Why is Hugo Chavez called a Dictator?

By John E. Jones - Venezuelanalysis.com



Hugo Chavez is the most controversial head of state in the world and also the most maligned. I believe that a man should be judged for what he does, or attempts to do, not by what he says, or what others say about him. All leaders make promises in order to get elected, few ever do what they promised, and many don’t even make the attempt. If we are ignorant enough to use Thomas Jefferson’s definition of democracy, and reverse the real meaning of the word, then we could call Hugo Chavez the undemocratic leader of a mob. Hugo Chavez was born the son of working class parents, and grew up in poverty living with his grandmother; he was first elected by middle class working people, and won with a huge majority.

It seems unlikely that a would be dictator’s first major undertaking after being elected would be to have the people rewrite the constitution, replacing one written by elites that like most constitutions was for their personal benefit. It also seems odd that he got rid of the presidential limo and donated his princely presidential salary to benefit the poor. Most dictators only travel in armoured limousines and flaunt their wealth. The photos we see of Chavez show him driving a jeep, riding on the back of trucks with the people, or mingling with people on the street; strange behaviour for a dictator, or even a president.

Hugo Chavez’s election promise was to work for the benefit of the working poor majority who were living in poverty. Venezuela was a wealthy country due to natural resources, mainly oil, but the wealth was all going into the coffers of the elites, and multi national oil, and mining companies. By nationalizing oil Hugo Chavez has been able to erradicate illiteracy, provide free health care, education, pensions, and numerous other social programs. Venezuela is also the refuge of four and a half million Colombian refugees, acknowledged by the UN as the largest refugee problem in the world, who are supported by the government of Hugo Chavez. Colombian refugees are still entering Venezuela in the hundreds every day, and coming from the drug producing capital of the Americas that poses the problem of weeding out smugglers, drug dealers, and other criminals from Colombia that he is accused of harbouring. Nationalization of natural resources has definitely made him a dictator in the opinions of the corporate elites, but a hero to his people and most of the Colombians who have found refuge in Venezuela.

The new Venezuelan constitution not only contains some eighteen clauses on peoples rights it also laid the groundwork for the development of the first real democratic government in the world since ancient Greece. As a result recognition of the need for a new constitution spread to other countries and Bolivia soon followed Venezuela, rejecting the old political parties and electing a peoples’ native president. Since then the people of Honduras were denied the right to a new constitution by a coup that was backed by the US and Canada. The latest demands for new constitutions are coming from the people of Tunisia who just ran their dictator out of the country. Yemenis, Egyptians, and Algerians are following the Tunisians lead demanding that their leaders step down. Many peoples in the world are becoming aware of how they have been manipulated and kept down by ruling elites, oligarchs, and dictators; and that the only path to real democracy and freedom is through a new constitution, and real democracy.

The propaganda calling Hugo Chavez a dictator or even a would be dictator is coming from elites not just in Venezuela but many countries around the world with sham democracies that are terrified of being exposed and facing a revolution. Most western countries, like the US, were never intended to be democratic. The word democracy does not appear in the US constitution for very good reason; As Thomas Jefferson, the slave owning third president and co-writer of the US constitution said: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

All depots, dictators, oligarchs, and elites fear of rule by the people. The word democracy comes from ancient Greece and means: Rule by and for the people, directly, not through representatives, or political parties. This is referred to as direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy. There can be no rule by and for the people under representative electoral systems because local representatives seldom have any say in the running of the country. Referendums are an example of direct democracy in action and are now used regularly in Venezuela to decide major issues. The president of Venezuela is elected by a referendum, not as the leader of a political party and is subject to recall by referendum as are all elected representatives in Venezuela under the new constitution; these are real steps toward democracy where the people choose their representatives as individuals; not candidates selected by party elites.

Creating a real democracy can not be legislated it is something that the people have to learn and do themselves. Hugo Chavez has been providing the people with the tools, education, and the support of his government. The people have to take over the country from the bottom up and eliminate the bureaucracy as they advance. Of course the bureaucrats are not willing to see their power and positions abolished so it is not an easy task for the people who have to learn as they go along, and there will be lots of trials and errors along the way. This is the mob rule that Thomas Jefferson feared; government by and for the people. The people form communal councils that decide on their priorities through consensus and are able to get funding directly from the national government. Representatives are elected for two-year terms and can be recalled at any time. Some of the communal councils formed have advanced to the city level, and must now go on to the state level.

The right wing extremists in the US who now claim that Hugo Chavez is the greatest threat in the world to the US interests are right in so far as his introduction of direct democracy is a threat to the US elites and the government but certainly no threat to the people of the US.

Eliminating Hugo Chavez or attacking and trying to occupy Venezuela would not stop the peoples’ movements throughout Latin America, North Africa, or the Middle East. The age-old desire for real freedom and real democracy can never be stopped. Considering Venezuela a military threat to any country is laughable. The Venezuelan military is much smaller than that of several of its neighbours. It is true that Hugo Chavez is training a huge militia but it is not being trained to support the regular military units, but is being trained for guerrilla warfare in the event of an invasion; he has also started training and arming peasant militias for self defence in the countryside where peasant leaders are still being murdered, and people intimidated by thugs hired by large property owners. Arming the people doesn’t sound to me like anything a dictator would do; but it does sound like giving the people the means to defend their new freedoms and developing democracy.

Of course now that Venezuela has the largest certified oil reserves in the world the US hawks will be busier than ever promoting a war and Hugo’s peasant army, and militia may need all the training and weapons they can get.

Like most countries in Latin America, Venezuela was plagued with crime, and corruption that extended through the police and judicial system. Removing and prosecuting corrupt judges has caused great controversy. Building a federal police force that is ethical and humane just began two years ago, and is being trained in a new facility that teaches the constitution, peoples’ rights, and their duties. This new police force had grown to 4,222 officers at the end of 2010, and had substantially reduced crime in the areas the officers were deployed. The new police force like the army is being taught to protect the people not just the elites, and property.

Banks and businesses that were corrupt have been nationalized to protect the public, and many former owners have fled to the US to avoid criminal proceedings and find a safe haven for their ill-gotten gains. These elite criminal elements all scream dictatorship and seek to overthrow the government.

I believe that in the future the 21st century will become known as the information age when many emperors lost their clothes. I hope it also becomes known as the century that freedom and democracy returned to the earth. The advancements in communications made possible through new technology since the turn of the century have already enabled people to stop coups in progress, coordinate resistance, bring down governments, and become informed free of corporate propaganda and control.

In Venezuela alone millions of people have gained access to computers and the world-wide-web. Last year more than a million people were trained in computing in Venezuelan internet Infocentros. Domestic access to the internet increased by 242,993 homes last year, for a total of 1,351,269 connections, an increase of 22%. A third of the population now have access to internet in their homes, compared to 3% before Chavez was elected. The “Canaima” program that provides school children with mini laptops has supplied 875,000 computers to first and second grade students, and this year the government is projecting handing out 500,000 laptops to third grade students. In the past year the government expanded the country’s satellite network, the first satellite in Latin America dedicated to public broadcasting, by installing 728 satellite antennas. According to the latest information posted in Vheadline.com “Venezuela provides free education to more than four million students at the primary level, more than two millions in high school, and an equal number of university students, as well as those who benefit from the Sucre and Ribas educational programs”. With a population of just over 28 million in 2008 eight million students is close to a thirty percent of the population.

Hugo Chavez could rightly be accused of being too humanitarian, or too generous for providing poor US citizens in the New England States and Alaska with cheap heating oil reduced in price by 40%, or providing subsidised fares to seniors using public transit in London England. He is already widely criticized for selling oil at greatly reduced prices to sister countries in Latin America because this has caused a big loss of profits to major international oil companies. He is also guilty of trading oil to other countries in trade for services or products instead of dollars. All these acts are very damaging to corporate capitalist profits, and to add insult to injury Venezuela’s nationalized oil company contributes its’ profits to social programs in Venezuela; and it these profits that enable Venezuelans to enjoy free health care, education, and many other social programs. The people in many countries would like their natural resources to be used the same way; no doubt the millions of people in the US with no health care would too.

When hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans Hugo Chavez offered to send help but Bush refused Venezuelan aid and sent in the army instead. Venezuela was one of the first countries to land aid and a rescue team in Haiti before the US army got there to shut down the airport and occupy the country. During the disaster caused by heavy rains in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez opened up the presidential palace as well as many public buildings to provide shelter to victims who lost their homes. Can you imagine such a thing happening in another country? We don’t have to wonder why the people support Hugo Chavez, it is because he is one of them, and treats them as equals.

If all men/women are born equal as many people like to believe it stands to reason that all men/women in any country are entitled to an equal share of the natural resources in their country. Hugo Chavez has been restoring these natural rights to his people, against the will of the elites who claimed to own most of the wealth. Venezuelan elites like their counterparts in most of the western “representative democracies” also own and control most of the media so it is easy to understand why we are being bombarded with their lies, and propaganda.

Whatever Hugo Chavez is he is greatly admired by millions of people around the world and his goal of restoring Bolivar’s goal of free republics united by their common bonds as an alternative to being subjected to domination by foreign powers appears to be inspiring peoples around the world to rebel against oppression and domination. Arabs are asking why their leaders don’t have the cajones to nationalize their natural resources and do something for the people who they rightfully belong to. How long before we will be hearing the same questions asked in Canada, the US, and other western “representative democracies” for corporations?

There are good reasons for elites, and leaders from around the world to hate and vilify Hugo Chavez; these parasites might have to start working for a living like the rest of us, although they are a tiny minority they are immensely wealthy and control most of the media. Hugo Chavez is called a dictator because he is introducing real direct democracy into thw world, and that spells the beginning of the end of privileged elites.

Looking at what he has done for his people as well as poor people in other countries shows that Hugo Chavez is an exceptional politician, perhaps the only one in the world that has and continues to fulfill his election promises on behalf of working people. Hugo Chavez is being judged and condemned by the elites, oligarchs, and dictators of the world and using their control of the mass media to spread their lies and distortions; any leader emerging in the world that attempts to serve his/her people to the detriment of corporations will experience the same vilification.

January 31st 2011

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

The grave food crisis

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

• JUST 11 days ago, January 19, under the title "Now is the time to do something," I wrote:

"The worst is that, to a large degree, their solutions will depend on the richest and most developed countries, which will reach a situation that they really are not in a position to confront, unless the world which they have been trying to mold… collapses around them."

"I am not talking at this point about wars, the risks and consequences of which wise and brilliant people, including many from the United States, have conveyed.

"I am referring to the food crisis produced by economic acts and climate change which are apparently already irreversible as a consequence of the actions of human beings, but which in any case the human mind has the duty to address with haste.

"The problems have suddenly increased as a result of phenomena which are being repeated on all continents: heat waves, forest fires, loss of harvests in Russia, with many victims; climate change in China, heavy rainfall or drought; progressive reduction of water reserves in the Himalayas which is threatening India, China, Pakistan and other countries; torrential rain in Australia, which has flooded almost one million square kilometers; unseasonable and unprecedented cold in Europe […] drought in Canada and unusual cold in this country and the United States…"

I likewise mentioned unprecedented rainfall in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil.

In that Reflection I noted that "production of wheat, soy beans, corn, rice and many other grains and legumes, which constitute the nutritional base of the world – the population of which has today reached an estimated 6.9 billion, rapidly approaching the unprecedented figure of seven billion and where more than one billion are suffering hunger and malnutrition – is being seriously affected by climate change, creating an extremely grave problem worldwide."

On Saturday, January 29, the Internet news bulletin which I receive daily reproduced an article by Lester R. Brown published on the Organic Way website and datelined January 10, whose content, I believe, should be widely circulated.

Its author is the most prestigious and recognized U.S. ecologist, who has been warning of the harmful effect of the growing and substantial volume of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. I will just take paragraphs from his well-argued article which coherently explains his point of view.

"As the new year begins, the price of wheat is setting an all-time high…

"…the world population has nearly doubled since 1970, we are still adding 80 million people each year. Tonight, there will be 219,000 additional mouths to feed at the dinner table, and many of them will be greeted with empty plates. Another 219,000 will join us tomorrow night. At some point, this relentless growth begins to tax both the skills of farmers and the limits of the earth's land and water resources.

"The rise in meat, milk, and egg consumption in fast-growing developing countries has no precedent.

"In the United States, which harvested 416 million tons of grain in 2009, 119 million tons went to ethanol distilleries to produce fuel for cars. That's enough to feed 350 million people for a year. The massive U.S. investment in ethanol distilleries sets the stage for direct competition between cars and people for the world grain harvest. In Europe, where much of the auto fleet runs on diesel fuel, there is growing demand for plant-based diesel oil, principally from grapeseed and palm oil. This demand for oil-bearing crops is not only reducing the land available to produce food crops in Europe, it is also driving the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia for palm oil plantations.

"…The combined effect of these three growing demands is stunning: a doubling in the annual growth in world grain consumption from an average of 21 million tons per year in 1990-2005 to 41 million tons per year in 2005-2010. Most of this huge jump is attributable to the orgy of investment in ethanol distilleries in the United States in 2006-2008.

"While the annual demand growth for grain was doubling, new constraints were emerging on the supply side, even as longstanding ones such as soil erosion intensified. An estimated one third of the world's cropland is losing topsoil faster than new soil is forming through natural processes – and thus is losing its inherent productivity. Two huge dust bowls are forming, one across northwest China, western Mongolia, and central Asia; the other in central Africa. Each of these dwarfs the U.S. dust bowl of the 1930s.

"Satellite images show a steady flow of dust storms leaving these regions, each one typically carrying millions of tons of precious topsoil.

"Meanwhile aquifer depletion is fast shrinking the amount of irrigated area in many parts of the world; this relatively recent phenomenon is driven by the large-scale use of mechanical pumps to exploit underground water. Today, half the world's people live in countries where water tables are falling as overpumping depletes aquifers. Once an aquifer is depleted, pumping is necessarily reduced to the rate of recharge unless it is a fossil (nonreplenishable) aquifer, in which case pumping ends altogether. But sooner or later, falling water tables translate into rising food prices.

"Irrigated area is shrinking in the Middle East, notably in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, which was totally dependent on a now-depleted fossil aquifer for its wheat self-sufficiency, production is in a freefall. From 2007 to 2010, Saudi wheat production fell by more than two thirds.

"The Arab Middle East is the first geographic region where spreading water shortages are shrinking the grain harvest. But the really big water deficits are in India, where the World Bank numbers indicate that 175 million people are being fed with grain that is produced by overpumping. In China, overpumping provides food for some 130 million people. In the United States, the world's other leading grain producer, irrigated area is shrinking in key agricultural states such as California and Texas.

"The rising temperature is also making it more difficult to expand the world grain harvest fast enough to keep up with the record pace of demand. Crop ecologists have their own rule of thumb: For each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the optimum during the growing season, we can expect a 10 percent decline in grain yields.

"Another emerging trend that threatens food security is the melting of mountain glaciers. This is of particular concern in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, where the ice melt from glaciers helps sustain not only the major rivers of Asia during the dry season, such as the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers, but also the irrigation systems dependent on these rivers. Without this ice melt, the grain harvest would drop precipitously and prices would rise accordingly.

"And finally, over the longer term, melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, combined with thermal expansion of the oceans, threaten to raise the sea level by up to six feet during this century. Even a three-foot rise would inundate half of the riceland in Bangladesh. It would also put under water much of the Mekong Delta that produces half the rice in Vietnam, the world's number two rice exporter. Altogether there are some 19 other rice-growing river deltas in Asia where harvests would be substantially reduced by a rising sea level.

"The unrest of these past few weeks is just the beginning. It is no longer conflict between heavily armed superpowers, but rather spreading food shortages and rising food prices -- and the political turmoil this would lead to -- that threatens our global future. Unless governments quickly redefine security and shift expenditures from military uses to investing in climate change mitigation, water efficiency, soil conservation, and population stabilization, the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with both more climate instability and food price volatility. If business as usual continues, food prices will only trend upward."

The existing world order was imposed by the United States at the end of World War II and it reserved for itself all the privileges.

Obama does not have any way to manage the pandemonium which they have created. A few days ago the government collapsed in Tunisia, where the United States had imposed neoliberalism and was happy with its political prowess. The word democracy had vanished from the scene. It is incredible how now, when the exploited people are shedding their blood and assaulting stores, Washington is stating its satisfaction with the defeat. Everybody is aware that the United States converted Egypt into its principal ally within the Arab world. A large aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine, escorted by U.S. and Israeli warships, passed through the Suez Canal en route for the Persian Gulf some months ago, without the international press having access to what was occurring there. Egypt was the Arab country to receive the largest supplies of armaments. Millions of young Egyptians are suffering unemployment and the food shortages provoked within the world economy, and Washington affirms that it is supporting them. Its Machiavellian conduct includes supplying weapons to the Egyptian government, while at the same time USAID was supplying funds to the opposition. Can the United States halt the revolutionary wave which is shaking the Third World?

The famous Davos meeting that has just ended turned into a Tower of Babel, with the richest European states headed by Germany, Britain and France only agreeing on their disagreement with the United States.

But one doesn’t have to worry in the least; the Secretary of State has once again promised that the United States will help in the reconstruction of Haiti.



Fidel Castro Ruz
January 30, 2011
6:23 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Cannabis abuse may be a factor behind the high crime rate in The Bahamas

Cannabis abuse 'may be a factor behind high crime rate'
By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net



CANNABIS abuse could be one of the factors behind the high rate of crime in The Bahamas, according to a local psychiatrist.

Dr Kirk Christie, of the Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre, said taking into account the disinhibiting effects of cannabis and the fact that its use is widespread, the drug could be fuelling deviant behaviour.

In a meeting with Social Service Hotline councillors yesterday, Dr Christie stressed the dangers of substance abuse, and in particular cannabis abuse.

He said the fact that cannabis is culturally and socially accepted, cheap and readily available in The Bahamas, encourages the false perception it is not a dangerous drug.

However, Dr Christie said despite the "general overvalued idea that there are no effects of cannabis use," like any other form of substance abuse, it is "a health nightmare."

He said studies have shown that abuse of the drug can have very serious consequences.

Physiological effects of cannabis use include: hypertension (high blood pressure), shortness of breath, decreased co-ordination and reaction times, ataxia, impaired memory and perception, sensory distortion such as hallucinations, paranoid disorders, mood alteration, and depersonalisation.

In men, it can also cause a decrease in libido (sex drive), lower testosterone and sperm counts, and shrinking of the scrotum.

One study, performed in the Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre among 120 patients in the substance abuse treatment programme, found the median age for the onset of cannabis disorders was 21, and usually ranged between 17 and 26.

Dr Christie added that a new study completed in Europe found marijuana use makes a person seven times more likely to lose touch with reality.

The treatment programme for substance abuse normally lasts about two years and includes detoxification, rehabilitation, relapse prevention and maintenance.

Dr Christie stressed the importance of education and relaying of correct information.

"The aim of education is to provide students, teachers and families with accurate information about drug abuse and addiction and the association with high-risk sexual behaviour," said Dr Christie.

"Those under the influence take more irresponsible risks."

While not everyone who uses drugs becomes addicted, for many what starts as casual use leads to drug addiction, he added.

January 29, 2011

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Trying to deconstruct the surprise visit of the former Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier to Haiti... twenty five years after his forced departure

Cherchez la femme!
By Jean H Charles



Trying to deconstruct the surprise visit of the former dictator Jean Claude Duvalier to Haiti exactly twenty five years after his forced departure on February 7, 1986, I have resorted to the well known French dictum: cherchez la femme, as the most plausible line of inquiry.

The young Duvalier, who grew up in the national palace with the military and the militia at his feet, became an indulgent playboy, who loved fast cars, boats, women and debauchery. He was, nevertheless, less cruel than his sadistic father. The whimsical and witty Haitian people have a recurrent joke which is telling: if you happen to have in one day, fast and decent transportation, electricity, water and telephone functioning at the same time, in the city, for sure Jean Claude Duvalier has returned into the country!

Things have been going so downhill since; the story is amusing and apropos!

Feeble in mind and in spirit, he failed to listen to those who advised him not to take the beautiful but intriguing and Jezebel-like Michelle for his wife. Haiti became the modern day Corinth, where the rich and the powerful indulged themselves in a luxurious and lascivious life in the midst of the squalor and the misery of the masses. The state funds were Michelle and Jean Claude’s private piggy banks, taken or rather stolen at will.

The people were offered, as in Marie Antoinette’s time, cake instead of bread by the lean and svelte Michelle. Their anger took another turn after a strong repression in the city of Gonaives, where three young lads were killed by the militia. The entire country stood up as one to force the departure in the middle of the night of the couple, Jean Claude and Michelle, from the enchanted but rendered despicable land.

They found refuge in France, the home of Marie Antoinette, where the bankers and the lawyers helped them to continue the station of life they were accustomed to in Haiti. But soon Michelle found herself a new paramour more glamorous than the former president; she left Jean Claude penniless ensuring that she took with her the gold, the bags and the children.

There was left untouched 5 million dollars (now 6 million) stashed in Switzerland belonging to the Michelle Benett Foundation. Through a long legal procedure the court in Geneva wanted to return the money to Haiti. But in Haiti, the governments since have been so corrupt and so inept that they could not present a powerful legal argument to convince the Swiss judge that Haiti should get the money.

In the interest of justice, the Swiss legislature has formulated a novel legal theory: the lex Duvalier. As of February 1, 2011, the money will be returned to Haiti unless Jean Claude Duvalier can prove to the Swiss Court that he can return harmless to Haiti without any legal pursuit.

Enter a new woman, Veronique Roy, a nemesis of Michelle and of Jezebel, born in Tunisia, where another dictator has just been chased out by its people. She has developed the dream of becoming one day the first lady of Haiti or packing with Haiti assets in Jean Claude’s trust to live a new life in luxury abroad.

While Jean Claude could not come into the country in the past few years, she was a frequent visitor to Haiti, developing a whole slew of nostalgic followers who dreamt of a nation where the ruler was the master of life and limb.

Frail and febrile, eaten by a pancreatic cancer that will soon consume his life, Jean Claude Duvalier is under the spell of another strong woman, who cannot wait to put her hand into the last stash of funds that would send children to school in Haiti, provide safe water to a population against the looming cholera epidemic.

There are stories that France and the United States conspired to bring Jean Claude Duvalier to Haiti to influence the final results of the election. There are further stories that the very Haitian government facilitated the return of Jean Claude to create an aura of evasion against all the recurring national problems such as inept leadership in the recovery from the earthquake, the cholera epidemic as well as the fiasco of the elections.

I believe, rather, Jean Claude’s return has a personal touch of follow the money or cherchez la femme!

There are two legal theories to build a legal action against the former dictator. The Haitian government could have commenced a legal action in Haitian courts to judge by contumacy Jean Claude Duvalier for the repression, the theft and the revilement of the state funds.

The Haitian government in the last twenty five years has been exceptionally delinquent in pursuing all the legal avenues to bring about justice on behalf of the Haitian people for the crimes and the malfeasance of the Duvalier regime. The Prosper Avril government has also withdrawn the international suit against Duvalier, all commenced under the Henri Namphy regime.

Any victim of the regime could have seized the court of a country friendly to international human rights. Spain, with Judge Balthazar Garson as a knight errant, prosecutes with vigor and passion any and all violation or infringement of rights anywhere in the world. No one has taken that road.

Furthermore, Haiti has failed or purposely refrained from signing the Rome convention allowing the pursuit of crime against humanity ad infinitum. If legal proscription (25 years without a legal action) could muzzle the hands of the state in pursuing Jean Claude Duvalier in Haiti, it could have another avenue offered by the international community any time after.

As such, Jean Claude Duvalier is home free in spite of the legal demagogy of being placed now under Haitian judicial custody.

There is a mood towards reconciliation now in the nation. The youth of today did not know firsthand the repression of the Duvalier regime. They are also the witnesses that the ensuing governments (albeit with improvement in freedom of speech) have been more delinquent in security in the area of public health and environmental and public safety. The international human rights organizations (Amnesty International and all) have exhibited no interest in the right to schooling, decent housing, health care and incubation to employment for the Haitian people in general.

Watch for Veronique being wedded in a civil and secret ceremony in Haiti with Jean Claude Duvalier before his untimely death, so she can go back to Switzerland, claim the money that rightfully belongs to the Haitian people. As Graham Greene has so aptly said about Haiti, the comedy is playing with national and international actors for the delight of the promoters, the confusion of the extras as well as the trepidation and the sorrow of the Haitian people!

Note:
Under the Prosper Avril government I was offered the job of Director of the Michel Bennett Foundation, which ran a modern and efficient hospital. When I asked for a forensic accounting of the 5 million dollars in the budget, the job and the position disappeared. The hospital has since been disaffected and in ruin!

January 29, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Obama’s speech and the bankruptcy of identity politics

By Tom Eley

President Obama’s State of the Union address, delivered Tuesday night, is nearly as remarkable for what it did not mention as it is for the unabashedly right-wing and pro-corporate agenda it outlined.

As the World Socialist Web Site already noted, the speech is typical of a political order in which “no aspect of social reality can be openly and honestly addressed by any section of the American ruling class or the corporate-controlled media” which fears that “any acknowledgment of the real state of American society could become a focus for the social anger building up just below the surface.”

One of the more striking omissions from the president’s speech was any reference, even in a tangential way, to the desperate conditions facing the majority of the nation’s 37 million African-Americans, or the closely related social crisis overtaking the cities.

Obama is neither more nor less indifferent toward poor and working class African-Americans than he is toward their white, Latino, and immigrant counterparts. His concern, to the total exclusion of all others, is the wealth and security of the financial elite, as he made clear in his speech by equating the supposed economic recovery with stock values and corporate profits.

But Obama’s studied indifference to the severe social crisis that is impoverishing millions of African-Americans and destroying US cities is a ringing indictment of identity politics and affirmative action programs, which hold that advancement of a layer of “leaders”—as CEOs, military officers, academics, and politicians—would somehow advance the interests of all. Indeed, Obama is himself the embodiment of the bankruptcy of this perspective.

Two years ago, Obama’s inauguration was greeted rapturously in the media as a celebration of “the nation’s first black president.” During his election campaign for the presidency and even after his victory, Obama’s skin color and his history as a “community organizer” in south Chicago were relentlessly promoted by various middle class organizations as somehow imparting to him a left or progressive character that, based on his entire career and his avowed political positions, did not exist.

African-Americans, in particular, were endlessly told this was their victory—even that Obama’s ascension to the White House marked the completion of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery and Martin Luther King Jr.’s struggle against Jim Crow oppression in the South.

It is time to draw up a balance sheet. The four years since the housing market bust of 2007—two of them under the Obama administration—have been the most disastrous for African-American workers since the Great Depression.

The crisis engulfing the entire working class—mass layoffs, wage and benefit cutting, the foreclosure epidemic, homelessness, hunger, the gutting of public education, drastic increases in college tuition, the slashing of all forms of social spending—have hit African-American workers with particular force.

The official US poverty count last year hit a record of 43.6 million people, or one in seven. Among African-Americans, 25.8 percent of the population, more than one in four, lived in poverty in 2009, while one in three African-American children lived in poverty. The official unemployment rate for African-Americans went from 8.7 percent in 2007 to nearly 16 percent today; 40 percent of African-American youth are unemployed. Home ownership among African-Americans, who were disproportionately victimized by the banks in various forms of sub-prime lending, has fallen sharply.

In the face of this disaster, Obama’s State of the Union Speech can only be called a provocation.

“Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown,” Obama said. “If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion. … Americans [have] seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear—proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.”

“They’re right,” he continued. “The rules have changed. … The competition for jobs is real.” The president then segued into the promotion of economic competition with China and India, the clear implication being that American workers will have to accept even more drastic wage cuts to become competitive, and later declared that he would freeze at current levels all discretionary social spending for five years.

The president has fully adopted the mantra of “personal responsibility” long lorded over the poor and working class African-American population by the Republican Party. He spoke of “giving every child a chance to succeed,” but insisted that instead of “pouring money” into schools, “responsibility begins … in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”

Obama does not ask how children can learn when they are hungry and homeless and live in homes without heat and light. There were, as of 2008-2009, nearly one million public school students who experienced homelessness during the course of the school year. The same year, among the over 50 million Americans classified as “food insecure” by federal authorities, fully 17 million were children. These numbers have risen sharply among white and African-American children alike.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the problem of the oppression of African-Americans was commonly understood as a particular expression of an underlying social problem—the intractability of poverty and the development of the economy in areas like the rural South and urban North. Shaken by the mass freedom struggle in the South and the urban uprisings in the North, “the Negro question,” as it was then called, preoccupied the ruling elite and in the 1960s made its way each year into the State of the Union speeches of Democratic presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, expressed as promises for “urban renewal” and more jobs in “urban ghettos.”

All of these promises were broken. The upsurge of African-American workers—part of larger social struggles of the US working class as a whole that lasted through the early 1970s—corresponded with the decline of the global position of US capitalism, which had been accelerated by the Vietnam War (1965-1974). This was followed by the intentional gutting of American industry through the interest rate “shock therapy” of Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker which devastated Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Gary, and many other cities beginning in the late 1970s.

Instead of fulfilling promises of jobs and an expanded social safety system, the ruling class adopted a different strategy. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it began to promote affirmative action policies with the express intention of cultivating a layer of African-American politicians, capitalists, and military men. As the Democratic Party retreated from any commitment to ameliorating conditions for masses of working class people, it increasingly focused on affirmative action as the alpha and the omega of its social agenda.

The layer of leaders that were thus brought forward quickly came to inhabit a different social reality than the masses of working class and poor African-Americans. Over the past four decades, social inequality within the African-American population has increased enormously, mirroring trends in the population as a whole. Since 1966, while the income of the top 5 percent of African-American households has increased by 50 percent, inflation-adjusted, the income for the bottom 40 percent has actually fallen by 25 percent.

Barack Obama is the quintessential expression of this process. In both his own history and his political experiences, he has nothing to do with the struggles of masses of African-American workers. From his Ivy League education at Columbia and Harvard, Obama launched a career in academia and politics in Chicago. Early on he was spotted and taken in hand by powerful political and financial interests, which ultimately shepherded him to the White House.

What appealed to the corporate and diplomatic elite about Obama was his carefully cultivated ethnic identity. He could be promoted as “change” personified, allowing more time for the class war offensive against jobs and democratic rights in the US and the machinations of American imperialism abroad. These same right-wing policies carried out by his Republican competitor for the presidency, John McCain, or even his main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, would have more quickly led to a social explosion.

In the end, the purpose of identity politics—endlessly promoted in academia and by liberals and ex-left middle class organizations—is to block recognition that the decisive social division is class and not race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. If there is one positive outcome of the policies of the Obama administration, and his State of the Union address in particular, it is the further discrediting of this reactionary perspective.

The author also recommends:

The Gates arrest and the “national conversation on race”
[28 July 2009]

Obama’s speech to the NAACP
[18 July 2009]

28 January 2011

wsws

Bahamas Blog International

Crime and corruption have been – from time immemorial - one of the royal roads toward fame and fortune in The Bahamas

A Culture of Criminality
The Bahama Journal Editorial



No number of artfully contrived ‘meet’ the press-briefings, stage-managed walk-and-talk exercises on the part of the police high-command – or for that matter, ardent prayer meetings on this or that street corner can do much in terms of ridding this nation of its scourge of crime.

In addition, there is no doubting the clear import of all of the information now pouring in concerning the extent to which the police are ‘losing’ in the fight against the so-called ‘criminal’ elements that are seemingly embedded through and through Bahamian society.

Indeed, crime and the mentality that spawns it is so deeply woven into the fabric of things Bahamian that, some pundits and some other acute observers say that, what we have to contend with is a culture that fosters and rewards criminality.

What we know for sure is that, this land of ours is one of those interesting places where while the wages of sin might be death, the rewards from crime, schemes and scams are some times quite bountiful.

In this regard, we take note of the fact that crime and corruption have been –from time immemorial- one of the royal roads toward fame and fortune in The Bahamas.

Reference here might be made to those times past when piracy was the order of the day in The Bahamas or when rum-running provided a sure basis for primitive capital accumulation.

That life style continues.

For better or worse, today’s Bahamas remains that kind deeply corrupted place where corruption is rife.

And so it goes for either the good policeman who can see nothing really wrong with accepting ‘gifts’ from this or that shady character; or for that matter, with the cop who knows that he has a well-deserved reputation for brutality and violence against people in the supposedly protective custody of the state.

This list can also be extended to include the pilferer of stuff belonging to his employer; the person who receives goods he knows to be stolen; and all others who routinely get away with the crimes they commit.

As they say, to make a long story short – the fact of the matter is that our beloved land is home to tens of thousands of people who are willing and able – at the drop of either pin or hat- to rip each other off, rape, maim or kill if the circumstances so warrant.

This is a mess.

And so, try as they might, the Ministry of National Security and the Royal Bahamas Police Force cannot ‘solve’ this nation’s crime problem; and for sure – those Bahamians who believe that they can pray crime away had better wake up, face facts and understand that, faith without works is dead.

Evidently, crime hurts; and clearly, we all pay a high price when some in our midst can and do get away with the crimes they commit; with some of them against property and some others against the person.

Indeed, no day passes without some revelation or the other concerning the extent to which social life in The Bahamas is shot through with allegations concerning who is on the take.

One measure of the extent to which corruption has taken root is to be found in the oft-mouthed rationalization that since practically every one is corrupt, no one should be condemned too harshly for some small indiscretion or the other.

In one prime instance of corruption alleged, former Commodore Clifford Scavella noted that it was his estimation that up to a quarter of the Defence Force complement was rotten.

And in the believe it or not category was the assertion that apart from this rot, all was well in the ranks of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force!

In that same vein are to be found assertions concerning the extent to which The Royal Bahamas Police Force has to contend with its own so-called ‘bad apples’.

And after that, there is that myriad of allegations concerning the extent to which other government agencies are caught up in the coils of corruption. It is common knowledge in some circles that certain Immigration officers routinely accept gifts from this or that person.

It is also assumed that there are Customs Officers who are on the take. All of this is confirmed when from time to time one or two of these crooks are charged and convicted; and then, there are all those other instances where and when crime runs amok in our homes, on our streets - and in some of this nation’s suites.

And so, when it is all said and done – the Bahamian people should look deeply at what it is that they have become as they have decided to go in such hot pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.

January 26, 2011

The Bahama Journal Editorial

Bahamas Blog International

The long road to the privatization of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)

The long road to privatization
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com




One dozen years later, tone of BTC debate unchanged


In 1999 when initial attempts at privatizing the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation led to massive demonstrations that saw protestors clash with police, former Prime Minister the late Sir Lynden Pindling noted that “double-talk on the privatization of BaTelCo has caused mistrust, chronic insensitivity — and

lack of respect has bred contempt.”

He opined that this was “fueling sustained civil disorder.”

“Much of what used to work is breaking down,” Sir Lynden said. “Civil society is manifestly under the gun in more ways than one. We cannot go on this way. Quite obviously, we cannot succeed this way. In the interest of peace, sanity and democracy in industrial relations, the time has come for all parties concerned to step back, take a deep breath and reassess the situation and, after reassessment, a new beginning can be made.”

More than a decade later, we are at a similar point. The latest efforts of the Ingraham administration to sell the state-owned telecommunications company have resulted in a degree of civil disorder, and industrial relations are again strained.

But unlike in 1999, the Government of The Bahamas today is on the brink of inking the final deal with a partner to purchase, not 49, but 51 percent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company’s (BTC) shares.

The road leading to this point has been long, uncertain and at times treacherous.

It was on February 11, 1998 in a communication to Parliament that the Ingraham administration formally announced its intention to privatize BaTelCo.

But that announcement was no surprise.

Manifesto II outlined the Free National Movement’s recognition that the rapid technological advances being realized in the production and supply of utilities, such as telecommunications services, made it increasingly difficult for public monopoly providers to remain at the cutting-edge of technology.

The Ingraham-led government was — and still is — of the view that it is the private sector that should be the main engine of economic growth and development, and that as far as possible, the role of government should be limited to that of providing those services which the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide, and ensuring that there exists an environment conducive to broad-based economic growth and development.

It was anticipated that the government would proceed to privatize the corporation during 1999.

But privatization plans date back even further, according to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.

In 1997, under another incarnation of his government, he said at an FNM rally that, “Before the FNM came to office, the PLP government was secretly negotiating to sell BaTelCo to Cable and Wireless of the United Kingdom and they said not a word to the Bahamian people about it.”

Addressing the recent Bahamas Business Outlook forum, Ingraham repeated the statement.

Today, we are told the Ingraham administration is just days away from concluding an agreement with Cable and Wireless for the majority of BTC’s shares.

BTC has come a very long way in its growth and development, although it is still lagging behind on some telecommunications advances.

BTC evolved out of BaTelCo, which grew out of the Telecommunications Department. That department dates back to 1892. It was on June 9, 1966 that Parliament passed the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation Act, transforming the department to a corporation.

While the players and the approach to privatization are somewhat changed since the late 1990s when the buzzword was on everyone’s tongue, much of the language is the same.

At that 1997 FNM rally, Ingraham underscored that neither the government nor BaTelCo, from its own resources, can keep up with technological advances in telecommunications.

It’s a point he has made repeatedly in this most recent attempt to privatize.

In the late 1990s, the thinking of the Ingraham administration was to keep a majority interest in BaTelCo in Bahamian hands.

“I propose that we make available a minority interest in BaTelCo to a communication giant,” Ingraham told rallygoers. “That is why I propose we keep ownership of the majority of BaTelCo in Bahamian hands.”

Ingraham said at the time that he did not want to put this country in the position where it has to sell BaTelCo because the government is broke, and as a result receive less for the full monopoly.

“I do not want this to happen for The Bahamas,” he said. “I want us to remain ahead of the game.”

THE GROUND WORK

In February 1998, the government secured the services of the London-based telecommunications group Deutsche Morgan Grenfell to advise it on the privatization of BaTelCo.

Then Deputy Prime Minister Frank Watson told Parliament that the government expected to complete the privatization of the corporation within 12 months.

The Bahamas, he said, was in “the enviable position” of being able to earmark and commit all the proceeds from the sale of the shares in BaTelCo to national debt reduction.

Today, the government expects to get $210 million plus stamp taxes from Cable and Wireless for 51 percent of BTC.

While initially the prime minister had indicated the money would be earmarked to build a badly needed hospital, the rough economy and the resulting strain on government finances have led to a change of plans. The government intends — as it did in 1998 — to use the proceeds to pay down the debt.

Watson, who at the time was the minister responsible for public enterprises, said it was not possible for a publicly-owned facility, such as BaTelCo, to indefinitely maintain an effective monopoly in telecommunications.

“Continuing attempts to do so will undoubtedly be swept aside by the tide of technology, competition and market liberalization,” Watson said.

This communication to Parliament followed demonstrations in Rawson Square by BaTelCo workers, wary of privatization.

Watson advised that the government remained “resolute in our commitment and firm in our determination to move forward with deliberate haste in the privatization of BaTelCo.”

Before privatization could happen, the government needed to embark on a downsizing exercise, which proved highly controversial.

In June 1999, it was revealed that the cost of separation packages distributed to disengaged BaTelCo workers was $66.2 million.

Watson revealed in the House of Assembly that other benefit payments due to workers based on the terms of the disengagement agreement amounted to $55 million.­

Additionally, employees received from the pension fund their entitlement of $24.2 million.

When it was all over, the total number of employees remaining at the corporation was 1,086, including 713 in New Providence, 182 in Grand Bahama, and 191 in the Family Islands.

Watson said at the time the government was “sympathetic to the employees who are being separated from BaTelCo, many of whom have given years of outstanding, dedicated and faithful services.”

“However, we are faced with the stark reality that the nature of the workplace is changing and changing rapidly, fueled principally by the dynamic advances in telecommunications technology,” he said.

“It is our duty to ensure that The Bahamas is prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.”

Watson also advised that, “Despite the challenges which were encountered over the past several months, we are essentially on schedule with the privatization of BaTelCo.”

The Ingraham government’s fundamental position on privatization has remained clear.

In a privatization position statement on February 12, 1998, the government said,
“We should not continue to inflict upon the public and business community of The Bahamas the unnecessarily high cost to sustain and maintain a government telecommunications monopoly.”

FIERCE OPPOSITION

The strong opposition the government is facing from BTC’s unions today is not unlike the fury those labor organizations unleased in the late 1990s when the Ingraham administration moved with “deliberate haste” toward privatization.

In 1998, while the union leaders, after meetings with Ingraham, remained strongly opposed to the privatization of the lucrative corporation, the government also remained unfazed in its stance to sell off a chunk of BaTelCo.

“The majority of the workers feel that there is no need to privatize BaTelCo,” said Robert Farquharson, who at the time was secretary general of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU).

“They are upset that the government has taken this position.”

Farquharson — who later became the union’s president — said at the time that BaTelCo workers had observed the effects of privatization in developing countries “and in practically all of the cases, privatization has not been good”.

As the year progressed, the BCPOU stepped up its opposition to the privatization of BaTelCo.

“We are not satisfied that the privatization of BaTelCo is the only way to encourage state-of-the-art management technology and increased efficiency,” said Shane Gibson, who was president of the BCPOU.

But by 2001, Gibson had a change of heart.

He said BCPOU members were “eagerly” awaiting the sale of BaTelCo because their lives had been “up in the air.”

“The sale of BaTelCo will bring about better services to the public and employees,” Gibson said.

In 1999, Gibson was on the frontline of protests against the sale.

In February of that year, angry protestors stormed Parliament, and Ingraham had to be placed under heavy police guard as they unleashed their fury.

Like many union heads in the late 1990s, the official opposition also expressed serious misgivings about privatization.

In March 1998, Shadow Minster of Public Utilities Dr. Bernard Nottage announced that the PLP was asserting “our complete and total condemnation of the government’s deceptive and hasty approach to the privatization of BaTelCo.”

He said while in principle there was no objection to BaTelCo’s privatization, the party preferred a BaTelCo that is 100 percent owned by Bahamians.

“We are dismayed that the government has summarily dismissed the possibility and has not included it in the terms of reference of its consultant advisors,” Nottage said.

“We and the public need to know the explanation for this decision before any debate is entertained on this matter.”

In the position statement in February 1998, Watson appealed to the leadership of BaTelCo’s unions, and all BaTelCo employees to cooperate fully in the privatization process so as to achieve the best possible results for all.

In January 2002, Ingraham expressed disappointment in the privatization delay.

The prime minister told the nation that while BaTelCo was being readied for sale, the process would not be completed before he left office.

“The final decisions on the sale of the corporation will be made by the next Government of The Bahamas, after the next general election,” he advised.

FAILED BID

Under the five-year rule of the Christie administration, privatization was also on the menu.

The administration also planned to use proceeds from the sale to pay down debt.

In September 2002, the government inched a step closer to the privatization of BaTelCo, and announced the formation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company Limited.

Then Board Chairman Reno Brown told reporters the name change marked the first crucial and very necessary step in the privatization process.

Bradley Roberts, who at the time was minister responsible for BTC, signed the vesting orders in accordance with a resolution passed in the House of Assembly, which approved of the disposal of the property which BaTelCo owned, to BTC, as well as to the treasurer of The Bahamas and the Public Utilities Commission.

As Brown told it, the transfer of the assets was seamless.

Millions more were pumped into preparing BTC for privatization. But it amounted to yet another failed bid.

As its term wound down, the Progressive Liberal Party government settled on the Bluewater group.

According to documents obtained by The Nassau Guardian, James Smith, who at the time was minister of state for finance, wrote to then Cabinet Secretary Wendell Major on April 30, 2007 advising that the sale to Bluewater had been “approved for execution”.

Smith also advised Major that he may wish to consult with Prime Minister Christie on the matter.

Smith attached a letter from Bluewater, outlining the terms of the pending sale.

In the letter, Bluewater confirmed its offer to purchase a 49 percent interest in BTC from the government.

Bluewater agreed to pay the government $260 million “for 49 percent of the company which represents a valuation of 100 percent of BTC of over $520 million.”

Bluewater agreed to pay $220 million in cash at closing; $25 million at the end of the fifth year following closing and $15 million at the end of the sixth year.”

Under that deal, Bluewater would have been granted mobile and land line licenses with five and six-year exclusivity periods, respectively.

Bluewater would also have been granted full management and operational control of BTC.

While that deal called for the chairman of the board to be a Bahamian citizen appointed by the government in consultation with Bluewater, the telecoms firm would have appointed the deputy chairman, the company’s chief executive officer and the chief financial officer.

Bluewater’s letter also called for the government to make certain payments to the group in the event it violated the exclusivity agreement.

But Bluewater’s plans had a short shelf life.

A day after being sworn back into office in 2007, Ingraham said while the Free National Movement was campaigning, the Christie administration was busy at Cabinet agreeing to sell BTC secretly.

It was then that he vowed that his administration would review every line of the deal “and there is no circumstance under which BTC can be sold on credit — no deal about installment payments.”

“All monies up front,” Ingraham said. “And what you will do after you get it must be clearly stated.”

UNFINISHED AGENDA

When the Free National Movement was returned to government in 2007, it again had privatization on its agenda.

In September 2008, Prime Minister Ingraham revealed in the House of Assembly that the government intends to sell a 51 percent stake in BTC and move swiftly to liberalize the telecoms sector in the country. ”It is the government’s intent to cause BTC to be privatized by the end of this year,” Ingraham said.

“Whether or not we’re going to be able to make that date is questionable at the moment because there are many issues that need to be settled.”

The year ended with the government still far off from privatization.

In August 2009, the government-appointed privatization committee said interest in the 51 percent stake was strong, and the due diligence phase of the process was set for a September start.

The government again advised that it was seeking a strategic partner with a strong reputation in the telecommunications industry; the ability and commitment to generate value-added revenue and cost synergies with BTC operations; financial strength and the operational platform to be able to enhance BTC’s underlying network, services, billing and customer service, as well as a history of strong financial performance.

Weeks later, the privatization committee recommended to Ingraham that four interested groups be allowed to bid: Vodafone and One Equity Partners; Digicel Limited; Atlantic Tele-Network Inc. (a consortium which included Colina Financial Advisors as a minority shareholder) and Trilogy International Partners (which was backed by Providence Equity Partners).

Vodafone and OEP ended up with the highest combined score after the committee completed an assessment of the bidders’ financial and technical ability.

At this stage of the process, Cable and Wireless had no interest in purchasing any part of BTC.

There were actually several major telecoms companies that had been described by the privatization committee as the “best prospects” to purchase a 51 percent stake in BTC, but they decided not to participate in the sale process.

Cable and Wireless, AT&T, Verizon, America Movil and Rogers Communications were the groups the committee was most interested in, but they had no interest in the company.

The committee said in 2009 that after a lengthy review of the opportunity, Cable and Wireless decided not to participate, being focused on other organic growth opportunities and financial market conditions.

Last year, CWC was back at the table with the government.

Since the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Ingraham administration early last month, the company and the government have seen strong opposition.

But it finally appears that the long, tumultuous road that saw numerous failed attempts at privatization is nearing its end.

BTC in short order, it seems, will be owned in the majority by Cable and Wireless.

It’s a move the Ingraham-led government has assured will spell untold benefits for customers craving lower costs and better technology.

But a dozen years after initial attempts were made to privatize BaTelCo, the unions are still not convinced that the government’s approach to privatization is the best one.

It is unclear whether this sharp opposition — including court action — would have any meaningful impact on the process this time around.

1/24/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International