Much abuse in gay community
By Trevor Yearwood
THERE’S a lot of domestic violence in Barbados’ gay and lesbian communities.
Priest and psychologist Reverend Marcus Lashley made this charge last Wednesday night during a panel discussion at the Grand Salle, in the Tom Adams Financial Centre, Bridgetown.
Lashley said domestic violence was not limited to man/woman relationships.
“I can’t think of one case where they (partners) are equal in terms of power,” he told the meeting, organised by the Caribbean Gynaecological Endoscopic Services (CariGES).
“There is always a significant power differential and it is how that power differential is manifested that is of tremendous significance.
“There’s also a lot of violence because it is a close-knit community. It is, in essence, a minority community and therefore there is tremendous possession, tremendous jealousy, tremendous fear and that motivates a lot of the actions.”
The meeting discussed issues including domestic violence, how to become more attractive to your partner, male menopause and the prevalence of endometriosis.
The panellists included obstetrician/ gynaecologist Dr John George, women’s rights activist Nalita Gajadhar and mathematics teacher and youth leader, Corey Worrell.
Earlier, Gajadhar had said Barbadians may have some “fanciful notions” about violence and assigned roles in homosexual relations.
She was responding to a question from the audience on whether the “females” in such relationships faced abuse.
Dealing with the issue of how to become more attractive to your partner, Worrell told the gathering that it took more than financial and emotional security to keep a relationship going well.
He spoke of the need for partners to pray together and to be physically fit.
Worrell urged couples to do what was right and not what was popular, complaining that men were being encouraged to have several spouses.
“A lot of people’s lives get messed up because of a penis and a vagina,” he said.
February 18, 2011 - 12:02 AM
nationnews
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Education is taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken in the Caribbean
Education: Equal opportunity provider or Kentucky Fried oriented?
By Oliver Mills
In our Caribbean society, commentaries and reports on educational issues seem to constantly appear in our various daily papers, sometimes competing with politics. Recently in one country, there was a commentary on the way a particular ministry of education was treating high school principals. In another, there was the issue of the importance of technical and vocational education being offered more broadly in high schools. Yet in another, there was a discussion about the inadequate performance of students in the grade achievement test leading to entry in various high schools.
All of these episodes point more starkly to the real role education should play in equipping individuals with knowledge and competencies to enable them to play a positive role in the development of their societies. But in undertaking this role, the important question can be posed. Is education an equal opportunity provider, or is it Kentucky Fried oriented? The latter description will be explained later.
In connection with the question of the role of education, a recent article published in the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, the writer states that education is charged with the task of equalising and expanding the opportunities of individuals in terms of the jobs they might have access to, and the material resources they can hope to enjoy, and their role as citizens. Does education really perform this function?
At one level it could be said that education does perform the above mentioned function. In the majority of instances, in the Caribbean, education fosters social mobility, in terms of widening the middle class because of the skills and competencies it equips those benefitting from it with.
It further opens opportunities and equalises the social structure since through it the educated person gains access to the higher echelons of society, where critical decisions are made. Education also enables many to enter the professions, politics, and to do serious research, which results in an enhancement of the lives of Caribbean people.
The educated person therefore gains access to greater material and financial resources, which he or she would be denied otherwise. Furthermore, education results in committed citizens with positive values who contribute to the welfare of their societies, and promote moral and ethical values that create trustworthiness among members of the society at large.
But is it as straightforward as it is presented here? There are some of us who seriously question whether education performs the tasks it is alleged it does. Many others think that some educated persons neither think nor act as if they have been exposed to education. And even if this is not the case, their dispositions and performance appraisal do not reflect the capabilities education should have provided.
Why is it, for example in the Caribbean, that many of our countries still experience unsatisfactory economic growth and development, even though we have various types and levels of educational institutions, which almost make education an industry, and an appreciable number of graduates from these institutions. Why can’t they get our institutions and industries to perform more efficiently? Is not this what education is all about? Why is it that skills and knowledge do not seem to match productivity in the Caribbean?
It is precisely because of these factors that some Caribbean observers are saying that although education is an opportunity provider in some sense, the opportunities do not reflect the necessary results expected both for the individual and for society. They also say in a most frightening way, that what we really have in the Caribbean is education taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken. More clearly, that it is Kentucky Fried oriented. This means that those exposed to education swallow it, barely digest it, and then through the exits it goes. It does not ever become an integral part of the individual and his being so that his or her behaviour could be transformed for the better.
In a wider sense, education, seen as being Kentucky Fried oriented, means that the ingredients of education, prepared by the lecturer, which include knowledge and skills, are fed to students in the classroom. The students ingest it, without giving the time and concentration to really savour it. They therefore swallow it, without understanding what they have been exposed to, and without giving the necessary attention to chewing it, so that it is experienced in a deep way. They then barely digest it, so that it does not become a part of their understanding. It is then expunged, without having any significant impact on the individual or the environment.
This is why many persons in their critique of education feel that some educated persons do not act as if they have been exposed to knowledge at a high level, which should make a difference for them, and to them. They do not see the education received by some individuals as related or connected to new behaviours, or contributing to national development. It is therefore of the Kentucky Fried variety, where it is swallowed, barely digested, and then goes the way of the exit.
Many students often complain also, that whenever they attend lectures, they are not given the opportunity to question, or come up with a different perspective or interpretation of what the lecturer gives. They fear that if they do, they would be penalised by being given an unsatisfactory grade. They therefore reproduce in their essays and exams what the lecturer gave them in class. Students therefore, in order to get a grade that will enable them to get a good degree, or which would put them on the path to apply for higher studies, go along with what is given to them. The more you can accurately give the lecturer’s viewpoint, the higher the grade you get. There is no alternative view, no questioning, no quoting of additional sources, because what the lecturer says is almost sacred, hence the Kentucky Fried orientation of education.
This strategy is also responsible for the fact that when students graduate and are on the job, they find it difficult to think innovatively. Even here, they fear that their manager at the workplace would penalise them, if they seem too bright, and they may even be accused of not fitting in with the team. This is because the manager has himself, or herself received the same kind of Kentucky Fried education as the employee. The vicious circle therefore continues.
This Kentucky Fried way of doing things also applies to politics. The political party has a certain line, given by either its leader, or an executive group. If there is any questioning of the ideology, a member could either be disciplined or expelled, for not being part of the dominant value system, which follows the Kentucky Fried method of doing things.
Since the Kentucky Fried strategy discourages independent thinking, it is prone to mistakes in judgment and in the implementation of policies, because other voices are censored, and only the voice of the dominant ideology is allowed.
This means that even in a general sense, if Caribbean countries undertake basically the same education project aimed at transforming their systems, it would not achieve its objectives, since it would be riddled with defects that could have been exposed had there been a fair dialogue concerning consequences and other possible paradigms for consideration. The Kentucky Fried phenomenon in education therefore hinders critical thinking, discourages alternatives, and freezes the education process. Mistakes and bad strategies therefore persist.
Education also, as an opportunity provider, if in fact this is really the case, can be seen as a contradiction. The question is opportunity provider for whom? What sector of society? Is it the sector that has always dominated decision making and co-opted others, in order to maintain its power and influence? Is education then the equal opportunity provider for the selected few, and not for the many? Despite the expansion of educational opportunities in the Caribbean, is it not the case that the top positions are held by the ‘old boys network’? And that in terms of gender equality, are not male managers more prevalent and dominant than female managers? This is despite the fact that females may be greater in numbers, but the male manager or leader possesses the resources and social capital which enable them to maintain their professional grip on the system. Where then is the equal opportunity?
From the arguments above, it could therefore be said that education, in the strict theoretical sense, is an equal opportunity provider, but not in its practical, everyday operation. Here, complexities and contradictions abound. What is most clear, however, is that the Kentucky Fried model dominates, controls, and shapes the educational process. This is because, despite the fact that education is meant to liberate and encourage critical thinking, there is a dominant philosophy which inhibits this.
This philosophy also promotes a situation throughout the Caribbean, where the Kentucky Fried paradigm operates by preparing knowledge with certain ingredients, feeding it to its clients, who then swallow it, barely digest it, and it then percolates through a predetermined exit, which neither benefits the individual nor society in any way that is significant, or positive.
February 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
By Oliver Mills
In our Caribbean society, commentaries and reports on educational issues seem to constantly appear in our various daily papers, sometimes competing with politics. Recently in one country, there was a commentary on the way a particular ministry of education was treating high school principals. In another, there was the issue of the importance of technical and vocational education being offered more broadly in high schools. Yet in another, there was a discussion about the inadequate performance of students in the grade achievement test leading to entry in various high schools.
All of these episodes point more starkly to the real role education should play in equipping individuals with knowledge and competencies to enable them to play a positive role in the development of their societies. But in undertaking this role, the important question can be posed. Is education an equal opportunity provider, or is it Kentucky Fried oriented? The latter description will be explained later.In connection with the question of the role of education, a recent article published in the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, the writer states that education is charged with the task of equalising and expanding the opportunities of individuals in terms of the jobs they might have access to, and the material resources they can hope to enjoy, and their role as citizens. Does education really perform this function?
At one level it could be said that education does perform the above mentioned function. In the majority of instances, in the Caribbean, education fosters social mobility, in terms of widening the middle class because of the skills and competencies it equips those benefitting from it with.
It further opens opportunities and equalises the social structure since through it the educated person gains access to the higher echelons of society, where critical decisions are made. Education also enables many to enter the professions, politics, and to do serious research, which results in an enhancement of the lives of Caribbean people.
The educated person therefore gains access to greater material and financial resources, which he or she would be denied otherwise. Furthermore, education results in committed citizens with positive values who contribute to the welfare of their societies, and promote moral and ethical values that create trustworthiness among members of the society at large.
But is it as straightforward as it is presented here? There are some of us who seriously question whether education performs the tasks it is alleged it does. Many others think that some educated persons neither think nor act as if they have been exposed to education. And even if this is not the case, their dispositions and performance appraisal do not reflect the capabilities education should have provided.
Why is it, for example in the Caribbean, that many of our countries still experience unsatisfactory economic growth and development, even though we have various types and levels of educational institutions, which almost make education an industry, and an appreciable number of graduates from these institutions. Why can’t they get our institutions and industries to perform more efficiently? Is not this what education is all about? Why is it that skills and knowledge do not seem to match productivity in the Caribbean?
It is precisely because of these factors that some Caribbean observers are saying that although education is an opportunity provider in some sense, the opportunities do not reflect the necessary results expected both for the individual and for society. They also say in a most frightening way, that what we really have in the Caribbean is education taking on the function of Kentucky Fried chicken. More clearly, that it is Kentucky Fried oriented. This means that those exposed to education swallow it, barely digest it, and then through the exits it goes. It does not ever become an integral part of the individual and his being so that his or her behaviour could be transformed for the better.
In a wider sense, education, seen as being Kentucky Fried oriented, means that the ingredients of education, prepared by the lecturer, which include knowledge and skills, are fed to students in the classroom. The students ingest it, without giving the time and concentration to really savour it. They therefore swallow it, without understanding what they have been exposed to, and without giving the necessary attention to chewing it, so that it is experienced in a deep way. They then barely digest it, so that it does not become a part of their understanding. It is then expunged, without having any significant impact on the individual or the environment.
This is why many persons in their critique of education feel that some educated persons do not act as if they have been exposed to knowledge at a high level, which should make a difference for them, and to them. They do not see the education received by some individuals as related or connected to new behaviours, or contributing to national development. It is therefore of the Kentucky Fried variety, where it is swallowed, barely digested, and then goes the way of the exit.
Many students often complain also, that whenever they attend lectures, they are not given the opportunity to question, or come up with a different perspective or interpretation of what the lecturer gives. They fear that if they do, they would be penalised by being given an unsatisfactory grade. They therefore reproduce in their essays and exams what the lecturer gave them in class. Students therefore, in order to get a grade that will enable them to get a good degree, or which would put them on the path to apply for higher studies, go along with what is given to them. The more you can accurately give the lecturer’s viewpoint, the higher the grade you get. There is no alternative view, no questioning, no quoting of additional sources, because what the lecturer says is almost sacred, hence the Kentucky Fried orientation of education.
This strategy is also responsible for the fact that when students graduate and are on the job, they find it difficult to think innovatively. Even here, they fear that their manager at the workplace would penalise them, if they seem too bright, and they may even be accused of not fitting in with the team. This is because the manager has himself, or herself received the same kind of Kentucky Fried education as the employee. The vicious circle therefore continues.
This Kentucky Fried way of doing things also applies to politics. The political party has a certain line, given by either its leader, or an executive group. If there is any questioning of the ideology, a member could either be disciplined or expelled, for not being part of the dominant value system, which follows the Kentucky Fried method of doing things.
Since the Kentucky Fried strategy discourages independent thinking, it is prone to mistakes in judgment and in the implementation of policies, because other voices are censored, and only the voice of the dominant ideology is allowed.
This means that even in a general sense, if Caribbean countries undertake basically the same education project aimed at transforming their systems, it would not achieve its objectives, since it would be riddled with defects that could have been exposed had there been a fair dialogue concerning consequences and other possible paradigms for consideration. The Kentucky Fried phenomenon in education therefore hinders critical thinking, discourages alternatives, and freezes the education process. Mistakes and bad strategies therefore persist.
Education also, as an opportunity provider, if in fact this is really the case, can be seen as a contradiction. The question is opportunity provider for whom? What sector of society? Is it the sector that has always dominated decision making and co-opted others, in order to maintain its power and influence? Is education then the equal opportunity provider for the selected few, and not for the many? Despite the expansion of educational opportunities in the Caribbean, is it not the case that the top positions are held by the ‘old boys network’? And that in terms of gender equality, are not male managers more prevalent and dominant than female managers? This is despite the fact that females may be greater in numbers, but the male manager or leader possesses the resources and social capital which enable them to maintain their professional grip on the system. Where then is the equal opportunity?
From the arguments above, it could therefore be said that education, in the strict theoretical sense, is an equal opportunity provider, but not in its practical, everyday operation. Here, complexities and contradictions abound. What is most clear, however, is that the Kentucky Fried model dominates, controls, and shapes the educational process. This is because, despite the fact that education is meant to liberate and encourage critical thinking, there is a dominant philosophy which inhibits this.
This philosophy also promotes a situation throughout the Caribbean, where the Kentucky Fried paradigm operates by preparing knowledge with certain ingredients, feeding it to its clients, who then swallow it, barely digest it, and it then percolates through a predetermined exit, which neither benefits the individual nor society in any way that is significant, or positive.
February 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Why It's Not a 'Safe Bet' to Believe In God
AlterNet / By Greta Christina
The idea that you should believe in God "just in case" trivializes both faith and reality, and concedes your argument before it's begun.
"Why not believe in God? If you believe and you turn out to be wrong, you haven't lost anything. But if you don't believe and you turn out to be wrong, you lose everything. Isn't believing the safer bet?"
In debates about religion, this argument keeps coming up. Over, and over, and over again. In almost any debate about religion, if the debate lasts long enough, 
And it makes atheists want to tear our hair out.
Not because it's a great argument... but because it's such a manifestly lousy one. It doesn't make logical sense. It doesn't make practical sense. It trivializes the whole idea of both belief and non-belief. It trivializes reality. In fact, it concedes the argument before it's even begun. Demolishing Pascal's Wager is like shooting fish in a barrel. Unusually slow fish, in a tiny, tiny barrel. I almost feel guilty writing an entire piece about it. It's such low-hanging fruit.
But alas, it's a ridiculously common argument. In fact, it's one of the most common arguments made in favor of religion. So today, I'm going to take a deep breath, and put on a hat so I don't tear my hair out, and spend a little time annihilating it.
Which God? The first and most obvious problem with Pascal's Wager? It assumes there's only one religion, and only one version of God.
Pascal's Wager assumes the choice between religion and atheism is simple. You pick either religion, or no religion. Belief in God, or no belief in God. One, or the other.
But as anyone knows who's read even a little history -- or who's turned on a TV in the last 10 years -- there are hundreds upon hundreds of different religions, and different gods these religions believe in. Thousands, if you count all the little sub-sects separately. Tens of thousands or more, if you count every religion throughout history that anyone's ever believed in. Even among today's Big Five, there are hundreds of variations: sects of Christianity, for instance, include Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, United Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, etc. etc. etc. And sub-sects of these sects include Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Mormonism (mainstream LDS version), Mormonism (cultish polygamous version), Mormonism (repulsive infant-torturing version), Church of England, American Episcopalian, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod....
How do you know which one to wager on?
The differences between these gods and religions aren't trivial. If you obey the rules of one, you're guaranteed to be violating the rules of another. If you worship Jesus, and Islam turns out to right -- you're screwed. If you worship Allah, and Judaism turns out to be right -- you're screwed. If you worship Jehovah, and Jainism turns out to be right -- you're screwed. Even if you get the broad strokes right, you could be getting the finer points wrong. And in many religions, the finer points matter a lot. Taking Communion or not taking Communion? Baptizing at birth or at the age of reason? Ordaining women as priests or not? Any of these could get you sent straight to hell. No matter if you're Catholic, or Baptist, or Mormon, or Anglican, or whatever... there are a whole bunch of other Christians out there who are absolutely convinced that you've gotten Christianity totally wrong, and that you're just pissing God off more and more every day.
So how on Earth is religion a safer bet?
You're just as likely to be angering God with your belief as atheists are with our lack of it.
To many believers, the answer to the "Which god?" question seems obvious. It's their god, of course. Like, duh. But to someone who doesn't believe -- to someone being presented with Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe -- the answer to "Which god?" is anything but obvious. To someone who doesn't believe, the question is both baffling and crucial. And without some decent evidence supporting one god hypothesis over another, the "Which god?" question renders Pascal's Wager utterly useless.
Unless you have some actual good evidence that your particular religion is the right one and all the others are wrong, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheist's bet on no God.
And if you had some good evidence that your religion was right, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.
Does God even care? Pascal's Wager doesn't just assume there's only one god and one religion. It assumes that God cares whether you believe in him. It assumes that God will reward belief with a heavenly eternal afterlife... and punish disbelief with a hellish one.
But why should we assume that?
According to many religions -- the more progressive ecumenical ones leap to mind -- God doesn't care whether we worship him in exactly the right way. Or indeed whether we worship him at all. In these religions, as long as we treat each other well, according to our best understanding of right and wrong, God will be happy with us, and reward us in the afterlife. These believers are totally fine with atheists -- well, as long as we keep our mouths shut and don't disturb anyone with our annoying arguments -- and they certainly don't think we're going to burn in hell.
In fact, according to many of these progressive religionists, God has more respect for sincere atheists who fearlessly proclaim their non-belief than he does for insincere "believers" who pretend to have faith because it's easier and safer and they don't want to rock the boat. According to these progressives, honest atheism is actually the safer bet. The weaselly hypocrisy of Pascal's Wager is more likely to get up God's nose.
So even if you think the god hypothesis is plausible and coherent... why would it automatically follow that belief in said god is an essential part of this afterlife insurance you're supposedly buying with your "safer bet"?
In fact, I've seen (and written about) an atheist version of Pascal's Wager that takes this conundrum into account. In the Atheist's Wager, you might as well just be as good a person as you can in this life, and not worry about God or the afterlife. If (a) God is good, he won't care if you believe in him, as long as you were the best person you could be. If (b) God is a capricious, egoistic, insecure jackass whose lessons on how to act are so unclear we're still fighting about them after thousands of years... then we have no way of knowing what behavior he's going to punish or reward, and we might as well just be good according to our own understanding. And if (c) there is no god, then it's worth being good for its own sake: because we have compassion for other people, and because being good makes our world a better place, for ourselves and everyone else.
Now, to be perfectly clear: I don't, in fact, think the Atheist's Wager is a good argument for atheism. I think the best arguments for atheism are based, not on what kind of behavior is a safer bet for a better afterlife, but on whether religion is, you know, true. The Atheist's Wager is funny, and it makes some valid points... but it's not a sensible argument for why we shouldn't believe in God.
But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Pascal's Wager.
Unless you have some good evidence that God cares about our religious belief, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.
And if you had some good evidence that God cares about our religious belief, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.
Is God that easily fooled? And speaking of whether God cares about our religion: If God does care whether we believe in him... do you really think he's going to be fooled by this sort of bet-hedging?
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that God is real. And for the moment, let's also pretend that God cares whether we believe in him. Let's pretend, in fact, that he cares so much about whether we believe in him that, when he's deciding what kind of afterlife we're going to spend eternity in, this belief or lack thereof is the make-or-break factor.
Is God going to be fooled by Pascal's Wager?
When you're lining up at the gates to the afterlife and God is looking deep into your soul -- and when he sees that your belief consisted of, "Hey, why not believe, it's not like I've got anything to lose, and I've got a whole afterlife of good times to gain, so sure, I 'believe' in God, wink wink" -- do you really think God's going to be impressed? Do you really think he's going to say, "Oo, that's sly, that's some ingenious dodging of the question you got there, we just love a slippery weasel here in Heaven, come on in"? Is he going to be flattered by being seen, not as the creator of all existence who breathed life into you and everyone you loved, but as the "safer bet"?
I don't believe in God. Obviously. I think the god hypothesis is implausible at best, incoherent at worst. But of all the implausible, incoherent gods I've seen hypothesized, the one who punishes honest atheists who take the question of his existence seriously enough to reject it when they don't see it supported, and at the same time rewards insincere, bet-hedging religionists who profess belief as part of a self-centered attempt to hit the jackpot at the end of their life... that is easily among the battiest.
Unless you have some actual good evidence that God (a) exists, (b) cares passionately about our religious belief, and yet (c) is dumb enough to be fooled by Pascal's Wager, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.
And if you had some good evidence for any of this, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.
All of which brings me to:
Does this even count as "belief"? This is one of the things that drives me most nuts about Pascal's Wager. Whenever anyone proposes it, I want to just tear my hair out and yell, "Do you really not care whether the things you believe are true?"
Believers who propose Pascal's Wager apparently think that you can just choose what to believe, as easily as you choose what pair of shoes to buy. They seem to think that "believing" means "professing an allegiance to an opinion, regardless of whether you think it's true." And I am both infuriated and baffled by this notion. I literally have no idea what it means to "believe" something based entirely on what would be most convenient, without any concern for whether it's actually true. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word "believe." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Unless you have a good argument for why insincere, bet-hedging "belief" qualifies as actual belief, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.
And if you had a good argument for this insincere version of "belief," you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.
Is the cost of belief really nothing? And, of course, we have one of the core foundational premises of Pascal's Wager. It doesn't just assume that the rewards of belief are infinite. It assumes that the costs of belief are non-existent.
And that is just flatly not true.
Let's take an example. Let's say that I tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reward you with strippers and beer in heaven when you die -- and to receive this reward, you simply have to say the words, "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendage," one time and one time only. You might think I was off my rocker. Okay, you'd almost certainly think I was off my rocker. But because the sacrifice of time and energy would be so tiny, you might, for the sake of hedging your bets, go ahead and say the words. (For the entertainment value, if nothing else.)
But if I tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reward you with strippers and beer in heaven when you die -- and that to receive this reward, you have to send me a box of Godiva truffles every Saturday, get a full-color image of the Monster tattooed on the back of your right hand, be unfailingly rude to anyone who comes from Detroit, and say the words "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendage" every hour on the hour for the rest of your life... it's very, very unlikely that you're going to comply. You're going to think I'm off my rocker -- and you're going to ignore my pleading request to save your eternal soul from a beerless, stripper-less eternity. You're going to think that following the sacred customs of the FSM faith would be a ridiculous waste of time, energy, and resources. You're definitely not going to think that it's a safer bet.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Most religions don't simply require you to believe that God exists. They require you to make sacrifices, and adhere to rules. Not just the ordinary ones needed to be a moral/ successful/ happy person in everyday life, either. Religions typically require significant sacrifices, and obedience to strict rules, that can seriously interfere with happiness, success, even morality. Religions require people to donate money; participate in rituals; spend time in houses of worship; follow rules about what to eat, what to wear, what drugs to avoid, who to have sex with and how. Religions require people to cut off their foreskins. Cut off their clitorises. Cut off ties with their gay children. Dress modestly. Suppress their sexuality. Reject evolution. Reject blood transfusions. (For themselves, and their children.) Refuse to consider interfaith marriage. Refuse to consider interfaith friendship. Memorize a long stretch of religious text and recite it in public at age thirteen. Spend their weekends knocking on strangers' doors, pestering them to join the faith. Donate money to fix the church roof. Donate money to send bibles to Nicaragua. Donate money so the preacher can buy a Cadillac. Have as many children as they physically can. Disown their children if they leave the faith. Obey their husbands without question. Not eat pork. Not get tattoos. Get up early to sit in church once a week, on one of only two days a week they have off. Cover their bodies from head to toe. Treat people as unclean who were born into different castes. Treat women as sinners if they have sex outside marriage. Beat or kill their wives and daughters if they have sex outside marriage. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Religion typically requires sacrifice.
And this simple fact, all by itself, completely demolishes the foundational assumption of Pascal's wager.
The assumption of Pascal's Wager is that any other wager is a sucker's bet. Pascal's Wager doesn't just assume that the payoff for winning the bet is infinite bliss, or that the cost of losing is infinite suffering. It assumes that the stakes for the bet are zero.
But the stakes are not zero.
It's even been argued -- correctly, I think -- that the sacrifices religion requires are an essential part of what keep it going. (Think of fraternity hazing. Once you've sacrificed and suffered for a belief or project or group affiliation, you're more likely to stick with it... to convince yourself that the sacrifice was worth it. That's how the rationalizing human mind works.)
And if religion requires sacrifice... then Pascal's Wager collapses. A bet with an infinite payoff and zero stakes? Sure, that's an obvious bet. But a bet with infinite payoff and real stakes? That's a lot less obvious. Especially when there are, as I said before, thousands of competing bets, all with contradictory demands for the specific stakes you're supposed to place. And double especially when there's no good evidence that any one of these competing bets is more likely to pay off than any other... or that any of them at all have any plausible chance whatsoever of paying off. Again: If you wouldn't bet on my Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, with its entirely reasonable demands for chocolate and tattoos and hourly prayer and fanatical Detroit-phobia... then why on Earth are you betting on your own religion?
If this short life is the only one we have, then contorting our lives into narrow and arbitrary restrictions, and following rules that grotesquely distort our moral compass, and giving things up that are harmless and ethical and could make ourselves and others profoundly happy, all for no good reason... that's the sucker bet.
Besides... even if none of this were true? Even if belief in God required absolutely no sacrifice in any practical matters? No rules, no rituals, no circumcision, no sexual guilt, no execution of adulterers, no gay children shamed and abandoned, no dead children who would have lived if they'd gotten blood transfusions, no money in the collection plate? Nothing except belief?
It would still have costs.
And those costs would be significant.
The idea of religious faith? The idea that it makes sense to believe in invisible beings, undetectable forces, events that happen after we die? The idea that it makes sense to believe in a hypothesis that's either entirely untestable... or that's been tested thousands of times and consistently been proven wrong? The idea that we can rely entirely on our personal intuition to tell us what is and isn't true about the world... and ignore hard evidence that contradicts that intuition? The idea that it's not only acceptable, but a positive good, to believe in things for which you have not one single shred of good evidence?
This idea has costs. This idea undermines our critical thinking skills. It closes our minds to new ideas. It bolsters our prejudices and preconceptions. It leaves us vulnerable to bad ideas. It leaves us vulnerable to frauds and charlatans. It leaves us vulnerable to manipulative political leaders. It leads us to devalue evidence and reason. It leads us to trivialize reality.
So all by itself, even without any obvious sacrifices of time or money or restricted lifestyle or screwed-up ethical choices, religious faith shapes the way we live our lives. And it does so in a way that can do a tremendous amount of harm.
Unless you have some actual good evidence that the sacrifice of time/ money/ happiness/ goodness/ etc. required by religion -- and the sacrifice of healthy skepticism and critical thinking and passion for truth -- will actually pay off with the reward of a blissful eternal afterlife, your bet on God is just as shaky as the atheists' bet on no God.
And if you had some good evidence that God exists, and that these sacrifices had a good chance of paying off, you wouldn't be resorting to Pascal's Wager to make your case.
Conceding Your Argument Before You've Even Started It. If you take nothing else from this piece, take this:
The moment you propose Pascal's Wager is the moment you've conceded the argument.
Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for why God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager is, in fact, 100% disconnected from the question of whether God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager offers no evidence for God's existence -- not even the shaky "evidence" of the appearance of design or the supposed fine-tuning of the universe or the feelings in your heart. It offers no logical argument for why God must exist or probably exists -- not even the paper-thin "logic" of the First Cause argument. It does not offer one scrap of a positive reason for thinking that God is real.
Pascal's Wager is misdirection. Distraction. It's a way of drawing attention away from how crummy the arguments for God actually are. It's an evasion: a slippery, dodgy, wanna-be clever trick to avoid the actual argument. It's a way of making the debater feel wily and ingenious, while ignoring the actual question on the table.
It isn't an argument. It's an excuse for why you don't have an argument. And it's a completely pathetic excuse.
If you're relying on Pascal's Wager for your faith, you might as well believe in unicorns or elves, Zoroaster or Zeus, the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage or the Flying Spaghetti Monster who brought the world into being through his blessed noodley appendage. Pascal's Wager is every bit as good an argument for these beliefs as it is for any religion that people currently believe in.
If you had a better argument for God, you'd be making it. You'd be offering some good evidence for why God exists; some logical explanation for why God has to exist. You wouldn't be resorting to this lazy, slippery, bet-hedging, shot-full-of-holes excuse for why you don't have to actually think about the question.
Pascal's Wager isn't an argument.
It's an admission that you've got nothing.
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
February 14, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
What Wikileaks Teaches Us About Obama and Latin America
By Rebecca Ray - Common Dreams
President Obama has given little indication of the strategy for his upcoming trip through Chile, Brazil, and El Salvador. Will "the great listener" promote cooperation and understanding, or carry on the Bush administration’s approach of fighting against regional alliances?
Words of Wisdom from Past Leaders
Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that last year Chilean President Bacheleturged the Obama administration to avoid separating South American nations into ideological pigeonholes:
President Bachelet emphasized the need to understand the nuances of Latin America’s leaders and their countries rather than lumping them into populist and pro-western camps … emphasizing that Morales was very different from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
In prior years, Brazil has urged the US to establish direct dialogue with administrations that have clashed with the US. In a 2009 visit:
…both [Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor] Garcia and [Foreign Minister] Amorim used the opportunity to encourage the United States to establish 'a direct channel of communication with President Chavez.' Amorim suggested that a good USG-GOV dialogue would have an impact on the domestic situation in Venezuela, as well, because much of the opposition to Chavez has ties to the United States.
And in a 2008 visit Brazil went so far as to offer help in establishing dialogue:
Garcia suggested that, "Maybe it is time (for the United States) to have a frank discussion with Bolivia" … Without wishing to be a mediator, he said, Brazil is willing to help in whatever it can, recalling a similar commitment he made to A/S Shannon two years earlier.
A Legacy of Division
If Obama takes either of these leaders' advice to heart, it will be a dramatic shift from the past. The Wikileaks cables show us a detailed history of the Bush administration weakening cooperation between Latin American countries. Not surprisingly, much of these efforts have been focused on separating Venezuela from its regional allies, but they also involved Brazil and Bolivia.
In a 2007 cable entitled "A Southern Cone Perspective on Countering Chavez and Reasserting U.S. Leadership," Santiago embassy staff develop a 6-point strategy to weaken Venezuela’s regional alliances:
- "Know thy Enemy" (information sharing)
- "Directly Engage" (more high-level US visits to other Latin American countries)
- "Change the Political Landscape" (boosting Argentina’s and Brazil’s influence as counterweights)
- "Play to Our Mil-Mil Advantage" (South American military training and peacekeeping operations)
- "Stress Our Winning Formula" (aid and corporate social responsibility)
- "Getting the Message Out" (public diplomacy)
An earlier cable from 2006 shows the US pushing for Brazil to work against Venezuela’s relationships with other countries:
Ambassador reiterated that the USG hopes more engagement by Brazil will serve to counterbalance Chavez' pernicious influence.
But the cables also focused on separating Brazil from the rest of the region. In 2006, this entailed nipping in the bud a relationship between Lula and then-presidential candidate Evo Morales, as well as other leftist governments. Embassy staff advised Ambassador Shannon:
… you can focus on the GOB’s outlook for what a Morales presidency means for regional integration, political stability and law enforcement. In particular, you can stress with all interlocutors our concerns about a possible dramatic expansion in cocaine production and export. … it will be interesting to press Garcia for explanations of statements by Lula last year that appeared to welcome Morales’ looming “populist” victory, and of how the GOB sees itself now in relation to the "Axis of Evo" (Morales, Chavez, Castro).
This strategy of division was far from successful for Bush. In spite of the Bush administrations' efforts, Brazil and Venezuela kept their alliance intact.
In 2005:
[Ambassador Danilovich] asked that FM Amorim consider institutionalizing a more intensive political engagement between the USG and GOB on Chavez, and standing up a dedicated intelligence-sharing arrangement. FM Amorim was clear in his response: "We do not see Chavez as a threat."
And later, in 2008:
Ministry of External Relations (MRE) contacts refuse to admit to us even in private that they are worried about Venezuelan interference in other countries.
And Brazilian diplomats insisted that they would continue their policy of cooperation, as Lula is a man who "believes deeply in South American unity."
In 2008:
…the USG encourages the GOB to assume greater leadership responsibilities, but the GOB is reluctant to take the controversial stances that go with leadership. Diaz replied that Brazil cannot assume leadership alone in the region, it must have partners, which would naturally be Argentina and Colombia, just as Germany and France are essential to each other in Europe. As a result, Brazil must continue to act in harmony with them and other regional players.
Has Obama Brought Change?
So far, the Obama State Department seems to have continued on the same path.
In 2009, several years after the US denied the intellectual property transfer necessary for Brazil to sell military aircraft to Venezuela, Brazilian diplomats explained to their US counterparts that it would be inconvenient if something similar blocked their sale to Bolivia.
If Bolivia wants Super Tucanos, Lula needs to be able to sell them. Brazil can’t afford the type of embarrassment caused by not being able to sell Super Tucanos to Venezuela.
The status quo appears to be continuing with isolating Venezuela, as well. For example, during the Venezuela-Colombia tensions of 2010 it chose a side rather than choosing to help ensure peace. While Brazil worked on de-escalating the conflict, the Obama administration reacted by agreeing to share intelligence with Colombia on any troop movements within Venezuela.
They did this even though they recognized Colombia’s concern about Venezuela to be "almost neuralgic." Moreover, they knew that Colombia had intentionally provoked Venezuela into the 2008 border dispute, and that Uribe held that the best reaction to any escalation in tension with Venezuela was "action – including use of the military."
Monday, February 14, 2011
Should heads of government continue to hand down leadership to their children?
by Oscar Ramjeet
The three-week demonstration and protests in Egypt that claimed the lives of hundreds was due to the fact that President Mubarak wanted to hold on to power in order to pass on his "throne" to his son, Gamal.
However, the demonstrators held their ground, which forced him to resign, but it cost the Egyptian people a lot -- hundreds of lives, pain and suffering and billions of dollars in damage.
It is not unusual for heads of government to hand down leadership to their sons or even daughters, but when it comes to bloodshed it is an entirely different matter. We have seen it in India in the late 1950s and 1960s when Jawaharalall Nerhu passed down to his daughter Indira Gandhi and she subsequently to her son Sanjeev. It was similar in Pakistan when President Bhutto handed over to his daughter Bonazir Bhuttoo, who was also assassinated, and she passed power on to her 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto.
In North Korea, young Yang Hyong Sop, known as Kim Jong Un, has been identified to replace his father Kim Jong II, who succeeded his father Kim Sung II, who was the first leader of the country way back in 1948.
In Kenya, East Africa, 41-year-old Uhuru Kenyatta has been handpicked by outgoing President Daniel Arap Moi to replace him because Uhuru, who has no political experience, is the son of his mentor, Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's first leader, who Moi succeeded in 1978.
Here in the Caribbean it is not too different. In Jamaica, we saw Norman Manley pass over the mantle to his son Michael. Vere C. Bird in Antigua and Barbuda to his son Lester. In Barbados, Grantley Adams to his son Tom, not to mention in Haiti, dictator Papa Doc, despite the fact that he raped the country of hundreds of millions, he "gave" the country to Baby Doc for him to continue to fleece the nation.
In Guyana, Forbes Burnham had five daughters and they were not interested in politics or else he would have placed one of them in a position to take over, but in any event he died at a relatively young of 62. Cheddi Jagan had a son, but he did not see eye to eye with his father and he was not "under his father's fold", hence his widow Janet took over, although she was a white American-born woman.
In St Vincent and the Grenadines, James Mitchell, who served three and half terms as prime minister did not have a son, and it is said that he changed the country's flag and removed the coat of arm and the breadfruit leaf, and replaced it with three green diamonds, which he said reflected the plural nature of the many islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
His critics however say that the three diamonds represented his three daughters. He had only three daughters at the time of the flag change on October 21, 1985.
Apparently his daughters were not interested in politics -- at least at that time -- so he handed over leadership of his New Democratic Party to Arnhim Eustace, who lost the government five months later. Now persons close to Sir James said he regretted the move, but nevertheless campaigned for him and New Democratic Party at the last general elections, when he made a very unfortunate statement that he cannot even trust God, which some critics say costs the NDP a lot of votes and maybe the government.
Now it is said that current St Vincent prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves, wants to hand over the mantle to his son, 38-year-old Camillo , a lawyer, who is now his country's permanent representative to the United Nations and US Ambassador based in New York.
I do not see a problem with that because I was told that Camillo, who is brown skinned, is competent enough to take over. In fact, he is much better than nearly all if not all the ministers in government.
Perhaps I should mention that Ambassador Gonsalves has made a name for himself in Washington. He was chosen as co-facilitator with Ambassador Frank Majoor of the Netherlands as facilitators for the preparatory process of the UN Conference of World Financial and Economic Crisis Impact.
He was in the forefront of making demands for more representation in the Security Council for Small Islands Developing State, which in my view is extremely good for a young diplomat.
I do not like to discuss race, especially in politics, but I mentioned that Camillo is brown skinned because the race card was touted in the November general elections, when it was said that the country, which comprises mainly blacks, has been run and administered by "red men" -- Mitchell and Gonsalves -- for more than 26 years. In the circumstances I feel that young Camillo will be the ideal person to replace his father and to administer the affairs of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
February 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
The three-week demonstration and protests in Egypt that claimed the lives of hundreds was due to the fact that President Mubarak wanted to hold on to power in order to pass on his "throne" to his son, Gamal.
However, the demonstrators held their ground, which forced him to resign, but it cost the Egyptian people a lot -- hundreds of lives, pain and suffering and billions of dollars in damage.
It is not unusual for heads of government to hand down leadership to their sons or even daughters, but when it comes to bloodshed it is an entirely different matter. We have seen it in India in the late 1950s and 1960s when Jawaharalall Nerhu passed down to his daughter Indira Gandhi and she subsequently to her son Sanjeev. It was similar in Pakistan when President Bhutto handed over to his daughter Bonazir Bhuttoo, who was also assassinated, and she passed power on to her 19-year-old son Bilawal Bhutto.In North Korea, young Yang Hyong Sop, known as Kim Jong Un, has been identified to replace his father Kim Jong II, who succeeded his father Kim Sung II, who was the first leader of the country way back in 1948.
In Kenya, East Africa, 41-year-old Uhuru Kenyatta has been handpicked by outgoing President Daniel Arap Moi to replace him because Uhuru, who has no political experience, is the son of his mentor, Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's first leader, who Moi succeeded in 1978.
Here in the Caribbean it is not too different. In Jamaica, we saw Norman Manley pass over the mantle to his son Michael. Vere C. Bird in Antigua and Barbuda to his son Lester. In Barbados, Grantley Adams to his son Tom, not to mention in Haiti, dictator Papa Doc, despite the fact that he raped the country of hundreds of millions, he "gave" the country to Baby Doc for him to continue to fleece the nation.
In Guyana, Forbes Burnham had five daughters and they were not interested in politics or else he would have placed one of them in a position to take over, but in any event he died at a relatively young of 62. Cheddi Jagan had a son, but he did not see eye to eye with his father and he was not "under his father's fold", hence his widow Janet took over, although she was a white American-born woman.
In St Vincent and the Grenadines, James Mitchell, who served three and half terms as prime minister did not have a son, and it is said that he changed the country's flag and removed the coat of arm and the breadfruit leaf, and replaced it with three green diamonds, which he said reflected the plural nature of the many islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
His critics however say that the three diamonds represented his three daughters. He had only three daughters at the time of the flag change on October 21, 1985.
Apparently his daughters were not interested in politics -- at least at that time -- so he handed over leadership of his New Democratic Party to Arnhim Eustace, who lost the government five months later. Now persons close to Sir James said he regretted the move, but nevertheless campaigned for him and New Democratic Party at the last general elections, when he made a very unfortunate statement that he cannot even trust God, which some critics say costs the NDP a lot of votes and maybe the government.
Now it is said that current St Vincent prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves, wants to hand over the mantle to his son, 38-year-old Camillo , a lawyer, who is now his country's permanent representative to the United Nations and US Ambassador based in New York.
I do not see a problem with that because I was told that Camillo, who is brown skinned, is competent enough to take over. In fact, he is much better than nearly all if not all the ministers in government.
Perhaps I should mention that Ambassador Gonsalves has made a name for himself in Washington. He was chosen as co-facilitator with Ambassador Frank Majoor of the Netherlands as facilitators for the preparatory process of the UN Conference of World Financial and Economic Crisis Impact.
He was in the forefront of making demands for more representation in the Security Council for Small Islands Developing State, which in my view is extremely good for a young diplomat.
I do not like to discuss race, especially in politics, but I mentioned that Camillo is brown skinned because the race card was touted in the November general elections, when it was said that the country, which comprises mainly blacks, has been run and administered by "red men" -- Mitchell and Gonsalves -- for more than 26 years. In the circumstances I feel that young Camillo will be the ideal person to replace his father and to administer the affairs of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
February 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Childhood obesity in The Bahamas
Obesity crisis for Bahamian children
By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, Bahamas
CHILDHOOD obesity is a serious concern in the Bahamas, with more than half the country's children being overweight, according to a local pediatrician.
Although there are no exact statistics available, Dr Jerome Lightbourn said he believes a significant portion of the next generation will not be able to live normal adult lives because of their weight.
Worse still, he said, many already show early signs of developing serious and possibly fatal obesity-related diseases.
The numbers that are available seem less alarming, but Dr Lightbourn is convinced they do not create an accurate picture.
Primary health care monthly reports, and the School Health Services annual report for 2004-2005, revealed that of 3,066 Bahamian 10-year-olds screened, 576 were considered overweight - a number which is still almost double the world average of 10 per cent.
For Dr Lightbourn, obesity as an "imported disease" and we only have to look to what is happening in other places to understand the extent of the danger.
He said: "We have had an influx of the western world, of mass produced foods with steroids, pesticides, hormones and the very popular fast foods."
The source of much of this food is the United States, and according to American Centre for Disease Control, childhood obesity in the US has more than tripled in the past 30 years. The prevalence of obesity among children aged six to 11 increased from 6.5 per cent in 1980 to 19.6 per cent in 2008.
Dr Lightbourn said: "We have grown up on good-tasting foods, for Bahamians that means fried chicken, macaroni and peas and rice, all high fat and high salt."
He said anyone consuming foods with a high salt and carbohydrate content runs the risk of developing diseases such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes.
"It is a cultural and generational problem. We need to address it from a public health perspective just as we address AIDS, cancer and cigarette smoking, obesity is probably killing more people than any of them," said Dr Lightbourn.
Childhood obesity is a serious medical condition which affects children and adolescents. It occurs when a child is well above the normal weight for his or her age and height.
This is called a body mass index (BMI).
When a person's BMI is 25 or greater, they are considered morbidly obese, said Dr Lightbourn.
Childhood obesity is particularly troubling because the extra pounds often start children on the path to health problems which were once confined to adults.
"The issue in the Bahamas, and around the world, is that adult onset life style diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and even cholesterol are now being associated with childhood," said Dr. Lightbourn.
"We are seeing these diseases in younger and younger people. Heart disease in no longer a 70-year-old issue, it is a 30-year-old disease."
Dr Lightbourn, an advisor at the Princess Margaret Hospital, revealed there are at least four children under the age of 12 in the children's ward who are not only obese but diabetic - a condition which can lead to kidney failure, heart disease, or blindness among other illnesses.
He said: "There needs to be a year-long campaign, not just during Heart Month, and should be a united approach by educators, parents and the government."
Dr Lightbourn recommends that children exercise for one hour every day, and that sodas and unhealthy foods be eliminated from cafeterias.
He also stressed the importance of parents and teachers leading by example and making important lifestyle changes themselves.
February 12, 2011
tribune242
By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, Bahamas
CHILDHOOD obesity is a serious concern in the Bahamas, with more than half the country's children being overweight, according to a local pediatrician.
Although there are no exact statistics available, Dr Jerome Lightbourn said he believes a significant portion of the next generation will not be able to live normal adult lives because of their weight.
Worse still, he said, many already show early signs of developing serious and possibly fatal obesity-related diseases.
The numbers that are available seem less alarming, but Dr Lightbourn is convinced they do not create an accurate picture.
Primary health care monthly reports, and the School Health Services annual report for 2004-2005, revealed that of 3,066 Bahamian 10-year-olds screened, 576 were considered overweight - a number which is still almost double the world average of 10 per cent.
For Dr Lightbourn, obesity as an "imported disease" and we only have to look to what is happening in other places to understand the extent of the danger.
He said: "We have had an influx of the western world, of mass produced foods with steroids, pesticides, hormones and the very popular fast foods."
The source of much of this food is the United States, and according to American Centre for Disease Control, childhood obesity in the US has more than tripled in the past 30 years. The prevalence of obesity among children aged six to 11 increased from 6.5 per cent in 1980 to 19.6 per cent in 2008.
Dr Lightbourn said: "We have grown up on good-tasting foods, for Bahamians that means fried chicken, macaroni and peas and rice, all high fat and high salt."
He said anyone consuming foods with a high salt and carbohydrate content runs the risk of developing diseases such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes.
"It is a cultural and generational problem. We need to address it from a public health perspective just as we address AIDS, cancer and cigarette smoking, obesity is probably killing more people than any of them," said Dr Lightbourn.
Childhood obesity is a serious medical condition which affects children and adolescents. It occurs when a child is well above the normal weight for his or her age and height.
This is called a body mass index (BMI).
When a person's BMI is 25 or greater, they are considered morbidly obese, said Dr Lightbourn.
Childhood obesity is particularly troubling because the extra pounds often start children on the path to health problems which were once confined to adults.
"The issue in the Bahamas, and around the world, is that adult onset life style diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and even cholesterol are now being associated with childhood," said Dr. Lightbourn.
"We are seeing these diseases in younger and younger people. Heart disease in no longer a 70-year-old issue, it is a 30-year-old disease."
Dr Lightbourn, an advisor at the Princess Margaret Hospital, revealed there are at least four children under the age of 12 in the children's ward who are not only obese but diabetic - a condition which can lead to kidney failure, heart disease, or blindness among other illnesses.
He said: "There needs to be a year-long campaign, not just during Heart Month, and should be a united approach by educators, parents and the government."
Dr Lightbourn recommends that children exercise for one hour every day, and that sodas and unhealthy foods be eliminated from cafeterias.
He also stressed the importance of parents and teachers leading by example and making important lifestyle changes themselves.
February 12, 2011
tribune242
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Is Haiti in better shape than a generation ago with the advent of democracy?
Haiti's twenty-five-year flirtation with democracy: A failed experience!
By Jean H Charles
I remember where I was, twenty five years ago, on February 7, 1986. I was leading, along with community leader Wilson Desir, a parade in Brooklyn, New York, celebrating the departure of the dictatorship that had gripped Haiti for thirty five years under Duvalier pere and fils governance.
In the jubilation that engulfed the Haitian community, joy and good wishes were shared by the whole New York citizenry with the Haitian people.
A nurse from the Philippines wanted to see Marcos and his Jezebel wife Imelda thrown out of her country.
“The people power” born in Haiti would spread like wildfire in the Philippines to chase Marcos out of power in September 1986.
An old man from Poland, tears in his eyes, dreamed with me of a motherland without the militarism under Russian leadership. Lech Walesa would come some years later (1989) to deliver Poland from the grip of the Russian army.
As if on cue, twenty-five years later, another wave of people power, this time born in Tunisia, is shaking the entire Arab world. It is demanding the departure of Hosni Mubarak, who ruled Egypt with an iron hand during the last thirty years. He was grooming his son to become the next chief of state, as the people say enough is enough!
Jordan, Syria, Yemen all have their political and social convulsions demanding the advent of a nation that shall become hospitable to all. In this age when the internet, Twitter, texting and other means of fast communication are becoming an effective tool of militancy, the era of dictatorship is fading away at great speed.
The Haitian Constitution promulgated one year after the departure of Jean Claude Duvalier, as well as the successive elections, did not safeguard the nation against the culture of illiberal governance.
Twenty-five year later, to the question whether Haiti is in better shape than a generation ago with the advent of democracy, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no.
There are improvements in the area of freedom of expression, yet there is a deep deceleration in the area of environmental, food, personal, and public health security in spite of massive foreign intervention.
The western style of democracy, with recurrent elections, has been in Haiti a bad vehicle for dispatching essential services and efficient institutions. The concept of nation-building has not been in the lexicon of governmental praxis.
Haiti is still the land of a wide schism between the vast majority (87%) of the population living in a fragile environment, in extreme poverty, without education and formation, versus a minority (13%) highly sophisticated in full control of the political, financial and social level of the society.
A brief vignette of the governments after the departure of Jean Claude Duvalier reveals a pattern of corruption, foreign interference with bad faith, inadequate leadership, and complete indifference to the fate of the population.
I rushed to Haiti after February 7, 1986, to help the military government establish a Haiti hospitable to all. In spite of my personal relationship with the military leader, I was not received as a friend because I came to reconcile Henry Namphy (the military leader) with Gerard Gourgue (the civilian leader) for the sake of the nation, instead of getting into the gossip of the day. Namphy led by a gang of venal military officers would be chased out of office a year later after the burning of a church packed with worshippers.
The transitional government of Ertha Trouillot introduced in Haiti the complete stronghold of the international community into the Haitian res publica, leading to the UN occupation, the advent of the mobster style government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, followed by his nemesis Rene Preval, who wears a velvet glove while presiding over a nation sliding at great speed into an abyss without end.
In contrast to Haiti over the past twenty-five years, the experience of Singapore, Malaysia, China, Vietnam and even next door Dominican Republic, based on the Renan doctrine, with no foreign intervention in following their own footprint has achieved within a generation the building of a nation with a growing middle class, delivering good services with essential infrastructure.
Haiti, at the dawn of a new generation in its experience of democracy, is engulfed profusely with a foreign intervention that seems to sustain the old culture of squalor for the majority and enlightenment for the minority.
Edmond Mulet, the chief UN resident with its machine of deterrence (MINUSTHA), has sided with Rene Preval, the decried president, to sustain a legislature bent on keeping Haiti in a failed democratic mode, postponing the advent of the emergence of true democracy in the nation.
The timing of the transition from one regime to another, the link that could break the chain of injustice, is once again hijacked by a foreign hand with a strong grip, this time with international glove.
At age 25, the Haitian democracy must take a new turn. It cannot be continued nor replicated beyond Haiti’s borders. The complete absence of governmental leadership, supplemented by the so called force of stabilization, has been a recipe for disaster.
Haiti democracy will grow in age gracefully when it takes charge of building its own army (replacing the MINUSTHA) that will protect its environment and its people; when it will root its population in their localities with ethical institutions and adequate infrastructure and when, last but not least, she will take the national determination to leave no one behind!
This is the formula for a successful democracy. So far, the western democracies, the international institutions have prevented these steps from taking root in the underdeveloped countries like Haiti, while they are the staple policy in Europe and in the United States.
The exceptional models of Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam that rely on their own culture, the strength of their people united as one to defend and to enhance the motherland, while treating each citizen as a potential jewel that should be polished for the glory of the nation will soon become the international canvas copied all over the world!
Thomas Friedman, in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, put it best: “Tharir Square (the site of the protest in Cairo Egypt) will be for now on the wave of the future.” The generation in waiting is fighting for a better standard of living, not for a cause but for Egypt or Haiti, starting with each one of them.
Once again, as two hundred years ago, the failure of the international institutions in the last twenty-five years to incubate on their watch, true democracy in Haiti is a lesson for all nations to learn from.
Note:
A test of the maturity of the Haitian democratic process: In the tradition of Justice John Marshall, the issue of removing or retaining the Haitian president, who remains in power after its mandate can and should be solved not by street demonstrations or a dicta by the UN resident Edmond Mulet but by the judiciary, the Haitian Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) that will decide whether Rene Preval can remain into power beyond February 7.
February 12, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
By Jean H Charles
I remember where I was, twenty five years ago, on February 7, 1986. I was leading, along with community leader Wilson Desir, a parade in Brooklyn, New York, celebrating the departure of the dictatorship that had gripped Haiti for thirty five years under Duvalier pere and fils governance.
In the jubilation that engulfed the Haitian community, joy and good wishes were shared by the whole New York citizenry with the Haitian people.
A nurse from the Philippines wanted to see Marcos and his Jezebel wife Imelda thrown out of her country.“The people power” born in Haiti would spread like wildfire in the Philippines to chase Marcos out of power in September 1986.
An old man from Poland, tears in his eyes, dreamed with me of a motherland without the militarism under Russian leadership. Lech Walesa would come some years later (1989) to deliver Poland from the grip of the Russian army.
As if on cue, twenty-five years later, another wave of people power, this time born in Tunisia, is shaking the entire Arab world. It is demanding the departure of Hosni Mubarak, who ruled Egypt with an iron hand during the last thirty years. He was grooming his son to become the next chief of state, as the people say enough is enough!
Jordan, Syria, Yemen all have their political and social convulsions demanding the advent of a nation that shall become hospitable to all. In this age when the internet, Twitter, texting and other means of fast communication are becoming an effective tool of militancy, the era of dictatorship is fading away at great speed.
The Haitian Constitution promulgated one year after the departure of Jean Claude Duvalier, as well as the successive elections, did not safeguard the nation against the culture of illiberal governance.
Twenty-five year later, to the question whether Haiti is in better shape than a generation ago with the advent of democracy, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no.
There are improvements in the area of freedom of expression, yet there is a deep deceleration in the area of environmental, food, personal, and public health security in spite of massive foreign intervention.
The western style of democracy, with recurrent elections, has been in Haiti a bad vehicle for dispatching essential services and efficient institutions. The concept of nation-building has not been in the lexicon of governmental praxis.
Haiti is still the land of a wide schism between the vast majority (87%) of the population living in a fragile environment, in extreme poverty, without education and formation, versus a minority (13%) highly sophisticated in full control of the political, financial and social level of the society.
A brief vignette of the governments after the departure of Jean Claude Duvalier reveals a pattern of corruption, foreign interference with bad faith, inadequate leadership, and complete indifference to the fate of the population.
I rushed to Haiti after February 7, 1986, to help the military government establish a Haiti hospitable to all. In spite of my personal relationship with the military leader, I was not received as a friend because I came to reconcile Henry Namphy (the military leader) with Gerard Gourgue (the civilian leader) for the sake of the nation, instead of getting into the gossip of the day. Namphy led by a gang of venal military officers would be chased out of office a year later after the burning of a church packed with worshippers.
The transitional government of Ertha Trouillot introduced in Haiti the complete stronghold of the international community into the Haitian res publica, leading to the UN occupation, the advent of the mobster style government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, followed by his nemesis Rene Preval, who wears a velvet glove while presiding over a nation sliding at great speed into an abyss without end.
In contrast to Haiti over the past twenty-five years, the experience of Singapore, Malaysia, China, Vietnam and even next door Dominican Republic, based on the Renan doctrine, with no foreign intervention in following their own footprint has achieved within a generation the building of a nation with a growing middle class, delivering good services with essential infrastructure.
Haiti, at the dawn of a new generation in its experience of democracy, is engulfed profusely with a foreign intervention that seems to sustain the old culture of squalor for the majority and enlightenment for the minority.
Edmond Mulet, the chief UN resident with its machine of deterrence (MINUSTHA), has sided with Rene Preval, the decried president, to sustain a legislature bent on keeping Haiti in a failed democratic mode, postponing the advent of the emergence of true democracy in the nation.
The timing of the transition from one regime to another, the link that could break the chain of injustice, is once again hijacked by a foreign hand with a strong grip, this time with international glove.
At age 25, the Haitian democracy must take a new turn. It cannot be continued nor replicated beyond Haiti’s borders. The complete absence of governmental leadership, supplemented by the so called force of stabilization, has been a recipe for disaster.
Haiti democracy will grow in age gracefully when it takes charge of building its own army (replacing the MINUSTHA) that will protect its environment and its people; when it will root its population in their localities with ethical institutions and adequate infrastructure and when, last but not least, she will take the national determination to leave no one behind!
This is the formula for a successful democracy. So far, the western democracies, the international institutions have prevented these steps from taking root in the underdeveloped countries like Haiti, while they are the staple policy in Europe and in the United States.
The exceptional models of Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam that rely on their own culture, the strength of their people united as one to defend and to enhance the motherland, while treating each citizen as a potential jewel that should be polished for the glory of the nation will soon become the international canvas copied all over the world!
Thomas Friedman, in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, put it best: “Tharir Square (the site of the protest in Cairo Egypt) will be for now on the wave of the future.” The generation in waiting is fighting for a better standard of living, not for a cause but for Egypt or Haiti, starting with each one of them.
Once again, as two hundred years ago, the failure of the international institutions in the last twenty-five years to incubate on their watch, true democracy in Haiti is a lesson for all nations to learn from.
Note:
A test of the maturity of the Haitian democratic process: In the tradition of Justice John Marshall, the issue of removing or retaining the Haitian president, who remains in power after its mandate can and should be solved not by street demonstrations or a dicta by the UN resident Edmond Mulet but by the judiciary, the Haitian Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) that will decide whether Rene Preval can remain into power beyond February 7.
February 12, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)