Bond rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) downgrades France, Austria in mass euro zone rating cut

S&P downgrades France, Austria in mass euro zone rating cut

Bond rating agency Standard & Poor's has downgraded the credit ratings of nine euro zone countries, stripping France and Austria of their top ranking, a move that may complicate the currency union’s efforts to endure a worsening debt crisis.

The triple-A ratings of France and Austria have been cut by one notch to AA+, the agency said in a press release.

Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia also suffered a one-notch downgrade, while the ratings of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus have been cut by two levels.

"Today's rating actions are primarily driven by our assessment that the policy initiatives that have been taken by European policymakers in recent weeks may be insufficient to fully address ongoing systemic stresses in the eurozone," the agency said on its website.

Germany, by far the strongest economy in Europe and main contributor to Europe’s bailout fund for troubled economies, as well as Finland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg maintained their triple-A ratings.

A deal reached by the EU countries during the Decemebr 9 summit in Brussels, which provides for the creation of a fiscal union to deepen the integration of national budgets, "has not produced a breakthrough of sufficient size and scope to fully address the eurozone's financial problems," the agency said.

"In our opinion, the political agreement does not supply sufficient additional resources or operational flexibility to bolster European rescue operations, or extend enough support for those eurozone sovereigns subjected to heightened market pressures," the statement reads.

MOSCOW, January 14 (RIA Novosti)

rian.ru

Bahamas Blog International

Thanks to the foresight of our Bahamian constitutional fathers who adeptly negotiated with the British, The Bahamas is now a modern, stable, successful parliamentary democracy

Understanding Bahamian parliamentary democracy

Front Porch

Today, 45 years to the day of the attainment of majority rule, there is chronic and widespread ignorance of our system of government and national constitution.  Sadly, no longer surprisingly, so-called “informed” people in civil society, academia, business and “the press corps” are among the woefully uninformed.

Many of them regurgitate effluvia on the supposed problems of our parliamentary democracy on matters ranging from “checks and balances” to collective responsibility and the constitutional powers of the prime minister.

Mesmerized by American politics including the theatrics that substitute for news on U.S. cable news, some local commentators cannot utter “checks” without mindlessly adding “balances”, with seemingly limited appreciation for either term.

The supposed corrective measures to repair our supposedly broken democracy are, to paraphrase attorney Andrew Allen in the context of shallow arguments for term limits, superficial non-solutions to imaginary problems.

One recent and egregious example is an opinion piece entitled, “The Bahamas: A Constitutional Dictatorship?”  The commentary is callow.  It lacks depth and breadth.  One wonders how conversant the columnist is with the Bahamian constitution, our constitutional history and the rudimentary history and philosophy of parliamentary democracy.

Noise

It is important to have a diversity of opinion on the issues of the day.  But opinion devoid of or sloppy with facts, by personalities helping to form the opinions of others through talk radio, television, the Internet and in the print media, is just more noise.  Public dialogue is impoverished not enriched when opinions are divorced from critical thinking and fact-finding.

The column in question descended into unthinking rhetoric and a cavalcade of contradictions partly because it was based on and began with false premises, so nauseatingly repeated that they have become accepted as fact:

“We have an anachronistic, colonial governance system that is no longer suitable for the needs of our developing nation in this 21st century.  We inherited this Westminster system of governance from the British.”

It is difficult to take seriously opinions that get basic facts wrong.  To discuss the issue of governance we need to get our language and concepts in order.  The appellation Westminster system of governance is not quite precise and misses some critical differences between Bahamian and British parliamentary democracy.

For instance, at Westminster the British parliament is sovereign.  There is no supreme law or written constitution in Britain.  By a simple majority of parliament in Britain fundamental rights can be altered and the monarchy itself can be abolished.

The Bahamas has a written constitution with clearly defined checks on power.  Before certain fundamental provisions of the constitution (entrenched and specially entrenched) can be changed, a two-thirds or three-quarters majority vote of both Houses of Parliament is required.

Furthermore, the proposed changes must be approved by the electorate in a referendum before they can become law.  This process is an innovation that is not enjoyed by all parliamentary democracies, including some in the Caribbean.

It gives the Bahamian people direct control over the fundamental provisions of the Constitution, including provisions relating to citizenship, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the establishment of our national governmental institutions.

There are frameworks, templates and provisions utilized by most countries, including former British colonies, in the drafting of national constitutions.  Still, The Bahamas does not have a cookie cutter constitution.  Any suggestion to that effect is misleading and does not fully acknowledge or appreciate the role played by our constitutional fathers in the framing of the independence constitution.

Larger

A number of the customs and traditions used in the much larger British parliamentary system are not germane to and would be unworkable in our context.  With a 650-member House of Commons compared to our much smaller House of Assembly, our practice of parliamentary democracy is necessarily different.

The assertion that we have a colonial system of governance in itself is patently not true.  Furthermore, it contradicts the assertion, made in the same breath, that we have a Westminster model of governance.

Under the colonial system of governance the Colony of the Bahama Islands had a parliament that was, in the words of the late Bahamian constitutional expert the Hon. Eugene Dupuch, “representative but not responsible”.

There was no Cabinet, but there was an Executive Council, presided over by the British governor, who enjoyed enormous power.  There was also a system of boards, forerunners to government ministries, with the governor enjoying ultimate control over major decisions by the boards.

The dismantling of that colonial system began with the 1964 Constitution that was negotiated in London the previous year.  That Constitution ushered in a large measure of internal self-rule with the British governor still retaining some powers including defense, security and foreign affairs.  That process continued with the 1969 Constitution, when more power devolved to the Cabinet, and was completed with the Independence Constitution of 1973.

Thanks to the foresight of our Bahamian constitutional fathers who adeptly negotiated with the British, The Bahamas is now a modern, stable, successful parliamentary democracy.  While there were differences between the Bahamian political parties at the Independence Conference on a few matters relating to rights, there was general agreement on matters of governance.

We no more have a colonial system of governance than India, Australia, Jamaica, Barbados or Canada, fellow parliamentary democracies in the Commonwealth of Nations.  Anything but anachronistic, this system has proven to be durable, flexible and workable across cultures, countries and centuries.

Unfortunately, many who should know better believe that parliamentary democracy itself is antiquated, and that the United States has a better system of government, and one that is inherently more advisable or workable.  This is a fallacy to which we will have to return.

There are many non-Commonwealth nations which have opted for parliamentary democracy.  They have similarly discovered a certain genius within the system, the rudiments of which are hundreds of years old having evolved into one of the more effective systems of government in human history.

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

www.bahamapundit.com

Jan 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

caribbean Blog International

...how The Bahamas could effectively create a new industry by focusing on renewable energy...

RENEWABLE ENERGY 'AMAZING CHANCE' FOR DIVERSIFICATION




By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor

Nassau, The Bahamas



THE Bahamas has an "incredible opportunity" to diversify its economy by becoming a renewable energy exporter, a leading Caribbean expert yesterday saying it could emulate Israel's 92 per cent penetration rate if it acted now to prevent the competition "blotting it out".

Jerry Butler, chairman and principal consultant of the Caribbean Renewable Energy Forum (CREF), said matching the likes of Israel on sustainable energy take-up was "not a pipe dream" for the Bahamas if the political will and leadership were there, and the correct plan implemented.

Noting the Bahamas' renewable energy export potential, given its proximity to the US, the world's largest energy consumer with 25 per cent of the global market, Mr Butler added that a substantial domestic industry could be created through cutting this nation's annual $1.2 billion fuel import bill by 25-33 per cent.

Noting the regional lead established by the likes of Trinidad & Tobago and Barbados, the latter of which has a 95 per cent residential solar water heater penetration rate, the CREF chairman said his organisation had helped the latter nation to create a $10 million smart fund for renewable energy investments.

After the CREF conference was staged in Barbados last year, that fund attracted another $80 million, funds now available for Barbadians to partner with international financiers and developers on renewable energy projects.

Explaining how the Bahamas could effectively create a new industry by focusing on renewable energy, Mr Butler said: "It's a policy and never-ending journey that starts from the top....."

Noting the "age old focus on diversification" of the economy, Mr Butler, the former Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) country head for the Bahamas, added: "I truly believe that given what I've been able to accomplish with my team elsewhere in the Caribbean, a diverse sector of opportunity the Bahamas should focus on is renewable energy, both for domestic and security needs, and opportunities for international export."

This nation's proximity to the US, the nation that consumes 25 per cent of the world's energy supplies, meant "an incredible opportunity exists for us to provide a client base and financing to help the Bahamas' prosper".

Mr Butler, giving a preview of his contribution to this Thursday's Bahamas Business Outlook conference, said: "The incredible opportunity we have in the Bahamas will be lost to other jurisdictions if we do not take the chance to move on it on an erstwhile, consistent and well thought-out method. "

When asked by Tribune Business how long the Bahamas' window of opportunity to become a renewable energy leader would last, Mr Butler said: "Our window of opportunity will last as long as oil prices continue to rise, and as long as the competition remains in a working condition that has not blotted us out."

Multiple jurisdictions had plans to not only embrace renewable energy domestically, but export it. As examples, Mr Butler referred to Trinidad's 2020 policy, which aims to build on its own substantial gas and energy reserves to pave the way to renewables, and Barbados's 2025 policy, which speaks to growing this as a sector.

A Barbadian renewable energy company, he added, already had two representatives in the Bahamas, and was looking to export some 100,000 solar water heaters to other Caribbean nations.

"A Bahamian could very much have been involved in doing that," Mr Butler said. "The window of opportunity is there as long as the competition does not blot us out."

Apart from export opportunities, the CREF chairman said the Bahamas' annual $1.2 billion fuel import bill gave it the chance to develop a sustainable renewable energy sector for supplying the domestic market.

Just seizing a 30-40 per cent market share from fossil fuels would free up $300-$400 million annually for a renewable energy industry, Mr Butler said. "That's a lot of people they can employ," he added.

The CREF chairman added that he had driven from south to north Brazil without having to fill up his car once with fossil fuels. The Latin American nation, which has one-quarter of the Bahamas' per capita GDP, had reduced its fossil fuel reliance through ethanol and ethanol derivatives, and there was no reason why this nation could not follow suit.

Pointing out that the Bahamas Electricity Corporation's (BEC) financial and generational inefficiencies were not new, Mr Butler said its reliance on fossil fuels to run generators that were primarily slow speed diesel was "unsustainable".

"BEC cannot continue to be subject to world oil prices and pass them on to you as a surcharge," Mr Butler added. But, if it was able to derive a percentage of its generation needs from renewable sources, the impact of oil price volatility would be reduced, and the outflow of US dollars and foreign currency reduced.

Describing this as "a win-win" for utilities such as BEC, Mr Butler suggested the Bahamas could even split off power generation from its distribution and transmission. Depending on how it was implemented, this could permit businesses and homeowners to receive credits for selling excess power back to the BEC grid, and allow independent power producers (IPPs) to reach commercial agreements with BEC to supply it with electricity.

This would ultimately reduce electricity prices for Bahamian consumers, who have to put up with fuel surcharges that have averaged $0.28 per kilowatt hour (KwH) over the past two years. This compared to $0.42 per KwH in Jamaica, but just $0.18 per KwH in Miami.

Mr Butler said Bahamian homeowners could likely install solar power to run their homes at a $0.19 per KwH cost, "empowering" themselves and steering the country in "a totally different direction" on energy.

Noting that it was not impossible to see the day when the likes of the airport, hotels and government buildings had solar panels installed on the roof, Mr Butler said Germany - which saw sun for just two-thirds of the year maximum - already had a 26 per cent renewable energy penetration rate.

"It's a totally different visionary concept for what could be in the Bahamas," Mr Butler said. "It's not a pipe dream. This is workable for the Bahamas. We just need a vision that can be implemented with the right people, and need Bahamians behind it to sustain it."

Mr Butler added that by just focusing on energy conservation and efficiency, though initiatives such as replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs, and placing timers on hot water heaters, the average electricity bill could be cut by 40 per cent.

January 10, 2012

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?

By Rahila Gupta

How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks tthe developed world. While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth.

The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, promotes privatisation and deregulation in order to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete and consume without interference from a bloated state. According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down. The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books.  The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back.

The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’. I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions. It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends. If part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, the right has little to say about patriarchy.  What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant.  The critique of the state mounted by feminists such as Elizabeth Wilson when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state.

Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded.  It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls. This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda, shorn of its political context, by neoliberalism. Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters.

If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints.  It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while at the same time undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life.  In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’. If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because prostitution is seen as a liberation from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity. 

Neoliberalism had other impacts: on the actual day-to-day political and social commitments of those concerned with gender justice. At first feminists stood to benefit from the state’s gradual shedding of its functions which began under Thatcher, in that classic double-edged way in which capitalism operates. Southall Black Sisters (SBS) was founded in the same year that she came to power. We who set up anti-racist, feminist and other community groups in the 80s complained that we were providing services which should have been part of the remit of the state – and that we were doing it for half the cost at the expense of our pensions (none), maternity rights (shockingly for a feminist group, none), working all the hours in the day with no employment protection – all this self-exploitation justified by our commitment to the cause. The up side of it was that the service we provided was grounded in political insights into the nature of patriarchy, racism and class.

But this was only the half of it. Over the next thirty years, the grants culture morphed into contracts and commissioning. Why? Partly because neoliberal ideology popularises the view that grants make us complacent whereas commissioning brings in competition, the ideal Petri dish for human development. But competition for funding destroyed the solidarities we worked so hard at building with other women’s groups. ‘Value for money’ concerns led to the introduction of targets; meeting them sometimes needed an element of creativity – how do you quantify success in supporting a woman facing domestic violence if she does not choose to leave her violent partner? These outcomes take a long time and the short-termist, box-ticking culture of neoliberalism destroys the integrity of such work.

Fortunately, the neoliberal project of rolling back the state is not yet complete; some of the state institutions from the earlier, statist period came to SBS’s rescue. The judiciary, hardly a bastion of progressive wisdom, put a break on the commissioning process when SBS challenged Ealing Council’s decision to offer the domestic violence “contract” to all comers without having carried out a proper race equality impact assessment first. It was the equality duties placed on the state as a result of earlier political campaigns which, in this case, attempted to inject equality concerns into a depoliticised culture which is what neo-liberalism aims to create.

Additionally, the ‘best value’, the more for less principle opens the door to any provider as long as they can prove that they have some track record.  It is precisely this de-politicised culture that allowed the Home Office to take away the contract from POPPY for services to trafficked women, the foremost agency in the field, and award it to Salvation Army. It didn’t matter that the women may not have easy access to abortion advice or services, that the service is provided within a strong Christian ethos, that the umbrella body, Churches Against Sex Trafficking in Europe or CHASTE - to which the Salvation army belongs, also bids for government contracts to lock up trafficked women on their way to being deported in the same safe house where trafficked women are fighting for their right to remain; one building is both prison and refuge. The climate in which we operate has become so depoliticised that agencies in the field who want to differentiate themselves from the faith sector call themselves the ‘violence against women sector’ and not feminists!

While the state plays an important role in safeguarding the rights of women, a state in hock to the neoliberal project can damage the health of vulnerable sections of society. Black women, in particular, are alive to the contradictions that the state polices their communities more heavily and uses harsh immigration rules instead of better resources when we turn to it for protection against issues like forced marriage.

This marketisation of the voluntary sector is neoliberalism’s attempt to find new markets. It thrives on the continuous expansion of markets; hence the growing privatisation of what had been regarded as off-limits – public utilities, education, prisons, social housing – but we are reaching saturation point. Neoliberalism is no longer delivering growth in the developed world, and therefore profit, the holy grail of capitalism as we can deduce from the mess in Europe and America. David Harvey believes that the main achievement of neo-liberalism has been re-distributive; money has flowed from the poor to the business elites. Our latest budget makes the poor rather than the rich pay for growth programmes to kick start the economy. In Brazil, Nestle has targeted people earning less than $2 a day by launching a floating supermarket along the Amazon selling fizzy drinks and milk powder – so we have the obscenity of obesity and malnourishment sitting side by side. If this is not scraping the barrel then I don’t know what is.

I believe we are witnessing an implosion of neo-liberalism but the opposition to it has yet to take a concrete shape. As Elaine Husband of the New Democratic Party in Canada said, people are tired of being trickled down on. How do we re-capture the state from the neoliberal project to which it is in hock? What is the way forward? A new society hovers on the horizon and feminism should play an important part in shaping it.

I’m no Mystic Meg but here are some issues worth considering: Resistance is important. That’s one of the reasons why the neoliberal project developed unevenly. Thatcher privatised many things, but left the NHS alone because there would be fierce resistance although David Cameron seems less daunted by it; women have often been the
backbone of resistance movements, from the miners’ wives onwards to Skychef and Gate Gourmet, second wave feminists from the 70s are both strengthened by and need to nurture the current wave; we need to let go of growth as a gold standard of economic health. Serge Latouche, a French academic, argues for 'degrowth' or contraction economics. Growth in terms of meeting real human need makes sense, growth achieved through consumerism does not; the market needs the state more than the state needs the market as we have seen from the massive injection of government funds to rescue the banking sector; neoliberalism has encouraged the growth of a permanent underclass, usually made up of illegal immigrants and predominantly women in some categories, who live completely outside the system, which makes a nonsense of democracy’s commitment to universalism.

Feminism needs to guard against atomisation – which is what neoliberalism thrives on. We should be a transformative movement, should recognise, understand, analyse what damage neo-liberalism has done to all our traditional allies. We need to get involved in the major movements of our time, to redraw the links, participate in Occupy London, fight religious fundamentalism as well as sexual violence, wage inequality and poverty. These may be old goals for a new culture but they can do with re-stating as we haven’t got there yet.

This article stems from an ippr roundtable discussion on Gender Justice, Society and the State, held in December 2011 to examine the role of the state in delivering gender justice and whether the culture of neo-liberalism had anything to offer women.

4 January 2012

opendemocracy.net

Bahamas Blog International

The Caribbean: Where tyrants and terrorists prowl at ease!

By Rebecca Theodore

Like something from the planet Krypton, a blinding flare and surreal atmospheric light disguise the cerulean beauty of the Caribbean Sea. Fear revels in the image of a radioactive glow and mushroom clouds soar in swirling winds. Oceans can no longer separate sovereign nations from massive meltdowns. A despot prowls at ease in my backyard. He denounces American imperialism and calls for a new world order free of US leadership.

Behold the tyrant! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I watch the flaming lights blazing across the Caribbean skies and a thousand voices sound the dreadful happenings.

Iran is intensifying bilateral relations with ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) in the Caribbean. Amidst escalating threats in the Strait of Homuz, a dispute between Teheran and the West over the manufacture of atomic weapons, Iran is feeding uranium into its first and only nuclear power plant and strengthening ties with Venezuela and other Latin American countries. Foreign terrorists have national identity cards that identify them as Venezuelan citizens.

“Lord have mercy,” they cry. There is a lethal, anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, loose in the Caribbean. Has President Obama failed in his efforts to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program? Why are we vulnerable after billions have been spent to fight insurgents and terrorist in the Middle East?

And they utter profanities against the ghost of Einstein.

American embassies, consulates, corporate headquarters, energy pipelines and Jewish-sponsored community centers and citizens are ready targets but American officials are asleep at the wheel.

“If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” is their only pronouncement but, regrettably enough, that fist is tightly clenched.

There is no extended hand.

As yellow smoke whirls into light, Iran cajoles in its Hezbollah presence in Latin America, and ALBA nations are rapidly becoming aides in the acquisition of nuclear weapons of the apocalypse. Dominica, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda are conceding their freedoms in the political and economic domains and are no longer free negotiators within the assemblies of CARICOM.

But they don’t care.

Venezuela has at last ruptured CARICOM’s hymen from behind. The bandage of trust bleeds. The birth of a modern ‘Frankenstein monster’ yields into being.

A “doppelganger!” I learnt from the papers that Chavez and Ahmadinejad share joint paternity.

Out from the murky, quivering flames Ahmadinejad hastens the return of the Twelfth Imam in genocidal tempest right on America’s southern doorstep.

Will Islamic terrorist bombs rain in Atlanta, Washington and New York as well?

And in the midst of flames tossing against the firmament, I lay speechless. Nuclear energy was once the hope of humanity's future. The atom promised a boundless supply of power and possibly world peace but now faces are placed on stories of leukemia, breast cancer, stillbirths, and government deception.

I look out my window. It’s swampy, almost glaucous, and military advocates, peace activists and disillusioned scientists stare in amazement. The batteries of life are spent. Scientific discoveries of nuclear weapons are our own demise. Our pristine Caribbean home is now a nuclear waste dump.

Herein lies the harsh realities of the ideal.

January 9, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The Christian community in Jamaica is grappling with the dilemma of how to embrace homosexuals while not condoning their sexual orientation and lifestyle... ...Jamaica is a pluralistic society as well as a robust democracy... And I prefer this to a theocracy

Church Picking On Gays


By Byron Buckley , Contributor



ALAS, PRIME Minister Portia Simpson Miller has named her Cabinet, notwithstanding the fear and hysteria expressed by some clergymen during the recent election campaign, about the possible inclusion of homosexuals in her administration.

Indeed, the overwhelming political mandate, in terms of seat count and geographic spread, given to Mrs Simpson Miller and her party is perhaps a rebuff to those who sought to vilify her position that she would appoint persons to Cabinet positions based on merit rather than sexual orientation.

It is shameful and scandalous for a Christian to support the victimisation (beat the B-man) and discrimination (job denial) of homosexuals and any other groups of persons.

The Christian community in Jamaica is grappling with the dilemma of how to embrace homosexuals while not condoning their sexual orientation and lifestyle.

Why do Christians regard homosexuality as an exceptional or grievous sin?

It is in a Christian's 'DNA' to object to homosexual practices. After all, homosexuality runs counter to the natural principle of procreation established by God. Copulation by Adam and Eve (not Steve) ensures the continuation of the human race. In underscoring this point, God, through Scripture, has regarded homosexuality and bestiality as morally reprehensible.

unnatural, sinful and inimical

Throughout Old and New Testament Scripture, God has expressed displeasure at men and women engaging in unnatural sexual acts with persons of the same sex. The Bible has even come out against men behaving effeminately. Importantly, the Bible forbids other kinds of sexual immorality, including fornication, incest, divorce/adultery and prostitution. Indeed, St Paul told Christians at Corinth that persons who practised homosexuality, adultery and idolatry, among other sins, would not enter God's kingdom.

So, the Church is on message in its opposition to homosexuality. And this article is not a call for the Church to abandon its teaching and stance against homosexuality as unnatural, sinful and inimical to procreation and family life as designed by God.

However, this is a critique of the Church's extreme and selective attitude towards homosexuality and those who practise it - which is contrary to Christians' mission to share the good news with ALL.

New Testament writers refer to homosexuality as part of sexual immorality in general. So to be consistent, the Church should oppose, with equal energy, adultery, fornication, wife-swapping, incest, paedophilia and the high rate of broken marriages. The Church can't cherry-pick its favourite sin to oppose. Homosexuals see straight through this double standard and ask, 'Why discriminate and victimise us?'

What's the real reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? Although Christians often point to the destruction of these cities as caused by rampant homosexuality, there is reason to believe the practice was one of a suite of sinful behaviours that God found offensive. The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel explained the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah as pride, fullness of bread (material wealth), abundance of idleness (hedonism), lack of care for the poor and needy, haughtiness and abominable (homosexual) practices.

transformative mission

So, again, Christians have chosen to take their own meaning or emphasis from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A more apt message to take away is that as a society, we should ensure that material prosperity does not cause us to descend into an orgy of immorality and sensuality. We should also ensure that we take care of the disadvantaged, the poor and needy. This is why Christians should never be found in the position where they are supporting harm being done to anyone - especially with the Church's dismal record during the Crusades and the transatlantic slave trade.

The transformative mission of the Church requires it to display a higher standard of behaviour towards homosexuals. Christians should be leading the way generally in protecting the welfare of homosexuals. Christians can't join the rowdy chorus of 'kill or beat the B-man.' The challenge for the Church is to establish a caring and grace-filled environment that enables it to share the transformative gospel with homosexuals as well. Jesus Christ came to heal the broken-hearted and set the captives free - in short, to transform lives.

The Church cannot be selective about who it ministers to, nor can it place boundaries against groups - such as homosexuals - as if they are beyond God's love.

I believe while there are persons who have accepted their homosexual orientation, others have not. This is where the Church has a mission to offer counsel and healing. But a condemnatory stance by the Church will only drive away such persons who are likely to be befriended by the wrong crowd.

The homophobic (I deliberately choose this word) reaction by some church leaders and Christians is tactically foolish. In the grand culture war and cosmic struggle between good and evil, Christians must secure victory with the weapon of love, which will bring transformation to individual lives.

Maybe Christians have adopted a hard line against homosexuals because, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God destroyed, rather than mercifully saving them.

But that's not the full story: Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if there were enough righteous people there! In the final analysis, no matter how repulsed Christians are by the haughtiness of some homosexuals, we should leave their fate to God.

In the meantime, we anticipate the PM carrying through her campaign promise to debate and review the law against buggery, allowing legislators to vote according to their conscience and upon their constituents' advice.

No doubt, the voice of the Church and faith-based community will be heard. After all, Jamaica is a pluralistic society as well as a robust democracy. And I prefer this to a theocracy.

Byron Buckley is an associate editor at The Gleaner. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the newspaper. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and byron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.

January 8, 2012

jamaica-gleaner

Bahamas Blog International

October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - Cuba

October 1962 Missile Crisis




President John F. Kennedy did not react with common sense to the U.S. defeat at the Bay of Pigs. He sought revenge. The Taylor Commission, established by the President to analyze the fiasco, recommended initiating new political, military, economic and propaganda measures "against Castro." The report led to the preparation and implementation of a new undercover operations plan, known as Operation Mongoose, which beginning in November 1961 unleashed thousands of terrorist acts, sabotage, assassination attempts and armed attacks.

Some months later, General Maxwell D. Taylor, at that time serving as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the President that he did not think it would be possible to overthrow the Cuban government without a direct U.S. intervention and recommended a "more aggressive" course of action than Operation Mongoose. He proposed an escalation of the operations authorized by Kennedy to create an incident which could precipitate a massive surprise air attack and/or invasion.

On March 7, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed "creating a provocation which would justify U.S. military action" and just two days later, the Secretary of Defense submitted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff a set of measures designed to serve as the pretext for such an intervention in Cuba.

Amidst the escalating tension orchestrated by the United States, on May 29, 1962, a Soviet delegation, led by a member of the Communist Party Central Committee Presidium, arrived in Cuba with a proposal to install ballistic nuclear missiles on the island, in order to protect the country from U.S. invasion and strengthen the world’s socialist positions.

THE AGREEMENT

The leadership of the Revolution and the Soviet government signed an agreement establishing military collaboration in the defense of Cuba’s national territory. Despite the fact that the agreement was totally within the boundaries of international law and its signing was a prerogative of sovereign states, the Soviet leadership did not accept the Cuban proposal to make the decisions public, which served as a pretext for the Kennedy administration to precipitate a crisis.

On June 20, 1962, the Soviet General Staff approved the assignment of officers and troops for Operation Anadyr. Commandante Raúl Castro went to Moscow July 3-16 to announce the Cuban-Soviet agreement as a sovereign agreement between the two nations. Nevertheless, the Soviets insisted on keeping the operations secret, which was not possible given their magnitude and the continual U.S. reconnaissance flights over Cuban territory.

Soviet troops began to arrive in Cuba during the first week of August. U.S. intelligence had already detected anti-aircraft missiles, MIG-21 aircraft and unidentified constructions, as well as the presence of Soviet military experts. On October 16, the United States U-2’s confirmed ballistic nuclear missile bases in

San Cristóbal, Pinar del Río province and on this same day, around 11:00am, Kennedy convened a meeting of officials who would later become the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. The group studied various proposals for action over the course of five days and on October 20, decided to impose a "naval blockade" on Cuba, for which five task forces were established.

Beginning on October 21, U.S. Armed Forces were moved from the status of peacetime defense (DEFCON–5) to high alert (DEFCON–3) and ordered to relocate anti-aircraft forces to prepare for combat, reinforce the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo, evacuate families and civilians from the base, and deploy the forces necessary to impose the blockade.

THE CRISIS

On October 22, with the U.S. naval blockade in place and the mobilization of forces to bomb or invade Cuba, the so-called Missile Crisis unfolded. Kennedy demanded the withdrawal of Soviet strategic weapons from Cuba and announced the naval blockade to which the Revolutionary Armed Forces responded with a combat alert for all units and a popular mobilization to confront the possibility of an invasion of gigantic proportions that could unleash a nuclear holocaust.

U.S. reconnaissance flights increased to such an extent that, on October 26, Fidel ordered that, the following day, enemy aircraft flying at low altitudes be fired upon. Given the insolence of the U.S. government, a U-2 was downed with an anti-aircraft missile over Oriente province on October 27, one of the most charged moments during the crisis.

October 26th through the 31st, there was an exchange of messages between Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel. Those sent by Khrushchev made clear the unilateral manner in which the Soviets were acting and their underestimation of Cuba, while those of Fidel warned of the imminent dangers and expressed Cuba’s commitment to revolutionary principles.

On Sunday, October 28, the Kremlin communicated to Washington that orders had been given to halt construction of missile bases in Cuba, to dismantle those in existence and return the nuclear missiles to the USSR. The U.S. responded with a demand to inspect Cuban territory to verify the operations. That afternoon, Cuba rejected the inspection which the two super-powers had agreed to and announced its five point position.

The United States and the Soviet Union reached an agreement based on a proposal made by Khrushchev on October 26 and the U.S. inspected the weapons aboard Soviet ships outside of Cuban territorial waters, which for the two super-powers marked the end of the crisis. The naval blockade was suspended October 30 and 31, for a visit by United Nations General Secretary U. Thant to Cuba, and re-established November 1. At 6:45 pm on November 20, Kennedy ordered the lifting of the blockade and on the 22nd the Revolutionary government declared a return to normalcy on the island, on war footing since October 22.

Havana. January 5, 2012

granma.cu

More on the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Bahamas Blog International