If those statements were true, then what is this I’m reading (in the “Latest News” section of the Gleaner) that the minister has obtained approval from Cabinet to resume borrowing from the IMF? Did the minister participate in discussions with the IMF after Wehby and the technical team returned from Washington? If not, is the Minister now making decisions based on “preliminary” information?

Also, if the minister did not participate in the IMF negotiations, and they were handled by (the very competent) Senator Wehby, what was the purpose of Mr. Shaw’s spiel? Was he concerned about the need for a “responsible Opposition” or was he trying to save face because the Opposition pointed out to the nation that the bright young Senator was the Prime Minister’s choice to represent Jamaica in these negotiations?

Why do our politicians spend so much time trying to save face (and protect political capital) instead of using their energies to address the problems at hand?

I stood in the crowd with a feeling of pride: I played my part. The radio interviews, voter turnout and house events were worth it. Earlier in the night I was interviewed on Chicago Public Radio. Throughout the night, I fielded calls from Cliff Hughes, Nationwide News Network. My excitement could not be contained, and I was glad to be able to share it with the world.

By 9PM CST, it was clear that we had won the election. The promise of a president for the people, by the people had been fulfilled. The underdog – the common man – had won. Our collective $5, $10 and $20, defeated the unlimited spending power of Washington lobbyists and PACs.

When our president graced the stage at 10PM, the atmosphere had the feel of a rock concert; except, the crowd was a few hundred thousand strong, and the headline act was the president elect of the United States of America. His speech did not disappoint. We left challenged, and motivated that although our movement had just started, impossible is nothing if we act together. Yes we can!

At 12PM I decided to walk down Michigan Avenue. The mood was festive. People danced, sang, cheered, screamed – it was like carnival on steroids.

If you are categorized an underdog, because of race, religion, gender, financial situation or any other label or situation, this victory is for you. When you tell your kids that they can be whatever they desire, you have no reason to be cynical – you can take comfort in the fact that you witnessed history; you lived in a time when common Americans joined forces and pooled resources to take back their government! Yes we can! Yes we did!

Now, how do we replicate this in Jamaica?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization; what if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the ‘Keating 5′ (google it); what if McCain was a charismatic eloquent speaker?

What if Obama voted for Bush 90% of the time; and McCain offered a genuine hope for change?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be close?

What is it about this election that rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate, and emphasizes negative qualities in another?

It was 1988, and Mary Andersen was at the Miami airport checking in for a long flight to Norway to be with her husband when the airline representative informed her that she wouldn’t be able to check her luggage without paying a 100 surcharge: When it was finally Mary’s turn, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness. -You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway , the man behind the counter said. Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway , and she had no one else to call. -I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

As tears streamed down her face, she heard a ‘gentle and friendly voice’ behind her saying, ‘That’s okay, I’ll pay for her.’ Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before. -He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man. -He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary. She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her. Who was the man? Barack Obama.

Twenty years later, she is thrilled that the friendly stranger at the airport may be the next President and has voted for him already and donated 100 dollars to his campaign: -He was my knight in shining armor, says Mary, smiling. She paid the 103 dollars back to Obama the day after she arrived in Norway . At that time he had just finished his job as a poorly paid community worker* in Chicago , and had started his law studies at prestigious Harvard university. Mary even convinced her parents to vote for him: In the spring of 2006 Mary’s parents had heard that Obama was considering a run for president, but that he had still not decided. They chose to write a letter in which they told him that he would receive their votes. At the same time, they thanked Obama for helping their daughter 18 years earlier. And Obama replied: In a letter to Mary’s parents dated May 4th, 2006 and stamped ‘United States Senate, Washington DC’, Barack Obama writes**: ‘I want to thank you for the lovely things you wrote about me and for reminding me of what happened at Miami airport. I’m happy I could help back then, and I’m delighted to hear that your daughter is happy in Norway . Please send her my best wishes. Sincerely, Barack Obama , United States senator’. The parents sent the letter on to Mary.
Mary says that when her friends and associates talk about the election, especially when race relations is the heated subject, she relates the story of the kind man who helped out a stranger-in-need over twenty years
ago, years before he had even thought about running for high office. Truly a wonderful story, and something that needs to be passed along in the maelstorm of fear-and-smear politics we are being subjected to right now.

UPDATE: Remember this was 1988, when 100 dollars was quite a bit of money, compared to today’s value. By the way, this would be the perfect antidote to the Smear E-mails going around. If anyone has a good long email chain list, shoot it out, and let it be passed along.

When the PNP lost in 1967, a rising star in the party – comrade PJ Patterson – was named chairman of an appraisal committee which was set up to investigate the cause of this defeat. After a meeting of this committee, comrade Patterson (realizing the importance of the youth vote) asked comrade Leroy Cooke to create a document showing how the party could be made more attractive to Jamaica’s young. After a series of meetings with the party’s leadership, the YO was launched with the blessings of comrade president Michael Manley, and attracted membership from sixth formers of several corporate area high schools.

Another important union has been that of the party and the Diaspora. Lest we forget, the New York based Jamaica Progressive League was instrumental in the founding of the PNP. In fact, the JPL was one of the earliest groups to lobby the British Government to grant Jamaica independence. The PNP’s relationship with the Jamaican Diaspora in New York was strengthened with the launch of the Jamaica National Movement in 1984. Since its inception, the JNM has been a haven for seasoned and would be comrades seeking an avenue to discuss issues of national interest. It has also been an important vehicle for balanced political discussions, and political education. Though the JNM was founded as a “voice for the PNP” in the Diaspora, its focus has been broader; catering to the needs of its members. It is not uncommon for the movement to have guest speakers discussing issues as varied as the Penn Relays, public health and crime.

Though the PNP’s relationship with the Diaspora seems (at least on the surface) to be unrelated to the commitment to the nation’s young, both relationships present significant opportunities for collaboration. It is no secret that the PNP attracts some of the brightest minds in Jamaica’s education system. Many of the students decide to study abroad for various reasons and utilizing various resources such as scholarships and loans to further their education. Traditionally, there has been a void in this area. Comrades who migrate for college have not received the level of support necessary for them to develop political awareness and growth.

The Jamaica National Movement, under its present leadership, has seen the importance of such an outlet for youth expression and participation. As a college student, significant efforts were made to solicit my input in the operations of the movement. I was asked to solicit a speaker for a meeting and educate the membership on the uses of technology such as social networks, websites and blogs. Comrades Horace Thomas (President) and Melverton Newell (Vice President) have also offered their time as mentors.

Though initial steps have been made to make the JNM “youth friendly,” greater efforts must be made at attracting more young people. Collaboration with the PNPYO would prove useful in this regard. The YO could refer migrating members to the JNM. An annual youth conference should be held by the JNM each September to introduce the movement to new potential members. The conference should be organized by the youths of the JNM. As the JNM focuses on youth development, it would be a good idea to create a leadership position—VP or Director of Youth Affairs– to reflect this commitment. This officer would be charged with ensuring that the JNM and PNP adequately utilizes the talents of its young members.

Most of these ideas will take a considerable time to implement. The JNM, as a matter of priority, should develop a document with goals and timelines to achieving the goal of representing youths in the Diaspora. Any committee set up to develop this document should involve current youth members of the organization. Simultaneously, a committee should be setup to look at how the movement can adequately utilize the various online resources it had been introduced to over the past few months. Both committees must work in collaboration, since the internet will prove an effective tool for recruiting new members; especially youths.

Though the JNM is based in New York, modern technology makes it possible for the movement to represent the needs of youths all across the United States. I would support constitutional reform to allow students (in good standing) who study out of state the option of doing work for the movement in lieu of actually attending meetings. A clause could be placed in the constitution to require said students to attend a minimum of three meetings per year (three being the estimated number of meetings possible over the summer and Christmas breaks).

That being said, the signs suggest that the JNM has been making the right steps. Through representation of the movement on Facebook, and the work of former PNPYO Vice President Venesha Phillips, the JNM has attracted the interest of a former senior member of the YO. If our brief telephone conversation is anything to go by, the JNM’s (and by extension the PNP’s) relationship with youth in the Diaspora is on the march in the right direction.

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The enthusiasm that Andrew Holness brings to the Ministry of Education is refreshing. I am particularly impressed with his ambition to create an education trust fund, and his bold plan to reduce illiteracy. Andrew is one of the better – or more visible – ministers in the current administration, and has the potential to effect positive change.

The idea of ensuring that students can read and count before grade seven is common sense. I have ‘fond’ memories of being ‘roughed up’ by my grade two teacher, because I couldn’t remember that 12×12 is 144. Oh, the good old days of tough love.

Because of my belief in the good intentions of the minister, I unequivocally reject Mr Seaga’s theory which I call ‘learning by embarrassment’. After reading the former prime minister’s article in The Sunday Gleaner (April 6, 2008), I was left to wonder if, in this day and age, he believes that all slow students are slow by choice.

In his support of keeping students in primary school until their academic level improves, Seaga stated that “it would change the attitude of students and parents who would work harder to avoid being labelled as dunce bats”. He further stated that “teachers would work harder to avoid their schools being categorised as dunce bat schools”.

illiteracy problem

I hope Mr Seaga’s advice does not hold traction with the decision makers in the ministry. While some aspects of our illiteracy problem can be addressed by parents (being more nurturing, ensuring that homework is done, reading to/with their children), students and the schools (innovative approach to teaching), the ministry has a greater role to play than just keeping back students and praying that everything will work.

absence of psychological testing

A major problem I’ve discussed with friends over the years is the absence of psychological testing in primary schools. Let’s face the reality: several in Mr Seaga’s ‘dunce-bat’ category suffer from learning disabilities, and would be better served by professional help than wearing a dunce cap.

The minister’s plan to address illiteracy and innumeracy must include provision to identify and support students who have dyslexia (and other reading disabilities), dysgraphia, Auditory Processing Disorder, Autism and other learning and development disorders.

brilliant students

I strongly believe that a school should be developed in each county (if not each parish) to address these issues. Many of these students are brilliant and can be reached using graphics, music and participation as learning aids.

There are other students in our society who are not good at academics but are naturally talented in other areas. As we develop our educational infrastructure, ‘magnet schools’ (geared towards particular disciplines, such as performing arts) should be considered. The curriculum at primary schools should also be looked at with an aim of giving a greater leaning to ‘liberal arts type’ courses. The focus should evolve from just producing readers and writers, to developing thinkers.

I am, etc.,

OMAR NEWELL

omar.newell@gmail.com

New York, NY

Via Go-Jamaica

The North Dakota law may appear of insignificant national interest. After all, each state has its own constitution, laws and government. Some things illegal in one state, may be acceptable in another. In one state, it may be legal to marry at 16, while most others have a requirement that one be at least 18 to marry. The statistics however, show that this law is not a North Dakota phenomenon. Sixteen states still have laws on their books prohibiting abortion, while three states have laws worded to the effect that if Row v Wade is overturned, abortion is to be prohibited. If the trend continues, we may soon turn to the way of El Salvador, where otherwise law abiding citizens are criminalized because of abortion.

It is understood that America as a society was built on choice. The pilgrims traveled here fleeing religious persecution. They were tired of a system which forced them to conform to (usually catholic) beliefs which they did not espouse. A system in which everything, including your person, was owned by the king. The constitution was so designed that citizens of this newly free land would be able to exercise much freedom.

Who should decide anyway? If your religion prohibits abortion, is it for the state to impose its belief, or should that be personal – between you and your God? Isn’t “God” the author of freewill? Shouldn’t obeying his commandments (whatever you deem them to be) a choice? As a youngster, I was taught a basic principle of Christianity – God calls, you decide whether or not to answer. I find it most “un-Christian” to try to impose views or will. The absolute view held by ultra conservatives like Hunt is actually the both unrealistic and nonsensical. Why should I be legally bound to live up to someone’s religiously skewed perspective of morality, especially in a country which has no official religion? No group has the inherent right to police the human conscience. What if a woman, while on her way home from work, is impregnated through rape? Emotionally scarred, she is forced by the state to carry for nine months the reminder of her disgust! Shouldn’t she be allowed to decide whether or not she is emotionally capable of nurturing and carrying said fetus? Why should the state impose its ideals on her, especially in light of the fact that the state failed to protect her from this heinous act? Should she be forced to add a prison sentence to her embarrassment?

Abortion in general terms is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetus becomes fully viable. A right is defined as a moral or legal entitlement, and choice, for the purpose of this article, is simply the right or authority to choose.

My research on anti abortion laws in the United States led me to an 1857 Texas statute stating; “if any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use toward her any violent or means whatever externally or internally applied and thereby procure an abortion, [such person] shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two years… (Drucker, 10).” The Texas law even went further by ruling providers of abortion equipment as accomplices. Not even women whose lives depended on an abortion were safe from the state’s policing.

In March 1970, two young attorneys, fresh out of law school, decided to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law. Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington agreed to represent Norma L. Mcorvey (Jane Roe) who claimed she was raped. The rape was not mentioned in the hearings, as the young attorneys deemed her claims questionable (wikipedia.com). Though a district court ruled in favor of Jane Rowe, the state refused to go against their abortion laws. Undaunted, Roe’s attorneys appealed and the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The attorney representing the state of Texas was Wade, hence, this benchmark abortion case became known as Roe versus Wade.

The US Supreme court found the Texas anti-abortion laws to be in violation of a woman’s basic right to privacy, ruling that though “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy” the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments as well as the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. The court further reasoned that “this right of privacy” was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”. The court, in agreeing with Texas legislatures, stated that the state does have an interest in preserving and protecting the health of pregnant women, however, the interest of the state must always be weighed against the rights of its citizens.