaction and enmity, suggests CS Lewis,  is firmly founded in the distortion, misinterpretation and dysfunction of not just the needs in question, but our overall human condition.

Emancipation Day: Wake up & Dream

Happy Freedom Day Everybody!

It's a good thing to remember a time when the world sort of came to its senses. Why 'sort of''? Well you may or may not know that  when slavery was abolished in Britain it was done so at the convenience of the slave owners who were compensated for their loss of 'assets'.  The enslaved people went from being slaves to 'apprentices' and, as we all know, freedom itself came many many years later as being let go didn't quite mean one was free to enjoy the 'pursuit of happiness' given the circumstances.

The jagged and uneven ending of slavery will always leave a slightly bad taste, getting less so the farther away it becomes, being that the injustice has never been punished - indeed the perpetrators were rewarded and the victims remained well, victims. But in these modern times we have moved on a long way from being chattel to being a sovereign nation, governing our own affairs (which might also mean presiding over our own demise), creating a culture of our very own and slowly turning mud into bricks though sometimes we get the process a little mixed up.

We could easily get cynical but we can't argue with the fact that the descendants of enslaved people in the New World are indeed free. That's a very good thing. Not only are we free but some of us have become exceptionally important historical figures for various reasons (think Garvey, Bolt and Marley for example). That's a great thing.

Of course the emancipation has continued to this day, and necessarily so. At one point We were the victims and products of someone else's imagining and perception of the world. Now we are the victims and beneficiaries of our own vision of the world - such is the stuff of liberty. To be sure, our people have particularly vivid imaginations which we employ in astonishing ways on a daily basis with both hurtful and helpful results - known and little known outcomes.

It was my privilege to discover several years ago, that my  Grandfather, Arthur HW Williams I, was the first person to conduct a correspondence education course in Jamaica. This he did by regular snail mail, as we call it today. At the ceremony held to mark the accomplishment, an elderly man insisted he say something - quite unscheduled - and he informed the curious gathering that he had benefited from my Grandfather's courses decades before and thanked him face to face for the opportunity afforded him via this education by post. Amazing. Grandpa's son has gone on to become a successful lawyer and followed his father into the political arena (now a Minister of Government) not to mention his other son who is a plastic surgeon working with his sister, an OBGYN, operating a thriving private practice. Grandpa's eldest daughter is a successful and highly placed administrator at the University of the West Indies.

Grandpa is 96 now and still going strong. I can't help but surmise that a few generations before him would take us into slavery, and that he has lived at least half his life under colonial rule and the other half in an independent Jamaica - a country still a few decades younger than himself. I don't know what Grandpa's inner motivations, goals and visions were, but he excelled as a teacher, MP, Speaker of the House and representative of Jamaica at a time when much of what we were to become was still only a figment of our collective imagination. If he could have imagined his own accomplishments into reality, and in some way passed that vision on to his children -  then sweet dreams everybody. Sweet dreams.