Living in Barbados

It Really Doesn't Matter Who You Are

2009-07-15T07:25:00.005-04:00

When I travel I like to see which, if any, of the issues that are resonating in the region are also sending vibrations elsewhere. My week in Boston was coming to a close, and my elder daughter and I were on the last day of our quality time together, before she headed back to Virginia and her mother. We decided to go to see the Shepard Fairey retrospective at the ICA (see details). That he had created the now iconic poster of Barack Obama was enough to be excited about. That it was the day of the Major League Baseball All Stars Game, with the POTUS due to make the first pitch was also momentous. So, I'm not sure how we were derailed and ended up instead making a tour of Massachusetts State House, on Beacon Hill and then walking the city in the area around Boston Common. I guess that some civic genes were pulling us that way.

The State House tour itself was interesting enough, given by a young intern on holiday from college. Massachusetts had many key roles in the creation of The Union and its history is so rich that a visit focusing on that is warranted. I was also intrigued to be in a state capital whose governor was a black man, and also a close associate of the POTUS, Deval Patrick.

But on to resonance. As I walked through some corridors looking for my offices, I heard the voice of a man clearly making a set of remarks to reporters, and of all things on health reform (see NY Times report). I listened for a few moments and took a few pictures. As the press report notes, "The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as the US Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system." The critics' main plaint is that the cut, which would save an estimated US$130 million, unfairly targets taxpaying residents.

The Governor now has a fight on. He has proposed restoring US$70 million to the program, which would partly restore the immigrants’ coverage. But legislative leaders wont have it, arguing that vital programs for other groups would have to be cut as a result. The cut, which would affect only non-disabled adults from 18 to 65 years old, would take effect in August unless the legislature approves Mr. Patrick’s proposal. Ding-dong. Round one.

I thought back to the claims circulating in Barbados about the pressures being imposed on critical services by illegal immigrants. Still waiting to hear some figures, but in the Caribbean "soon come" means something. But, I smiled to myself thinking of the ballooning budget deficit the government there has and that it cannot save money by eliminating coverage for illegal immigrants--they are not covered. Would they think of eliminating it for legal immigrants, though?

The policy now in play in Mass. is the kind of thing that makes legal immigrants say "Hey! That's not fair."

I head back to Bimshire today. I wonder if the vibes from up here will find there way down there.

Life Is No Tea Party

2009-07-10T03:22:00.006-04:00

When I think of Boston, I imagine struggles for independence, a city swelling with academic heads, and jerk food, though not in that order, mind you. So, as I landed at Logan Airport yesterday afternoon, I had to make sure that I was ready to deal with the right Boston. But, jerk food was off the menu, because I was not arriving in Boston, Jamaica, where jerk food was invented. Instead, I was about to set foot for just the third time in Boston, Massachusetts--home of the other Cambridge and seats of learning, such as Harvard, MIT, and Tufts. My disposition was bright, however, because we were told that the balmy sunshine must have come with us from the Caribbean: people mentioned that the previous 40 days had been rain filled.

The first time I visited Boston, it was on a driving tour from my then home in Virginia, and took in many of the sights of the American War of Independence. In particular, I went to Lexington, where I visited friends in a typical American family--the second generation of German immigrants. I got to see many of the landmarks connected with their 'fight for freedom', monuments to Paul Revere, The Minutemen, The Boston Tea Party and "No taxation without representation". The second time I visited Boston, my current wife was attending an executive training course at Harvard, and I went for the weekend. It was the fall, and the temperatures had fallen, not too low, but low enough. I got the chance to visit many of the hallowed seats of learning in the other Cambridge. At that time, my first daughter was just nearing middle school, and naturally my mind flitted to where she would attend university. Note that I said "would": I am now of the generation, having been the first in my family to attend university, that thinks its children will get tertiary education. I loved the campus and its flavours of history. It was not really like those unquestioned seats of English learning, Oxford or the real Cambridge. But, Harvard was my first visit to an American university and I was impressed, with the buildings, the campus, and the sense of calm.

Here I was in Boston, Mass., again. This time to watch my wife's family set sail, when her parents celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary with a cruise. I do not do long boat rides, and I have plans to socialize while they set off onto the sea. As luck would have it, I get the chance to reconnect with colleagues from my African sojourn. My local economist in Guinea (a Fulani and Muslim), whom I sponsored to take a masters degree at Williams College, has been asked to stay on as a research assistant. The leader of the IMF missions to Guinea (a Peruvian Jew), who was posted to Ghana at one time and was just finishing a posting in Burundi, has just started Hebrew Studies in Boston. I also hope to reconnect with a white American friend from my church in Washington, whose black adopted daughter I had taught in Sunday school, and had found me on face book. The girl, now well grown up, had told me that she and her mother would be heading to Boston, her mother's home town, for the summer, and they arrived a few days ago.

But, my thoughts. America fought hard to get its independence and its nationhood, a set of struggles that pitted the colonialists against some of those in their native lands, and for me that means mainly the British. America also had its internal struggle for nationhood, with its Civil War, that long set the line between those who were for or against slavery. Those two things are in my mind as I look onto the debates about Caribbean regional integration on the one hand, and the related matter of illegal immigration to Barbados.

I have long wondered if people from the English-speaking Caribbean know what they have gained without much struggle. Haiti fought hard for its independence from France. Many Latin American countries also had to fight mainly Spanish and Portuguese colonial rulers for their independence. We got our independence by administrative fiat; we did not spill much blood. Many Caribbean islands still do not have independence from the colonial rulers, though they have a greater degree of autonomy now than before. Our ancestors, in some cases, did fight, to different degrees, to get freedom from slavery, but in the end it was handed to us again by administrative fiat, rather than as the result of our struggles against our captors and masters.

We are clearly nations made up of relatively recent migrants. Our populations are not made up only of the African slaves' offspring. Countries such as Trinidad and Guyana had their numbers swollen by the introduction of indentured labour/servants. Like slaves, such servants were shipped; could be bought and sold; could not marry without the permission of their owners; were subjected to physical punishment; and saw their obligation to labour enforced by the courts. To ensure uninterrupted work by the female servants, the law lengthened the term of their indenture if they became pregnant. But unlike slaves, indentured servants could look forward to a release from bondage. If they survived their period of indenture, servants would receive a payment known as "freedom dues" and become free members of society. It is easy to forget, or not know at all, that many of the original European settlers in the English-speaking Caribbean during the 16th and 17th centuries were indentured servants (English, Irish, Scottish and German, for example). So, slaves and indentured workers are very much part of the earliest ancestral chains in the region. After the abolition of slavery in the mid-19th century, the demand for workers in sugar plantations could not be met by shipping more slaves, so was being filled by indentured workers from China and Portugal, and later the Indian subcontinent (mainly from what is now India, but also the current Pakistan--very different places with very different religious and cultural bases). These groups had a clear leg up and once free used that to build an economic base largely as merchants, though also as plantation owners. Some of these indentured workers became numerically and proportionately significant in Trinidad and Guyana, especially those from the Indian subcontinent; this was not the case in Jamaica (except if looked at in some smaller areas).

Out of that mixture has come many things. Think about the names that people have in the region. I love it that I know a true Jamaican called Kevin O'Brien Chang--a one-man melting pot.

Now, we are reaping a bitter harvest from this mixture of seeds. I am not sure how much of the history of the region seeps into people's thinking about issues. Racial and ethnic divisions seem clear in Trinidad and Guyana, and sometimes they are openly hostile in both places. My reading tells me that much of that comes from politicians playing a 'race card' to build support and better identify their opposition. I cannot really say if deep racial animosity exists outside these two countries. The recent discussions in Barbados on illegal immigration have seen the seeping out of some clear racist and ethnic hostility aimed at Indo-Guyanese, but while some of those voices are loud and their words sometimes vehement and laced with violent intent, I do not know if this is a small minority speaking or a much bigger part.

I am not a political analyst, and am still unclear what part of the recent moves against illegal immigration to Barbados is a familiar political play that often surfaces in hard economic times, or if it is really grounded in a firm policy line. My fear that it is too much political gets some support from the limited factual support that has come with the stance, which suggests that things are being plucked out of the air and waved like flags that attract attention. One real event with the glib addition of "this is not isolated" but with no evidence of how widespread it is not what I should hear government ministers saying to underpin a policy. But facts can be brought to support a policy later, by which time much social damage could have been done by the spread of anecdote and conjecture. I am going to try to see if, from a distance, the flurry of discussion in Barbados on this matter is clearer.

I am also going to indulge in a little love for that great American pastime, baseball. When I first went to Washington, I got into a group of baseball fans, one of whom was a Ghanaian who had studied at Boston University. We became great friends, but not fans of the same team: he loved the Red Sox, and I supported Washington's 'home' team, the Baltimore Orioles. We shared many a beer and hot dog and barbecued pork sandwiches while watching home runs batten in an pitches striking people out. I cannot persuade him to come to Boston this weekend, when the Orioles happen to be in town. So, I will have to root for the Os without being able to get into his face. I will root a bit quietly, though, because I am a visitor and due respect is needed for the hosts. The hotel concierge told me that getting to Fenway Park by subway is a cinch. My mind is made up and I am raring to go. Will I be surrounded by my friendly band of black and white Americans, a Peruvian Jew, and a Guinean Muslim? Who knows. Play ball!

Making My Blood Boil

2009-03-16T07:09:00.006-04:00

Every now and again something happens that makes my blood boil fast and long. Over the weekend, I had one of those visceral moments when I read about US insurance giant, AIG's, plans to pay out bonuses of US$ 165 million (some figures cite US$ 450 million) to the same group of executives that had nearly taken the company into the oblivion of financial ruin. I heard, but really did not read in detail, arguments about their having contracts. Where, I asked myself was their moral compass pointing? Clearly, the extent to which any of those involved in the decision and due to receive the money realise what most of the world's and the US economy is suffering as a result of a range of missteps by financial companies is limited. They should be shouting from the roof tops "We don't want the money. We don't deserve it. Give it to a fund for unemployed people and towns that are losing jobs or those who are facing foreclosures" or something similar. Add to this the difficulty that Congress had had in getting details of to whom AIG was paying bail out money. It's not AIG's money, it belongs to the tax paper, so it's about time to fess up. The list of bonus recipients will be released, I am sure, openly or slyly and then I fear for those whose names are on it.

I read this morning, a comment from the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. Now he comes from simple enough roots as the son of a South Carolina pharmacist. He is trying hard to show that he understands that Wall Street and Main Street, if not joined at the hip, have to move hand-in-hand. Everyone is in this mess together, and solutions that seem to favour those whom most view as the bastions of greed and unscrupulous behaviour can only fuel a fire of anger that could rage relentlessly. The problem is that Wall Street 'types' are often so divorced from those who have to deal with Main Street, or even mainstream issues, that they really just keep on not getting it.

The odium does not need to be limited to principals in the US because we have heard of the pension plan negotiated by Royal Bank of Scotland to get rid of their failure of a leader, which turned the man into a millionaire overnight. Give back the money, weasel! I was so glad to see that some in the UK are gearing up for a ding-dong battle over this, as British pension funds are to sue Sir Fred Goodwin and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in the American courts for hundreds of millions of pounds (see Times report). Part of their argument is that Goodwin “falsely reassured” investors that the bank was in good health when it was “effectively insolvent” because of bad loans. The class action lawsuit is open to all European and US investors in RBS to join. Their legal champion will be none other than Cherie Blair (as Ms. Booth, QC), wife of former PM Tony B. She has a sharp social conscience and I suspect will be glad to dig her legal nails into the eyes of the financial sector raptor.

It is easy to foresee that many people will become similarly angry. I actually understand a little about finance and can rationalise a lot of what seems like nonsense and gobbledygook. But those who cannot, and they are the vast majority, will see millions and billions going to the 'undeserving', the 'makers of our misery', and they will make little distinction between whether they are the downright crooks of the Bernie Madoff ilk or someone who was driven by an incentive package to take bad risks. The justifiable question will be "Why are ordinary people paying several times over for these people's mistakes?"

I read this morning that the Obama Administration is concerned that there will be a public backlash (see NY Times report): they fear a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, and worry that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House. They all deserve a piece of public anger, but I sympathise with the new president who is having to live with 'another fine mess' left behind after a wild party of lack of regulation and oversight. Hearing former Vice President Dick Cheney say on Fox TV that "stuff happens", makes me say "Yes, it does, and in dark alleys."

Larry Summers, director of the President Obama’s National Economic Council called the AIG bonuses “outrageous” on ABC TV yesterday. I personally heed the words of Robert Reich “Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress,” a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and labor secretary under President Clinton. I don't think I need to add to those comments. Maybe Jon Stewart will bring some of these characters onto his show: the stampede for tickets could be nasty.

Race To Where?

2009-03-09T07:26:00.007-04:00

Discussing race and racism is extremely difficult. If you are of one race (or colour) and make negative comments about another race (or colour), you are likely to be labelled 'racist', at the very least by the race criticized. Whatever substance there might be gets lost in the racial differences. If you try to have such discussions in one of those countries that have developed through a history of slavery or racial intolerance, the arguments get very emotional very quickly. So, we see a very difficult terrain for discussion of racial issues in the USA, where slavery had been a key part of its development, and where legal separation of races was in place at a time that most people can still remember living through. It is a bitter and violent history. In the Caribbean, too, we have a difficult terrain for racial discussions. The main differences in the Caribbean are perceived to be between whites and blacks, but many know that racial divisions are also intense between those of African and Indian/Pakistani descent, as in Guyana and Trinidad.

In any country, even one that has little evident racial difference within its borders, segregation is rife and is very much the norm. Many studies have shown that people gravitate toward those whom they feel are alike. That can largely be racial or colour based, but it can also be social and economic. So, for example, people will band together for religious reasons--it makes sense if one wants to build a congregation. Such banding together can take on a momentum of its own and that can be good for those who are 'included' but be a basis of friction with those who are 'excluded'. So, in places like England, Europe, the USA, there will be areas that are known to have high concentrations of Jewish people or some clear ethnic group, who perhaps arrived as immigrants and made their home in a neighbourhood, which attracted other similar migrants and on it went. Hence, you get areas such as 'Little Italy', 'Chinatown', 'Little India', etc. There is now even an interactive map that allows you to identify such social concentrations in the UK. Depending on your preferences, that can help you find or help you avoid certain types of people.

Within the world of race and racial issues, Barbados can often seem peculiar--not unique. The country is predominantly black (of African origin), and for centuries was run by whites (Britons of various origins). Over time, economic and political power resided in the hands of whites. From its independence in 1966, political power was transferred from whites to black as the British withdrew as colonial masters and handed this over to elected representatives who were mainly from the black majority. Economic power in Barbados, however, tended to remain concentrated in the hands of a few white families. In recent years, that has changed to some degree as one of Barbados' neighbours, Trinidad, gained economic power and looked to expand and diversify its economy: Trinidadian-owned companies have been buying into the Barbadian economy. While that has changed the colour of some economic power in Barbados, it has also introduced a different racial element, which is illuminating because it shows that racism is not first and foremost about colour.

In Barbados, one sees very little public animosity between the races. But you see very little public mixing in large groups. Just a random look into or attendance at social events and you will see what is the norm. If an event is hosted by whites, whether they be white Bajans or white expatriates, the event is predominantly white. If there is an event hosted by blacks, then the opposite applies. As far as social events are concerned, this is not extraordinary in racially diverse societies. I have seen the same many times in the US and UK. Many people do not have friends that cross races. If they think it would be a good thing to do so, then it happens somewhat selectively and they are very glad to parade their 'ethnic' friends when they can; but these ethnic friends will often find themselves either isolated or very much in the minority at such events, and naturally may feel uncomfortable.

I was fascinated by the publication recently in the Nation of a letter by a prominent white business in Barbados, Ralph 'Bizzy' Williams, on the topic of racism in Barbados. In brief, he recently divorced his white wife and married a black woman.He highlighted that his old social life was mainly with whites, but now they seem to shun him and he passes most social time with blacks. He tries to give advice to both sides of the racial divide--and I suspect in his attempt to bridge a racial gap will find himself savaged for stereotyping and being simplistic. His letter came at close to the comments of the US Attorney General, Eric Holder (himself of Bajan heritage, ironically) that America had been a "nation of cowards" on the matter of dealing with racial issues. I personally would not have chosen Mr. Holder's terms, but I understand a bit of his anger and frustration at how the matter just keeps getting bogged down. Interestingly, President Obama has stirred the pot by implicitly chiding Mr. Holder for the manner that he has introduced discussion of racial issues (see International Herald Tribute report): "I think it's fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language." Mr. Holder's remarks were quickly criticised by those who see the election of a black president, who then chose a black attorney general, as evidence that the nation is in fact brave on racial issues. But, as the president tried to point out, much serious discussion only occurs when there is major racial flare up. The president's 'conversation' with his AG will be very interesting on many levels, not least because there are a good number of people who see themselves as black and see neither the president or the AG that way. Many white people, and many black people cannot understand that line of thinking, but it exists. But, one hopes that the president can chide his AG and have no one jump on him for making a racial slight.

As I said, Barbados is peculiar, but not unique. Discussions of racial divisions are not really ongoing. One hears grumblings on both sides but see little effort to bridge; that is pretty standard in terms of what I have seen in many countries. You cannot force people to be friends and neighbours. Discussions on race here often centre on the fact that whites--supposedly about 10 percent of the population--control most of the economic enterprises. So, many issues that touch on the economy, especially when things are not going well, have a racial undertone. Ironically, during this period where financial enterprises are going through some 'difficulties', if I could use a delicate term, one of the arguments that came from a senior politician alluded to the problems that some people have with a black man rising from humble beginnings. It reminded me of the famous 'storming from the studio' moment of the former Minister of Tourism--who felt it improper that another black man from humble beginnings should be asked to justify from where his wealth had come. Therein, lie some serious self-image issues.

Because of many accidents in life I have often found myself as a rare black person in a sea of white people; but it has never been a source of intimidation. I have always had my position because of merit or ability or lack of it. I revere no man or woman for how they look, least of all for a melanin balance that differs from mine. I know that congregations of white people will tend to exist; but I know the same is true of blacks. If I choose to join either I don't excpet to be excluded just because my skin colour is different or my accent or language is different. But I am not so naive to believe that it may not happen. When I meet people I feel comfortable with those I like and I know that I am prejudiced--I prefer people who make me laugh and make me think.

It is really quite amusing to watch how people go about showing their racial preferences. A black woman, lost in a place, waits for a 'friendly' black person to query for directions. A white man entering a subway car filled with black people, turns back and decides to stay on the platform or go to look in another carriage. A white customer in a supermarket proffers the money by placing it on the counter and not making contact with the black cashier. People compliment you on how you look if you fit their image of what the good racial type is--that's a great one for some black men, who often like women with a big behind, so if the shape works then so will other things. Black women get into their complexes when it comes to shades--and one of them will have to explain how 'red' is the new black--or about hair ('good' is straighter and less kinky). So, I love the way that many Bajan women have neutralised that last aspect by having shaved heads or very short hair.

Barbados does not strike me as somewhere that can have a real conversation about race because its history has too much baggage--slavery and oppression, exclusion and privileges, etc. But, it is but a special case of those places that have lived through slavery.

Race rarely raises its head as a major issue in good economic times, so it will be interesting over the next few years to see Barbados go through tough economic times and where its discussion of race goes.

As If We Knew Each Other

2009-02-26T07:19:00.005-04:00

I love the familiarity that Americans try to create with all and sundry. Within seconds of a first meeting, we are 'buddies'. First names flow like between good friends. US politicians are not known to bother with formality, and President Bush just refers to 'Tony" (Mr. Blair) and now 'Gordon' (Mr. Brown) and 'Nicolas' (President Sarkozy) and 'Angela' (Chancellor Merkel). Americans are not burdened by the rules of 'the old country' so do not fall over when they meet certain dignitaries, for example, such as will soon be the case with former Senator John Warner, who will have bestowed on him the title of 'honorary of the Knight Commander Most Excellent Order of the British Empire' (KBE) by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He should NOT be referred to as 'Sir John', as this is an honorary title not a real one. Whatever else is done, he should not be referred to 'Sir Warner'; that kind of appellation would apply if he had been ennobled, and become Lord Warner of Virginia, let's say. It's a bit complicated, but pretty clear, really. But none of this will bother most Americans, who will still refer to 'John', though I suspect that the novelty of the knighthood may lead to a few uttered "Sir John".

The presidency does not hold the same awe for Americans as does the monarchy for the English. So, Americans feel fine referring to the president as POTUS (president of the United States of America). Indeed, it goes further to cover the first family. So, Michelle Obama is often referred to as FLOTUS (first lady of the United States of America, who is now like a flowering lotus of the USA). I have not seen it used but I would like to popularise two additional acronyms. FICUS, for first children of the United States. Then, as from April, if news reports are right, FIDUS, first dog of the United States. Michelle's mother does not lend herself easily to acronymization, but FOGUS might work, first and only grandmother of the United States.

The new president is creating a lovely familiarity in the way that he deals with people. There he was in Congress on Tuesday evening, ahead of his speech, giving man hugs (they look like regular hugs, but because men are involved it seems that we need the adjective), and whispering invitations to the White House (for those who could hear or lip read). Michelle too (see, I have already dropped her full name), who hugs and kisses everyone she meets at formal occasions just as if they are visiting in her own real home.

People feel so at ease with the current first couple that it is not uncommon now to see a lot of touching of these often distant individuals, as could be seen by at least one female politician giving the POTUS a back rub as he entered Congress the other evening and was stopped for a few words with a politician. Too sweet!

This kind of public 'love in' will no doubt bring forward invidious comparisons with the current president and his predecessors, but it should not. Each person is different and the level of comfort in social settings in not prescribed. However, I personally like the warm, fuzzy, feeling that POTUS is giving at least some of us.

Allegations, Allegations. Show Me The Allegators.

2009-02-21T05:47:00.002-04:00

The past few weeks have been ones full of allegations, mainly about some sort of financial scandal, even if laced up pretending to be polititricks. Just from memory, we have had ex-Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, alleged to have tried to sell the vacant Senate seat of now-President Obama. The man, who prefers to be called "The Rod" not "A-Rod" is innocent until proven guilty.

Racing ahead, we have the current Senator of Illinois, Roland "The True" Burris alleged to have had conversations with at least the brother of then-Governor Blagojevich regarding the seat and being asked, and trying 'unsuccessfully' to raise funds for Governor Blagojevich. Now, Senator Burris testified under oath and everyone believed him, and he does not want his words turned into sound bites so is now refusing to speak to the press. It's alleged that "The True" was so besotted by the idea of becoming a Senator that he lost all consciousness of what was right and wrong and what he was doing while planning to storm Capitol Hill: "I will not be denied", he is alleged to have said. Allegations, only mind you.

We heard of a certain Bernard Madoff allegedly running a massive Ponzi scheme and fleecing investors of some US$50 billion. The latest news alleges that no trace of investments could be found for the last 13 years relating to how Bernie made off with the money. It is alleged that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulate many aspects of investment in the USA. Only an allegation, mind you; it's not necessarily true.

The same SEC are now riding like the Lone Ranger hunting for more badmen and accelerated their investigations into the alleged 'massive fraud' of some US$ 8 billion perpetrated by a certain Sir Allen Stanford, know to us in the Caribbean, especially Antigua, as "Al Our Pal". No criminal charges have been made against Sir Allen, once he was served papers in Fredricksburg (population about 20,000), alleged to be the Zurich of Virginia. Alleged, I stress. With Sir Allen's alleged billions and access to a fleet of private jets, one has to wonder why he holed up in the shadow of the Blue Ridge Mountains rather than hot tailing it to the island he owns or some other hard to find place.

With all of these allegations flying around some of the alleged wrong doers or unfortune ex-'masters of the universe' have found that even after allegedly pocketing billions of dollars after steering their companies to billion dollar losses, have found themselves lost for word. Some very funny statements have been overheard or allegedly overheard in recent weeks. Hence, one powerful man was heard to say, "Many claims have been made, and I know who are the allegators..." I am not sure if he was the same person who said "I have had a lot of sleepless nights in the past 24 hours..." But, it is alleged to be the same person.

The Caribbean islands have had more than their share of headlines in international news during this wave of allegations. It is alleged that a major financial institution, CL Financial Group, is in serious trouble. That allegation seems to have legs with the assets being taken over by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, and exceptional support being offered by the Central Bank of Barbados. It is alleged that the problems besetting the group's Trinidad operations will not affect those in other parts of the region. Allegations, mind you.

We have heard that American sweet boy singer and dancer, Chris Brown, reacted badly to being told "Shut up and drive" and mistook the face of his 'friend', Rihanna (aka Robyn Fenty, born and raised in Barbados) for a punchbag and also bit his way out of that little bind. The pictures released (see TMZ site), if they are to be believed, leave no doubt about who is the alleged victim. Chris' face when last seen was still pretty and sweet; he is alleged to have booked a holiday in the island to make a 'get to know y'all and kiss and make up' tour. Alleged, I say.

And so it has been. The world is a zoo, sometimes, and now the allegators are running the show.

What the new US first family stands for

2009-01-21T14:29:00.006-04:00

Women notice different things than men about other women, and I'm sure that you've heard women's conversations that start up as soon as a female celebrity hits the screen: "Ooh, look. That does nothing for her; it makes her look so thin/fat/wide/short/cheap/junglish/trashy...". These are often the same women who want men to focus on them for what they are not just their bodies and clothes. But I'm not going far down that road today. I even had to close my ears to talk of whether the dress worn for the Inauguration was appropriate because it was lined with some insulating material, and flapped open to show this. Am I missing something? Well, we can all argue about the desgn by Isabel Toledo, and the ball gown worn later in the evening, that was designed by Jason Wu, I understand. But, whatever happened to lauding the lady's double Ivy League school background; her work as a high powered attorney; staying firmly the mother of children of a high-ranking political figure, now historic icon; and now stepping out as America's first black first lady? All over for you, Michelle, as the focus is not really on you but on things like the Jimmy Choo shoes.

Women also notice different things than men about other men. "Obama walks differently to Bush", I noted to my wife, imagining the gait that the new president has, which is a softened version of the familiar strut of many black men. "Yes," she agreed, "He's more upright." I giggled as I thought that my wife was already focused on the new president's erection. It's not true, though, from what I have seen. Perhaps she is seeing in the new president a sort of Darwinian aspect, of the gradual maturation from simian roots to being more upright in stance and stride; in that sense it could be a subtle cheer that President Obama is more developed than his predecessor. The pictures that I have seen of the two presidents standing or walking side-by-side seem to show to me clearly that the 44th incumbent is longer than the 43rd for sure, but he is more rounded and bent over at the top when he walks, and he too has a shoulder slup, that I would say is more pronounced than W's. You can check for yourself. But, our man is perceived by at least one woman to stand up like a stiff stick not a piece of wilting celery. Perceptions are funny things, eh.

Taking A Piece Of History's Pie

2009-01-16T08:14:00.005-04:00

I am among a band of history makers today, after a day among the ordinary and the heroic. I am in Washington DC, making the trip back to a city where I worked and in and near which I lived on and off for most of the last 20 years. It's the city in which my youngest child was born.

The getting there is always interesting. American Airlines did their part to make the trip interesting. I have no hesitation saying that they did not spoil the trip in any way. On the contrary, they did things, which if done more often would make their business better in the eyes of many travellers. My personal programme coordinator, who travels enough to have gazillions of miles for upgrades, graciously upgraded me to the denizens of business/first class. Being a Jamaican, I had to add my particular flourish. So, when the check-in agent came checking and explaining that the computer was down, and the line would move slowly, we smiled and showed that we understood. I then followed her to get the immigration forms. I had already ribbed her about how Barbados and Jamaica are converging, with the kind of breakdown she mentioned. Crime, was her response, lack of it in Barbados. but then she conceded that Jamaica was not all bad thinking of the Blue Mountains, the food, the music, the vitality, etc. "A Jamaican would use the fact that he is now at the head of the line to get himself checked in," I quipped. She smiled and asked for my passport. Yes, I was surprised, but not shocked as I looked back of the long line made up of British jazz band now headed to Brazil after apparently raving the night before. I waved to the PC to bring up the gear and went to pull up the luggage.

On board, we had the usual nonsense with people who have little experience flying. Those who put their bags in the first space they see and thing that like on LIAT the flights to the USA have open seating. "Dese seat big, man", or "Lucky me to get on early enough sit up front, bro'". I poked my nose deeper into Sudoku, and waited for the flight crew to clear the spaces.

I have never studied why American Airlines went into financial trouble but always thought that the food had a lot to do with it. Up front, it's almost always pasta or a chicken dish; I did recently get beef, but it was so raw that I could only nibble the edges. Air Jamaica or Caribbean Airlines win hands down in that area, with the little jerk chicken or fricasee. Sweet. This time, we had some trickery: vegetable lasagna or chicken teryaki, we were offered. I asked for teryaki and the reply "Chicken"confirmed that it was rogered. The PC went for the lasagna; again, "Pasta" confirmed her choice. Oooh, something exotic in the chicken line at least, I thought. About 10 minutes later, we chicken hopefuls were being told that there was a mix up with the paper work and in fact chickens had flown the coop but we had salmon instead. One passenger made his view clear: "I prefer chicken," he said. The "Salmon" reply confirmed that his preferences were duly noted. So, onto the main event. I gave them one more chance to salvage grace when I joked that rather than a measly glass of wine I would prefer the bottle. Now, I have said this many times on a flight and only with British Airways does it get the matter-of-fact reply "I'll bring it in a moment." My server smiled and looked at me coyly, saying, "I can't do that."I told her that my children are not allowed to say 'can't' because it's over used and badly misunderstood. Five minutes later she brought the near full bottle of wine. I did not drink it but gave it back near the end of the flight, telling her that she had passed the test with flying colours and would graduate with first class honours.

By the time we landed in Miami the fun of flying had become too much and the nearly two mile walk to immigration sobered me up literally and figuratively. Then the shock. We heard the news of the US Airways plane that had crashed into New York's Hudson River earlier in the day. Thankfully, everyone survived and the pilot was being hailed a hero. We then had the odd juxtaposition of that news being followed by the live broadcast of President Bush's farewell address. A man came and sat next to us, with the introductory "That's terrible, what happened in New York". Without hesitation, we both put him straight and said that it was indeed wonderful: no deaths, few injuries, lots of stories of how terrible it could have been. Don't make a tragedy out of a drama. He got the point.

Then on to DC. I slept all the way. I wished that I had slept longer as I felt the sub-freezing temperatures hit my face. But, quickly, we were driving into the city and walking into the home of a good friend who will host us for the next week.

I hope that I do not have to say why I am in DC. I really want to be part of the celebrations on January 20, and for once really know where I was on a particular day. I am really very excited and also grateful that whatever else seems hard to achieve, trips like this never seem hard.

I am going to 'multitask' by linking this to my little DC Inaugartion 2009 blog, and vice versa.

Change We Can Believe In.

2008-12-05T07:37:00.008-04:00

The current series of financial problems that are hitting many parts of national and international economic activities are bringing with them a series of hard questions that will be difficult to answer to every one's satisfaction. That is nothing new. But, when economic difficulties spread it is often hard to separate emotions from other aspects of reality. Most people would not volunteer to be without an assured and regular income, so when that is threatened the level of personal fear and concern usually rises to very high levels. We are seeing a lot of that fear in most of the world as the impact of financial crisis and slower economic activities put on a pincer movement that is squeezing the delicate parts of many countries, many companies and many people.

I have been asked recently about my views on government "bail outs", from the measures to save financial firms to the latest request for government help by the US automobile manufacturers (see New York Times report on Congressional hearings). I believe that private companies, especially those who deal with the buying and selling of risk, should resolve their problems without being saved by governments. In the case of the car industry, they should face bankruptcy, and use the provisions of that process to restructure themselves. I have real concerns about people losing their jobs. I have been there and done that a few times in my life--most galling was losing a job offered by the Bank of England before I even started working: a change of government eliminated a range of the Bank's work and it was easier to absorb some of the job losses by not hiring. That was a real smash-mouth experience, and luckily for me at the time, I had not actually resigned the position I held working in local government in Wales. I was quite devastated for a few month, but regrouped and used the compensation to provide a basis of savings. (I got a job offer from the Bank the next year, so I got where I wanted to be.) I have recently volunteered to resign from my employer of some 20 years and am going through another period of personal restructuring.

I would hope that my concern is a normal human response. But other responses exist and some are blatantly political or calculating. I know that if the employees were to lose their jobs the initial repercussions would be immense and negative on them, their families, and their communities. Things may never be the same again. But nothing lasts forever. Change never comes from simply holding on to what you have without thinking about how it can cope in the future. Making quill pens is not going to be the big industry in 2008 that it was centuries ago; the market that now exists for them is as exotic items not necessities.

My basic belief is that economic progress has always been about industries failing and new industries coming into existence: I wrote a thesis on this and the essential element of birth, death and reorganization of firms is as normal as night and day. The car industry replaced those activities that produced other forms of transport: horses and buggies had to find other takers. I loved the movie 'Ben Hur' and would have preferred to live in a world where we moved around in chariots: road rage was easier to deal with then, when you could really take it to others on the roads with swords and all sorts of means of damaging their vehicles and horses. So, I could be one person who really regretted the advent of the motor car.

But, I do not see a world where cars and trucks are not made. The questions are by whom, where, what kind, etc. I am not going to get all frothy about cars being made by Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. They may be better at it, and if one option were for the Big Three to be merged or be taken over, then that could be the right solution. Jobs may remain, but not with people wearing GM or Ford apparel; that's largely what happened to the British car and motorcycle industry. Who remembers the Birmingham Small Arms (BSA) Company? They began in the 1860s making munitions, turned to bicycles in tee 1880s, went to making motor cycles in the 1900s, and at its peak, BSA was the largest motorcycle producer in the world. Competition from Japan in the 1960s started BSA's demise, and after a merger with Norton Villiers in the early 1970s, the company basically disappeared from making motorbikes. In the 1990s a group reformed the company and now it has a large spares business and has produced a number of limited-edition, retro-styled motorcycles.

Those who have headed the major US auto makers have shown that they do not have the right approach at the current time. The whole discussion becomes political very quickly--more so when recession and financial crisis are on every one's lips, but one has to look at the core of the problem. The cars produced have been for too long ones that consume too much of a resource that we know is running out; when it is cheap we easily forget that, when it is dear we try to swallow the pain of the higher price but continue consuming regardless. Cars should have been produced in the USA that can go for 70-100 miles a gallon or use a fuel that is more easily renewable. Resources should have gone into developing such vehicles decades ago. Change has been too slow, and the consequence of that will inevitably be failure.

The major US airlines went into bankruptcy, and after several years of restructuring are still in business and operating differently.

The US car makers have fought fuel efficiency legislation for years, rather than showing leadership and putting forward more aggressive proposals for cars to be fuel efficient; nickling and diming.

Also, if you rescue the auto industry who do you rescue next? There may be a case for looking carefully at how the industry or parts of the industry fit into the overall economy so that if the companies have to restructure one has a clear idea of what that may mean for existing commercial and financial relations. That was one of the failings of letting Lehman Brothers fail; it could have happened but perhaps more slowly or in a more orderly manner. Because it was chaotic, that led to other problems. There is no reason why the car industry need to descend into chaos.

Just today, The [London] Times reports that the current credit crisis has forced Honda to pull out of Formula One racing (see report), saving itself £200 million per year. Now, whether or not you think that this is a good sport, it shows that adaptation has to and does occur. But, what gives and how is also about priorities. As the report notes, this "deals a huge symbolic blow to the company’s image and could plunge the sport into crisis" [my emphasis]. The symbolism is not trivial but it's also not substantial. That is part of the problem facing the US car industry.

The US has gone through major industrial shake ups over the past 50 years, and some areas have been hit very hard. The steel making areas, now unaffectionately called "the rust belt" are perhaps the most evident for people to see. As I mentioned, the airlines too.

But companies form, reform, dismantle themselves, get reassembled. Look this week at British Airways and Qantas in yet another reorganization in the airlines industry.

When I worked in Wales, my first job was to restructure public bus services: that was simply a matter of reducing drastically the services available to towns and villages in north Wales. Populations had changed in size and had relocated, and the service schedules did not reflect the new realities. For many communities, the regular bus services was an important life line, whether the services were very frequent (say hourly) or less so (a few days a week). I had to deal with seeing the major bus company cut its services; that was the immediate negative. I then had to negotiate how services could be retained, at different levels and by different suppliers. Small, private bus companies existed and many of them bid to replace the major bus company or combine with them to come up with a new set of service schedules. Sure, there was anger, disappointment, accusations of uncaring attitudes, etc. Yes, we made attempts to explain the economic and social changes that were prompting the changes. Bottom line: services were pared overall, but a service was maintained everywhere that one had existed before, in some cases using 15 seat minibuses instead 45 seater coaches. Certain essentials were protected, such as services geared to dealing with journeys to school and work.

Car makers today need not be car makers tomorrow. In the same way that Wales was a country built on coal mining, steel making, and then shipbuilding in recent years, as these industries faced economic woes, the industries shrank and closed. People lost their jobs: I know first hand how that affected communities because I lived in Wales during some of the years when coal mines were being closed. Many of my friends were miners or in mining families and it was hard. But the economy was also changing. Wales was looking to attract new industries, car making, services especially in new technology sectors, and others. The changes were such that a generation of workers had to deal with their skills being obsolete; they retrained, remained unemployed, moved to other areas, did many things. Wales now has a different stronger economy.

My other view is that, if the car makers have a viable plan then the market for private financing should be tapped to come up with the money. The fact that that is not happening tells us several things.

The current credit crunch might have occurred at the worst time for the car makers, but it's also a bad time for the whole economy.
They initially came begging with no worked out plan, and now have some numbers, but do they make real financial sense?
They may only want to ask for help when they face losses, but where are they to share their gains?

Heavy industry was once a mainstay of many economies. They had largely been in decline over the past century but are still very apparent. Services are now more important and diverse manufacturing activities exist. Manufacturing has diversified, for example, making car components. Farming remains important. The continuous decline in heavy industry (coal mining, iron smelting, steel making) over the 20th century, culminating in the virtual disappearance of industries such as coal-mining in Wales during the 1980s, left that country with very high levels of unemployment. But, it's part of a cycle.

Admitted, when one is not directly affected, it may seem easier to appear accepting of the kind of job loss and economic reshaping that lies ahead for the US. However, I was discussing over breakfast a few moments ago what has happened in the small world of my former employer, the IMF. Over recent months, it has allowed a large number of staff to leave and in the process allow early retirements and voluntary redundancies. It was a shocking and depressing exercise for many. Yet, several months later, after the world was adjusting to a need for a slimmer institution and representative offices in various countries were closed, talk is strong of the need for new staff and to reopen some of these offices. True, those such as myself who have left are not likely to make up part of any restaffing, but there are now openings at various levels for other people. Perhaps some of those financial experts in Wall Street will make the journey down Interstate 95 from New York to work in Washington. So, the economic wheel turns.

The change will not be easy and not without pain. But so often, by avoiding the pain and hardship now, all that is done is to pass those on to the future.

What A Vote for Change Represents.

2008-11-09T10:41:00.011-04:00

My wife suggested that I read Frank Rich's New York Times column today before I write my blog. Now, my wife knows how hard I try to not let others influence my opinions--almost impossible, I know, but I try to hold a certain integrity of thought. But, in the spirit of coming together that is seizing much of the world, I read the article after I has started to shape my own thoughts (see NYT article) and I will borrow from his piece as a preface to my own thoughts:

"For eight years, we’ve been told by those in power that we are small, bigoted and stupid — easily divided and easily frightened. This was the toxic catechism of Bush-Rove politics. It was the soiled banner picked up by the sad McCain campaign, and it was often abetted by an amen corner in the dominant news media."

America has voted for many things with the election of Barack Obama to be its 44th president.

It HAS voted for a black person to lead the country: undoubtedly a redefining moment for a country that has been built on much bitter racial division between blacks and whites, and which less than 50 years ago had laws that denied black people so many basic rights. Is racism dead? No. It is deeply ingrained in American society and its institutional base cannot be unravelled easily. But, race may now take on a much different relevance. Already there are stories such as "The Great Republican Hope", about Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal--37 years old; US-born of Punjabi Indian parents; Brown University [biology and public policy]; then option of Harvard Medical School pr Yale Law School, but went as Rhodes Scholar in political science at Oxford (see Yahoo report). Colour is in.

I think that America voted for a real image of itself in the sense that modern America is not a WASP-ish country, i.e., White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants do not rule the roost. The USA is a diverse country, racially and ethnically, and for the first time at the national level, this has become apparent. It has been evident at local and regional legislative levels for some time.

In doing so, Americans also voted for an intact, black middle class family. This is not a first. But in the same way that much of America got to know the "successful, black middle class" through the "The Cosby Show", they will now see it on national TV in real terms at the head of its nation. Senator Obama joked during the campaign about being accused of being married to the mother of his children, and of not being a drug addict, etc., knowing that for many Americans the stereotype of blacks is more the dysfunctional family than the stable, loving, caring, achieving family.

Barack Obama's principal advisor, with whom he consults on all major decisions is Valerie Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett was born to an African-American family in Shiraz, Iran (must be another Muslim extremist, eh?), where her father, Dr. James Bowman (pathologist and geneticist), ran a hospital for poor children as part of a program that sent American doctors and agricultural experts to developing countries to help invigorate health and farming efforts. The family moved to London for one year, then returned to Chicago in 1963. Dr. Bowman is currently Professor Emeritus in Pathology and Medicine, University of Chicago. Ms. Jarrett's great-grandfather was the first African-American to graduate from M.I.T., her grandfather, Robert Taylor, was the first black man to head the Chicago Housing Authority, and her father was the first black resident at St. Luke’s Hospital. Though Ms. Jarrett has never worked in Washington, her great-uncle is Democratic power broker, Vernon Jordan, a close adviser to President, Bill Clinton. Her mother, Barbara Bowman, is an African-American early childhood education expert and co-founder of the Erikson Institution for child development. Get the picture?

These are not dragged up from the gutter black people. These are not black people who are free-riders and drug dealers, and criminals, and other negative stereotypes; or blacks who had no education and needed to fight against "the system". They worked with and rose through the system. That might have been why those who were from the era of black civil rights struggles were not comfortable. No disrespect to Jesse Jackson, but his rise from adversity was his pillar for moving ahead: racial discrimination was in his veins, even when a star high school and college athlete, which some argue is why he transferred from the integrated University of Illinois to the black college North Carolina A&T.

We, in the Caribbean, have lived with black leaders who have been from educationally solid backgrounds, from families that had stature, and were able to be seen as "fit" for high political office through their intellect or professional achievements. But, for America, this will be a major page being turned. The black middle class has been less visible than it should be and black leaders in business and politics have been less visible than they should have been.

America did not NOT vote for a woman to be president. The women candidates (either Senator Clinton or Governor Palin) were not the best choices. I am sure that Oprah would have been a popular candidate, and there are other women who would not have been lightning rods for opposition. But, I will no doubt hear that women are still looking through glass ceilings. It's not true in politics in the US.

America's white majority (a description not an accusation) determined the result not in their racial favour. It's true that the majority of the 300 million people currently living in the United States consists of "White Americans", and they are the majority in 48 of the 50 states. The dominant racial ancestry of Americans is white European (according to the 2000 Census, Germans (15%), Irish (11%), English (9%), Americans (7%), Italians (6%), etc.). This may reflect a realisation that race did not matter this time. Iowa spurred the Obama campaign from the start. The fact that the vote for Obama was over 55% in states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington is not a trivial matter (see Electoral-vote). The fact that the "rust belt" states like Ohio went to Obama and that states like Virginia and Florida went to the Democrats for the first time in decades in not a trivial matter.

America's non-white minorities tended to vote together. Again, according to the 2000 Census, America is made up of a lot of Hispanics (15%), Blacks (12%), and Asians (4%). Black candidates tended to not get the support of the other major minorities.

America voted for a thinking, intelligent person to lead the country, a man whose educational pedigree represents something near the pinnacle in the USA: Ivy League colleges (Columbia University--and one of my children went there too--and Harvard Law School); intellectual recognition (president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR), whose list of alumni reads like a "who's who" of US politics and law). Note that HLR has had its defining moments too in the past 30 years: its first woman president (Democratic political operative, Susan Estrich (1978); its first black president, Barack Obama (1991); and recently elected Andrew Crespo (2008) was the first Hispanic president. Is anti-intellectualism dead? No. But it is not atop the pedestal.

America also gave a vote this time against negativism, and the politics of division and hate. A resounding fall in support for the Republican campaign came soon after the addition of Governor Palin, and it fell further as the negative politics of "guilt by association" was allowed to show its ugly face. I personally believe that John McCain could hear echoes of his name ("McCainism") being used like that of Joe McCarthy with witch hunts of communists ("McCarthyism"). I am totally in accord with Frank Rich about the "toxic catechism of Bush-Rove politics".

American votes were enthused. Recent polls show that about two-thirds of Americans have expectations of their president-elect that are headed by positive terms like "optimism", and show that only about one-quarter or one-third hold negative notions like "fear".

President-elect Obama said in a CBS interview on October 30 that he "does not tolerate drama" or "people pushing others down to get themselves up". That is a message of civility, but during the presidential debates, for example, Senator Obama's tendency to agree with his opponent was seen as "weakness". I never took that view. I believe that he is a bridge builder and in that sense, one has to show "a willingness to go across". Many politicians are not capable of thinking this way and working this way. With the new president, I have to hope that "change goin' come" in this regard.

The candidate whose mantra was "change" is not a revolutionary. He was accused of "palling around with terrorists" (Oh that pathetic charge!). But he was not accused of "palling around with pillars of America's society"). President-elect Obama's campaign was been stiffened by many older and wiser heads: Paul Volcker stood head and shoulders above many, literally and figuratively. He has indicated that he likes continuity if it means following a better line. he has indicated that there must be cross over, such as bipartisanship. He extended the hand for collective solutions to his defeated presidential opponent. There is much talk already of keeping on certain key officials from the current administration. That may not be popular with partisans. As someone who lived through several wasted decades of British politics of "stop-go" where Labour or Conservatives wanted to make their mark by breaking down all that their predecessors had built. I know what I think makes sense.

The president-elect is a realist. He has already indicated that the change wont be in one year or even one term. I do not think that he is a "nice guy". His political rise from Chicago shows that he has elbows, which he uses with vigour. But, it also shows that he knows how to get people on his side.

This is but the start of an amazing journey.

History Has Been Made. A Victory For The People.

2008-11-05T07:19:00.008-04:00

Last night's victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential elections was truly memorable. A black candidate has won this race for the first time ever. He did it by an enormous margin (see New York Times report), and carried with him a large victory for Democrat Senators and Congressmen. He beat John McCain in the key states that the candidates had spent months battling over, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, which voted for a Democrat for the first time since 1964. Put simply, he pulled America behind him. He was not yoked to a mule but did this with his free will and his undimmed spirit. He quickly reached out to those who did not back him and showed that his presidency will be a truly national affair. I know that most black people feel pride so enormous that they will probably take years to really absorb all that has happened so fast and so considerably. But, to me, it's important to start to see America and its politics as a field not of racial division but of racial differences that build national unity. The large crowds that greeted the victory were in keeping with those who turned out at almost every rally for Senator Obama. He is truly popular.

In graciously accepting defeat, John McCain made the kind of moving and sincere statement that could have produced enormous support for him and could have changed the election. We must just wonder why his campaign went to the garbage pail of negative attacks, which backfired so badly they must go down as one of the worst campaign strategies of all time. Admittedly, he was weighed down by the failed presidency of George Bush, who managed to divide his country, set the world against his country, and become one of the most unpopular presidents of all time, with policy blunders piling high.

Senator Obama made a typically moving acceptance speech, playing much on the mantra "Yes we can!" Like the little engine, his train is only just about to leave the station. He has enormous expectations laid on his shoulders. His background in community organizing had helped mobilize millions of voters and supporters who had been lost to and in the system; energized a nation to go out and vote, especially its young people and those who are called minorities. The election scenes yesterday and before were amazing. Was this really America, with people standing in awful weather for hours?

The world has been mobilized in support of Senator Obama, not least in Kenya, the country of his father's birth (where they have declared a national holiday). Celebrations were quickly underway in the US, but also across the globe. Here in Barbados, there was whooping and hollering and clapping, as we ate corn soup and ham cutters and bread pudding and flying fish...and boiled peanuts offered by an American lady, named "Daphne". I know that in Jamaica there was celebration too, with plenty of fish eaten. Japan has a small fishing village named Obama, and they celebrated too for hours. Official endorsements came in fast and furiously.

For me, Obama really represents someone to vote for, with ideas that seem to fit what is needed to make the economic and social landscape of America a place where more people can really say "Yes we can!" That is the message of hope. He reflected this with the story of Ann Nixon Cooper,a black lady now 106 years young and living in Atlanta, Georgia, who had seen it all (see Times report). This victory was for people like her: someone who during her life had been denied a vote because she was a woman and black, who could now put her finger on an electronic screen and cast her vote.

I now have to get on with grooming another possible presidential candidate. Miss Bliss is American and already has been mentioned as a future president. She has about three decades to wait to get her chance. But she will be made to believe that she can do it. God bless America.

Make 'Em Laugh. Make 'Em Cry.

2008-10-23T07:35:00.006-04:00

Here I am, languishing in Barbados, pining for one good thing. I need a good belly laugh about what's going on in the local political scene. What I see in the local papers are some feeble attempts at ridiculing politicians. Where are the hard hitting digs at the local "high and mighty"? Without searching very far, I can find so many good digs in other parts of the world. Take a look at a few I found this morning.

Is there a climate of fear
that leaves the local cartoonists too timid to poke fun at these often larger-than-life figures?

Jamaica used to have a great cartoonist, Urban Leandro,who took his swipe at politics but also at many aspects of local life. A wonderful anthology of his works are now available, "The Best of Leandro".

One of the local blogs, Barbados Free Press did a puff for their own political cartoons. (see link). But why should they be alone, even though we know them to be our local "mavericks" when it comes to getting in their licks?

The best "cartoonist" in Barbados is really not a drawer, but a sharp-witted commentator, "Market Vendor", whose wit and irreverence in his oral digs are never matched by any images in a local paper.

I will have to think why the standard fare here is so much about "playing it safe" or "with a straight bat", to borrow a cricket image.

Images of Black Men.

2008-10-19T12:26:00.009-04:00

Black hockey players are rare. I'm sure you've heard the remark "I went to a fighting match and a hockey game broke out" as a backhanded reference to the fact that a lot of fighting goes on once the men don their skates. Canada is hockey, and if Sarah Palin wanted to really get a leg up in politics, she'd expand her foreign policy experience, cross the border from Alaska and become a Canadian citizen. She is a self-proclaimed hockey mom, and Canada is anything but mum about hockey. But, I digress.

I know nothing about hockey other than it's played on ice, is part of the winter Olympics, and is not really a major attraction for black athletes. But there are black ice hockey players. One, infamous, current player is Georges Laraque. A native of Montreal, Georges is an "enforcer" who now plays for the Montreal Canadiens: his skating skills are moderate but he can fight, and was unanimously awarded the 'Best Fighter' by a hockey magazine in 2003.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

General/Secretary Colin Powell made his much anticipated endorsement of Barack Obama this morning, on NBC's "Meet the Press". Powell (an American, though born of Jamaican parents) is a Republican and former Bush-W Secretary of State at the time of the invasion of Iraq. He became the highest-profile Republican to add his support to the Democratic ticket. Important positive reasons for this support were that Obama is "a transformational figure", "a new generation coming onto the world stage"; "reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society"; has "demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country". But Powell also touched on negative reasons: he was "concerned about the negative direction McCain's campaign has taken recently"; that the U.S. has "managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are''; that the Republican Party had moved more to the right than he liked; that the McCain campaign was seemingly "narrower and narrower" and "exclusive" (citing the feeble and over-the-top attempts to suggest that Obama is associating with terrorists). He was also concerned about the judgement shown in choosing Governor Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate: "I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.”

Tom Brokaw showed what is really a problem with America's attitude to race--amazing distrust of black people--by asking that Powell deal with the suggestion that his endorsement was because Obama was black. Powell rebutted by saying that he would have endorsed months ago had that been the case. It's extraordinary to get major political figures crossing party lines. But would anyone have suggested that a major woman politician endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton was because the two of them were women?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obama has "mo". More information suggests that the coming election is his to lose. His fund raising remains amazing (another record, US$ 150 million, last month); he pulls amazing crowds--an estimated record 100,000 people in St. Louis yesterday; he got a slew of endorsements from major newspapers over the weekend.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Black political commentators arise. Nothing deep, but I love the interventions of CNN's Roland Martin. He's pro-Obama, and very feisty, very probably supports the senator because he is a black man.

Rally Round the Bull Flag. Are We All Comrades Now?

2008-10-13T17:54:00.006-04:00

The weekend was amazing for producing one of those rare occasions when nations put aside many political differences and somehow manage to collaborate, or at least appear to do that. Crisis or the belief that there is one tends to lead to extraordinary human acts. When people realized that the stock market correction appeared to be worse than in 1929 that sent more than a few shivers down politicians', financiers' and ordinary citizens' spines.

After a weekend waiting to see if the well-couched words of the major international political financial masters would make investors forget that they were gripped by panic, I could see from Sunday night in Asia that at least for a day, all would be right with the world. We don't have many details but many trillions of money will be involved in calming those jagged nerves.

I wont bore with the details of today's market activity but most equity markets liked what they had seen and heard--and it seemed that almost everyone in the industrial world would be bailed out or nationalised--and decided that it was time to buy again. The Japanese, bless them, took their annual "health and sports" holiday and wont get in on the act till tonight. Banzai! I guess they needed some R&R more than most as their stock market has been in decline for the best part of the past 20 years, since it hit an all-time peak in 1989.

Well, all of the rest of the world could not match my homonym, the DJ, as the Dow (up nearly 950 points) and S and P roared to their biggest one day advance in 70 years; that's before either John McCain and Joe Biden joined the US Senate, and well before Obama and Palin were born.

I knew that things would be a bit special when my currency strategist giving the web-inar mentioned that the closing charts from Friday--when there was an amazing rally into the close, indicated a rare formation, called an "abandoned baby", which is a strong signs that prices will reverse--not that they will do so immediately, but that they will likely not go down any more. In recent times that's enough to stoke a monster "relief rally" and so it did--again with the best action in the last hour of trading. This is what the little urchin looks like, stuck at the bottom and left behind as the market turns. Doesn't like like much, eh? But people in financial markets take much notice of these chart indicators.

There is so much uncertainty going around these days that no one has a good sense of what the next day will bring in these wild financial markets. Some people like that uncertainty, but others do not and cannot live with it for practical reasons.

Once all the financial dust has started to settle there will be a very different world of international finance, with most of the world's major banks owned or largely controlled by the State.I'm fascinated by what Karl Marx would have thought of all this. His thesis was that capitalism would produce internal tensions which will lead to its own destruction. He then believed that capitalism itself would be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period called "socialism"; then all would be controlled by the State in what he described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Is this what the USA and most of western Europe are embarking on? I could understand this move to socialism in Europe, but in the USA?

Say it ain't so, Joe. The lady is a fence turtle.

2008-10-03T07:17:00.007-04:00

Sarah Palin's name can lead to a lot of word play. One word that sounds the same is "paling", which means the sticks (pales) to make a picket fence. Another meaning is to lose colour and we can go down an obvious racial line that suggests a certain outcome if Governor Palin is opposing Senator Obama. But just hold the picket fence idea for today.

Well, we had another night of debates in the US, this time by the vice presidential candidates, and this time enjoyed too in the company of Thursday limers with Uncle R and Auntie L. A shout out for the sushi, shark and bake, and wine.

I wont pretend that I found much of the debate content really riveting (see transcript); many of my fellow viewers voted with their snores. Yet, it was a fascinating contrast on display. In the past weeks we had been led to believe that Governor Palin was "gaffable"; an almost total "ditz"--not too smart; more than a bit folksy in her spoken manner (saying "Darnit" a lot) ; trying to sound ordinary by talking about "Joe Six Pack", and hockey moms; out of her depth on any of the serious issues that we expect to hear top politicians talk on about. But, she had shown that she could learn a script, though unfortunately could not do more than recite the words ("She's a nauseating puppet", my wife said in her text message from St. Kitts last night), and sometimes not in the right order. What was she saying by the repetition of the "all of the above" approach? Was this something on the brief that she needed to read to find out that there were some substantive arguments to make? Did she under that she asked for widening the constitutional role of the vice president? Maybe her wink at the camera was an ominous warning.

Her opponent, Senator Biden, had a long political reputation (a senator since the age of 30), and was known to be knowledgeable, especially on matters of foreign policy. But, he had a reputation for his "loose lips" and "shoot from the hip" comments. I guess he would call himself a maverick. He had some obvious weak spots such as saying earlier in the campaign that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. In that, he represented some of the slippery side of Washington's politics.

The low expectations of Gov. Palin that had been cemented in our minds meant that unless she fell over, or uttered utter rubbish, many would think that she did well. She stumbled early: "It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street." Other way round, dear, or maybe a profound insight.

She stuck to her brief, so much so that she often spoke about things that were not asked, or asked herself a question and answered that. The moderator, Gwen Ifill, was possibly a bit off balance after the recent contentions that she could be less than impartial given her pending book about the rise of, and change in, black politicians, including Sen. Obama. Ms. Ifill, rarely followed up or steered Gov. Palin back to the topic, and allowed "Our Sarah" to tell us what an expert she was on energy topics, or talk about tax reform. Sen. Biden tried to leave her alone and focused on the "top of the ticket", Sen. McCain, which he did effectively. He did, however, manage to match Gov. Palin on the folksiness and being one of the ordinary Americans, citing often his "Main Street" roots in the Pennsylvania steel-making belt, around Scranton (his home town), or Wilmington, Delaware (the state he now represents). (It's ironic that Scranton is the county seat of Lackawanna County. "Like, I wanna job"?)

But, no doubt about it: Gov. Palin is different, and she showed it often as she tried to be herself. I can understand that for many American citizens she represents a person with whom they can connect. She loves to seem ordinary, and takes swipes at "those folks in Washington". In her own way, she may remind people of the hero in the film Mr. Deeds Goes to Town: a small town person who comes into fortune, heads to the big city and eventually finds a way to turn his fortune and the system into a means of helping out ordinary farmers, fighting off cynical "experts" along the way. That film was set in the Great Depression, so the parallels may ring loudly as the US is supposedly on the brink of a financial crisis that could rival that period.

But you have to admire the single-mindedness of Gov. Palin. No matter what the question, she turned it back to her answers, and the two pillars of almost all her replies were "energy" and "tax reductions". Ms. Ifill asked about a bankruptcy bill; Gov. Palin gave a cursory reply then came back with "I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan..." She spoke with energy, on energy issues, on energy plans, on renewable energy, about energy-producing states, about energy independence, and on and on. But there was very little substance to the answers. Sen. Biden, trying not to crush the woman's corns too badly just said at one point "If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution." He tried to give figures, facts, and some arguments that sounded like a policy or a plan.

Gov. Palin taxed our ears with mention of tax cuts and tax reform whenever "energy" did not fit:

IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care?

PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Sen. Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history.

I admired Sen. Biden for not blinking doe-like in the same fashion as Katie Couric, but it was a hard thing not to do. Staying with the reported strategy, he did not focus much on Gov. Palin, but on the Bush-McCain nexus, including a nicely aimed kick at Vice President Cheney, whom he said "has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history". He pointed out that he had not heard anything that sounded like policy or at least different policy from the past eight years of the Bush Administration, a la McCain's use of "you don't understand" jibe: "I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's."

One interesting tactic Sen. Biden adopted was to NOT agree with Gov. Palin when she responded to Ms. Ifill's question "Has this administration's policy been an abject failure?" by saying" "No, I do not believe that it has been....There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration...He [McCain] knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially." That was dancing a fine line of saying no and yes in the same breath, and I think Sen. Biden said to himself that most people would focus on "blunder" and agree that enough already.

What I saw also were clear attempts to connect to ordinary people. These two candidates are really reluctant heroes in not choosing to run for the highest offices, but were plucked onto the wagon to give each side something that was missing and would hopefully seal enough votes for the presidential candidates. Sen. Palin has her simple family story and told it often. Gov. Biden too has a simple family story, even though he now has a better life than with which he began. He tried to demolish several distinctions in one set of recollections:

"Look, I understand what it's like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it's like as a parent to wonder what it's like if your kid's going to make it.

I understand what it's like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, "I've got to leave, champ, because there's no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we'll bring you down."

I understand what it's like. I'm much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that's my total investment that I have. So I -- I am much better off now.

But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand."

That said that he was not really much different from Gov. Palin as far as many Americans should see. When he choked on recalling these difficulties of his own life it was notable that Gov. Palin did not offer a word of common sympathy or acknowledgement but came back with: "People aren't looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years." That for me was more telling than the rest of the debate. Gov. Palin had been too coached to respond to anything that was being said to her and her pat answer says volumes about what is really at work.

There's a joke doing the rounds. Gov. Palin has been called a "fence turtle", based on a remark an old rancher made to explain what it means if you see a turtle sitting on a fence post: "You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, and she doesn't know what to do while she's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to begin with."

Micheal Palin was funny on "Monty Python", but what about Sarah Palin?

2008-09-30T19:00:00.010-04:00

My female friend said "I hate it that people will cut Sarah Palin slack because she is a woman." So, I will not take off the gloves but I am going to try to say a few blunt things. What I have heard Ms. Palin say in public tells me that she has no idea what she is talking about. Her recent interview with CBS's Katie Couric is being dribbled out on TV, and as it is we hear a woman drivelling, if not dribbling. Asked about whether global warming had anything to do with human activities, Ms. Palin said something along the lines that we cannot blame all of man's activities on global warming.

The interview was already lampooned this weekend on Saturday Night Live, and is shocking people because it did not need to add humourous material, just use what was actually said.

In the actual interview, Ms. Palin sometimes just repeats certain phrases in a random, unconnected fashion. When asked for some specific examples of Senator McCain's push for more financial regulation, she replies to Ms. Couric, seemingly blinking in disbelief at what she had heard so far: "I'll try to find you some and I'll bring 'em to ya."

Her hands often do the talking, and they seem more coherent than she does more of the time. Wolf Blitzer was stunned on CNN's "The Late Edition" last night when he played the two clips side-by-side. Art imitating life or life imitating art? Judge for yourself if you think this reflects a disastrous choice.

The word going around (see Huffington Post) is that the McCain-Palin camp are happy with the prospects because expectations have been set so low that Ms. Palin's stock can only go up--but like the Dow, will it come crashing down again? But it's clear that Ms. Palin's remarks to Katie Couric "revealed her broad lack of knowledge on many of the issues that one needs to know when you're a heartbeat away from the presidency" to quote Huffington.

Key conservative supporters and commentators this past weekend stated clearly that Ms. Palin was a bad choice and should step down from the vice presidential candidacy: National Review columnist Kathleen Parker said Ms. Palin should step down since she's "out of her league."(see report).

While I am looking forward to the vice presidential debate due this Thursday between Senator Biden and Governor Palin, I fear that it could be a really embarrassing event. If I am not wrong it could even be really humiliating for Ms. Palin. It could turn out that a savaging by Senator Biden leads to many sympathy votes for a person downtrodden.

For a presidential candidate who is supposed to pride himself on his ability to make good judgements, Senator McCain's choice of a poorly vetted VP running mate shows little supporting evidence of good judgement. For a man who puts so much importance on the need for experience and understanding, especially as his age (72) suggests that he may not be around all the time to carry things with his own knowledge, Ms. Palin's choice is just gobsmackingly insane. She has no reverence for the age (66) and political longevity of her opponent, Senator Biden, and emphasised how long he had been a Washington insider, saying: “I’ve been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade.” Hmm. That rings a bell. Dong!

Maybe while Ms. Palin is hunkering down with Republican aides at the Arizona "debate camp" she will see a light or realise that she has more important walruses to catch in Anchorage and just slink away claiming "personal reasons".

I don't like Mondays.

2008-09-29T16:39:00.013-04:00

I had such a wonderful weekend.

Beginning on Friday night, I let my emotions sway with the US presidential debate, seeing a seasoned Senator smirk and condescend towards his younger, much newer, and more naturally warm opponent. I felt good at the end of Friday night, and the night ended very late after watching some of post-debate analyses. By the end of that I had not forgotten but put well aside another week of cataclysmic events in financial markets. Armageddon was still not here. US politicians indicated that with their willingness to work over the weekend do whatever it took to get a plan passed that, come Monday or soon into the coming week, a deal would be on the way.

Saturday began with difficulty, worn out from the week and the debates. My customary fish cutter and cappuccino breakfast was much later than usual, and I sat alone as my family snuggled under covers. Later in the day, my daughter had another birthday party to go to, this time at Drill Hall Beach, where she celebrated with her class mates in good Caribbean family picnic style. Everything was simple and nice. We had fried chicken, pizza, buljol, and golden apple juice. Children played on boogie-boards, and shared two boards between 20. Boys threw rocks and found brain coral. A heavy shower of rain came to drive everyone from the sea: Caribbean people are afraid of rain, even when they are already soaking wet. My wife taxed herself with some buff-up treatment for her feet.

My neighbour-landlord celebrated her birthday during the evening, kicking off at 9pm, and having a fete that was just really a great bash. She got a gift of party decorations for her house, that left her veranda festooned with balloons. She had food that was a feast of international dimensions: doubles, rotis, pork cutters, shark and bake, sushi, corn soup, and more.We love our drink but we don't go crazy with the liquor, and there was plenty of coconut water for those who did not want wine or rum. But the best of it all was that the birthday girl looked fabulous as she showed off her new trim figure. I would love to include her picture but you're not going to see my "Auntie" on this blog. You just have to imagine. In the wee hours of the morning, my wife and I took our weary danced out pre-baby boomer bodies home, with an armful of left over food.

On Sunday, no one could move very well. My daughter was pooped. Her papers had not been party poopers and were pooped too. God would have to excuse us all today. I had business to tend to as I got to put the last few weeks' financial turmoil into context for a wider audience, when I appeared on Voice of Barbados' "Brass Tacks" (see Nation report). I was surprised during the afternoon when I got some phone calls from people who had heard me live and then on the news, offering me congratulations. I guess I had not sent anyone into panic.

My working week started as usual on Sunday evening, when financial markets opened in Asia. I did not stay to look as I knew that some bad things were already in the works. Some of the issues I had flagged on the radio started to hit people between the eyes squarely as the British government announced an effective nationalisation of a bank, Bradford and Bingley (which is a major lender to landlords; see Times report). News was filtering out that Belgian-Dutch banking and insurance giant, Fortis, was partly nationalised by the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg governments (see BBC report). Wall Street's problems are also evident world wide. So, no surprise that Asian and European stock markets took a pummelling.

But I did not care because I was having my own pummelling. My dear wife had sought to raise the romance quotient by arranging joint massages. No, not massages together, but having my joints massaged after she had hers twisted, folded, and slapped. My masseuse, whom I will call "Charming", seemed to attack me with a vengeance befitting someone who had seen her pension plan go up in smoke last week and thought that it was my fault. After whacking the daylights out of my back, arms and legs, to "warm me up", she told me to turn over. I give her a McCain-like smirk. But after a couple of hours of manipulation and kneading, I needed nothing more than water and my bed. The markets could handle themselves.

Then day broke in America and here. My easy weekend left me unconcerned about trading as I ate breakfast with my little daughter, and she told me how she had heard me on the radio. "Daddy. How did you get inside the radio?" She is my number one fan, and told me that she had also seen my picture in the Nation newspaper: "I know that's you, Daddy, because you are bald." (Actually, my head is shaven.) The warm feeling she gave me passed over me again during the day, as I got some back-slaps and outstretched hands from some parents I met in the school yard: "I heard your speech on the radio..." one said. Maybe they mistook me for Obama. I could get used to this "celebrity" status, though. But that's another great thing about living in a small island or community.

But what of America's problems? First up, Citigroup announced a buy out of Wachovia--once the fourth largest bank in the US (see Times report). Great start to the day. Then, all the focus was on Congress, as markets hoped that the US politicians--who were supposed to have gone on holiday and start campaigning--would give their support to a plan to deal with some of the problem assets on the books of financial institutions. All looked good at the start. Then tension rose as the noon time for the vote came and went, and then tension rose to ridiculous levels as the vote started around 1.30 in the afternoon. The bottom lime: the proposal was defeated. Market reactions? Run for the hills! Today was a tragically historic day in the US equity markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average registered its largest single day point loss in history--down 778 points, over 7 percent (see Bloomberg report). The NASDAQ 100 index lost 10.5% of its value in today's session alone. The Volatility Index (VIX) registered the highest reading as far back as data have been recorded since 1990--reaching 48--that suggests the greatest ever level of fear for two decades. Gold prices soared above US$900/ounce again, but people fled from oil, which dropped by about $10 to $96/barrel, on fears that the world would really see much slower economic activity.

The numbers show that although more Republicans voted for (65) than seemed likely, their heavy vote against (133) is what killed the plan, which was not passed by 23 votes (by a vote of 228 to 205). Why did the legislators vote against? Ideology? I don't think so. My own suspicion at the time was that the fact that all face re-election in November meant that a vote against would better protect prospects with local voters. In fact, some analysis later showed that those Congress-persons who had or faced close contests in their districts voted against. Blame is flying around now like confetti. Presidential candidate Senator McCain piled on his blame on his opponent, telling the press: "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.'' Democrats are ridiculing Republicans who appeared to get upset that House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, criticised the Bush Administration's economic policies in a speech she gave in the afternoon. Oh, Diddums! Bottom line is that Republican in Congress rejected the solution put forward by their administration. Divided they stand. Divided they fall? President Bush was "very disappointed" and will work with members of his Republican Party: his appearances now like the dog on His Master's Voice Records tend to make markets plunge but this time the damage was already done.

Politics reared its head in a clear and ugly manner. Many US politicians had been stricken with the anger of their constituents over the past days as many people heard about a bailout of Wall Street financiers. The "fat cats" were going to get more fresh milk while ordinary citizens had to deal with Melamine-tainted Chinese powdered milk. What about bailing out home owners...or those with car loans...or student loans. No saving Wall Street; punish them. Main Street needed saving.

Well, tomorrow is the end of September and the end of the quarter and financial year for a lot of companies. The fall in the Dow wiped US$ 1.2 trillion from the value of shares. Congress declined to give its assent to a bill that may have a US$ 700 billion tag. When voters see their statements for money market funds, pension funds, share holdings, or almost every other asset, the large dip through to the end of September should be well understood by them. While I don't favour bailing out financial firms, and may see this as an awful outcome from too much loose monetary policy, the problem being faced is one that is frightening people and fear and logic don't mix. Credit has dried up and that means that the essence of the economy is missing. Wall Street allows Main Street to function--and taking that for all countries, we see that the current credit crisis is seizing up the world's economies. The 1987 stock market crash was a rapid plunge, while the current problem has been much slower in enfolding, but it's still seeing markets move to worryingly low level.

Today's fall out from Wall Street led to a pounding in Latin America, and Brazil's stock exchange had to close temporarily. Now the effects are just coming to Asia's new trading day. Australia's equity markets are already in turmoil and will see a delayed opening. The central banks in Japan and Australia have pumped large amounts of credit into their financial systems this evening, similar to the US$620 billion added by the US Federal Reserve. I don't know if any Republicans can see across to Asia from their west coast locations, but maybe they can tell us what they see as credit conditions are pailing into insignificance

We have a few days in which more attempts will be made to come to an agreement. The Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah, will be observed. When another vote can be taken, which should be Thursday, October 2, the temporary banning of short selling will be removed. OMG!

I really don't like Mondays.

Yes, Mr. President.

2008-09-27T11:28:00.008-04:00

We can observe the same events, and listen to the same dialogue, read the transcripts, and come away with very different views about what took place and what it all might mean.

I watched on television last night the first debate between the US presidential candidates and I had several immediate and continuing impressions (see transcript of debate). To me, Senator Obama (Democrat) looked and sounded very polished and tried from the start to make a connection with "ordinary" people--moving from his elitist image toward a constituency that he needs to capture: "... And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?" He was a university professor and in keeping with that began and continued with a style that suggested clear and ordered assessment of issues, for instance with a list of four points that the proposed bailout plan for the financial sector should include: "No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process...", etc. He tagged himself as a decider who was smart: "So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely." He's a well educated man and he wanted to stand on those credentials, but he seemed to want to portray himself as less lofty than others would wish to suggest.

Senator McCain (Republican) began with an interesting tack, seeking to cement the idea that he is truly bipartisan: His first remarks were about the ailing Senator Kennedy (Democrat) and then he immediately went to current Congressional discussions of the bailout plan: "...we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal (sic) crisis that we're in." His further points then seemed to wander into an answer. He had no problem doing that wandering throughout the debate, thinking on his feet in a less structured way than Senator Obama, but with some clear messages nevertheless, whether it was a fixation with cutting government spending and scouring government institutions, or finishing the war with Iraq in a way that honoured the American soldiers.

During the exchanges, Senator Obama clearly tried to tag Senator McCain with a heavy taint of the current Bush administration: "Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain."; "...the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to follow..."; "... under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them [Pakistan] $10 billion over the last seven years." In several different ways he posed the question: "how did we get into this situation in the first place?" We got there because of a series of policies implemented by President Bush, and "supported 90 percent" by Senator McCain. Whether it was the financial crisis, the spending that Senator McCain repeatedly said was out of control, the war in Iraq, the tarnished image of the United States abroad. Eight years of Republican rule had got the country to where it was now. A vote for Senator McCain would mean a vote for at least four more years of the same.

Senator McCain tried to distance himself from that, and set himself up as a maverick within his own party--including his choice of vice presidential candidate--and also someone who had a long political record that people could check to see what he really represented: "It's well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on - on Guantanamo Bay. On the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I'm happy to say that I've got a partner that's a good maverick along with me now."

Senator Obama repeatedly looked Senator McCain in the eye and referred to him as "John". Senator McCain rarely looked at his opponent and referred to him always as "Senator Obama".

Senator Obama tried to get his social agenda into play early and often: investment in education, technology, health care, alternative energy. Senator McCain's main platform was cutting government spending.

Once the debate moved away from economic and financial issues and into the realm of foreign political relations, Senator McCain played an interesting card. He was the man of knowledge, experience, and concern with the reality of war and what it might mean to lead a country that was coming from a defeat in war.

Senator McCain also tried a tactic that drew attention to his experience in a different way, by saying repeatedly that Senator Obama was inexperienced and lacked knowledge: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy."; "I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan."; "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand ..."; What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments."; He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia."; "We seem to come full circle again. Senator Obama still doesn't quite understand -- or doesn't get it -- that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages al Qaeda." That's a lot of ignorance to pile on someone, and in the mind of many a point repeated becomes an evident truth/ Add that to the use of the words "naive" and you get a clear picture.

A vote for Obama is a vote for a ignorant, greenhorn, and despite his great communication style, he really does not get it. You would think that warning people against voting for someone who is so ignorant would find a logical counterpart in the person picking a running mate that was full of knowledge like he is. I guess we will have to wait to hear Senator Biden attack Governor Palin in next week's vice presidential debate, for her lack of knowledge and limited time in office, and point out that Sarah just does not understand and suffers from naivete.

My wife is an unbridled fan of Obama's and found all of McCain's "antics" just worthy of "Cheesh!" or "How lame." I have a feeling that supporters of McCain and doubters about Obama may hold on to what they hear repeated.

What I saw of the initial discussion amongst the political pundits suggested that they thought the debate was a tie. The initial poll of viewers gave Senator Obama a 51/38 percent win (see report), including an interesting large lead amongst women voters; McCain apparently failed to get the "game changer" he needed out of the debate to reverse his deficit in the polls. Of course, polls and pundits can be wrong, and on election day, it is more important that people vote for Obama for him to win.

What I saw left me in no doubts in my mind that Obama would be an excellent president, and should be the clear choice of most voters. Those who think the same wonder what others see that leave doubts in their mind. I cannot think like a white man, who has a deep distrust if not hate of black people. I cannot think like a woman, who may feel embittered that her preferred Democrat candidate is not running for this office. I cannot think like someone who feels that a one term Senator with a Kenyan father and white American mother represents something too exotic for me to have as the leader of my country. I cannot think like others who do not support the person who seems to me to be the best candidate by far. But partisanship is not about logic, but about emotions. Politics is about how you relate to people who you want to exercise power. This coming election will be so interesting as a test of whether America can relate positively to the notion of a black man exercising power over the country.

New New York.

2008-08-28T08:47:00.006-04:00

A week in New York City can seem like a month in other places. The scale, speed, noise, glitz, splash, money that is really evident in the place is more than almost anywhere I know. I always have a hard time adjusting to all of that, at first, but thanks to being able to see some of the city from a different viewpoint helps me get back to the Earth I know.

My step daughther graduated from Columbia University in the leafy north west of uptown Manhattan. She first worked on Wall Street and is now "in between assignments" ahead of graduate school, another job, finding a new apartment, figuring out relationships, hanging out with her parental units. So, I am getting to know a little "de Loisaida" area (aka the lower East Side of NYC). "De Village" is not my home, but it's hers as she finds herself in new, interesting places to eat in Greenwich Village's little corners. She has discovered budgeting big time. The walk is a very important part of life for many New Yorkers. It's not so smart to own a car, and a good 20 block walk is good for you and your pocket book.

She is discovering that food stamps are a good option for people with no income and no other gifts coming in. No shame in taking what the state offers. It's not the same as lying on the side walk with a pan and plea. It's honest social support. I know the joys of getting unemployment benefits when I left school and university, and look at me now.

But the time in NYC is not about social issues, but about having fun and watching tennis. That we are doing. I am having my creative juices stimulated by all I see, but cannot put that out in public because I am nowhere near a computer most of the day. My BlackBerry is a possibility, but I am having too much fun watching all the other people use their BBs during tennis matches.

I am struck by the momentous moment that is about to fully unfold today, as Senator Barack Obama stands up as the first black nominee for president for a major political party. I have been looking forward to that moment for many months. Some Americans have been looking forward to it for decades. I'll let that piece of history unfold and think about how, we, as black non-Americans, fit into the new picture. How the poor and the rich in the US and its neighbourhood may be affected by this in coming years.

But, for today, I am going to see if I can find some interesting tennis to watch. I am going to love the Subway. I am going to love Starbucks. I am going to love privilege--if I get a hook up for great courtside tickets, and drinks and snacks with the hoity-toities. I am going to love sunblock. I am going to love marketing and merchandising and selling and American Express and their mini TV that allows me to watch six matches at a time, all for free--really. I am going to love giveaways, and maybe a chance to bump into a top ten player. I am going to love bumping into friends randomly. I am going to love sending messages to my friends all over the world about the tennis, and getting messages from them about what is going on in America--really--while they watch the Democratic Convention, that I cannot see. I am going to love meeting new people, from Connecticut, from France, from everywhere. I am going to enjoy another day of life.

So, Obama won the nomination. Now what?

2008-06-05T03:31:00.006-04:00

I wont pretend to not having a sense of pride that Barack Obama has won the nomination to the Democrats' next presidential candidate. He has stepped over a racial threshold that has been tantalyzingly hard to cross for many years. But in another sense he has moved closer to the ultimate political prize in US politics much faster than seems plausible: a first term Senator barely half way through that term (see official website).

A lot sits on his shoulders. He now has to try to sew back together the fabric of a party divided by a campaign that posed again each other the two elements of a possible "dream ticket": him, a young man of mixed black African and white American parentage--a true African American worthy of that title; opposed by her, a female Senator with a long political history who is the wife of a recent very popular president. Together, they could (and maybe still will) be a formidable electoral offering. But a lot of kissing and making up would have to be done between them and between their respective campaign staff to overcome some of the acrimony exchanged during the campaign. In truth, they were not that nasty to each other; a lot of unfortunate remarks were made, but on the political landscape they were really cute to each other. More problematic to me, as I have told anyone who wanted to listen, is the "elephant in the room" in the form of the "over attentive husband", aka Bill. I frankly cannot see how you have as a vice president someone who comes with a partner who is a very recent former president. Not just any former, either, but Bill, aka "America's first black president". This ex is a larger than life character, much more loved than his wife, with a bunch of policy ideas still in his head, and an apparent inability to stay in the background. Maybe it could work but not in my head. It could make for a terrific TV series, though. You can imagine the introductions: President Obama, Vice President Clinton, former President Clinton, my lords....

Now that Obama has the nomination, and now that Hillary has nearly (still not quite) acknowledged that he has the nomination--a process that has more like pulling teeth and filled with a certain denial that was incredible--comes for me the real test. America is about to show how much it has changed in terms of racial tolerance. It passed the first test of nominating a black man. Some sociologists will explore the way people chose between two historic choices--first black man or fist woman. To me the chose the more appealing candidate who was also more promising in terms of offering a different future. Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, analysts will show that you offered more same-old politics. Obama's "hope" message means something. Now America has to show if it has the stomach to be led by a black man. This is less of a challenge given that many pillars of American life already have at their head a black man. But it will still be a big ask. Obama's position on Iraq will be one of the key elements in his favour, I believe: it's hard for John McCain to shed the mantle of Dubya-bis.

If Obama becomes president he will be plunged into real politics and the needs of national and international balance. I'm sure there is wide suspicion that Obama as president would be tempted to favour blacks, but in American national politics this is less of a concern than at the local or regional level given the true minority status of blacks in the country. On the other hand, if blacks do not receive some notable favours they may quickly damn Obama as being "just like the rest". It will be interesting to see how he moves to these varous tunes.

The world has changed a lot in terms of gender roles. With the possibility of a Hillary nomination I suspect that there was a great hope that she could introduce female leadership into American national politics as a real force--no disrespect to Condaleeza Rice, but no one voted for her. Sometimes arguments that a woman's leadership has a different feel than its masculine counterpart make sense, but at other times it seems just talk. Having lived through the leadership of Margaret Thatcher in Britain I did not feel any special gentility from her style of leadership; if anything the country took on a hardness that was really hard to stomach. True, I lost a job because of her policies and I lived in parts of the country where the local economy was transformed radically by her policies promoting privatization and ending nationalisation.Telling people to "get on your bike" did not sound like the right motivation to people whose livelihood was being wrenched from underfoot; it's a long ride from a Welsh mining village to the London suburbs. But the different perspective that can be brought by a woman could argue that Obama has a duty to seek a female VP.

So, let's move on to the next phase, with the two presidential candidates duking it out through November. It has already been a fascinating set of contests so far, and I'm sure that we have a few more interesting episodes ahead.

Do you want to tell the world what you think about the US Presidential elections?

2008-04-10T07:25:00.003-04:00

I received an appeal from the host of a website named Dearamericanvoter (see link). He is looking for bloggers and video loggers who are interested in participating in a project he is working on at Link TV (a.k.a. Television without borders). As I have occasionally discussed the pending US presidential election, he thought that I might be interested. However, he is encouraging people from all over the world to submit videos and participate in discussions on his website, to share what issues are important to them in their own country, and to express what Americans should keep in mind when voting. Of course, the American election result will have a large global impact, so the project aims to help give voice to international concerns, as well as healing the relationship between the United States and the world. American opinions are not too, of course.

Blogs and video logs such as YouTube have done much to change the way that people's opinions can be expressed and received, and social commentary is not (and should never have been) limited to so-called experts, so I welcome this initiative as another step to opening discussions to those who really should comment--all of us.

If you participate in the project, based on reading this, please feel free to give this blog as your inspiration. Networking is important.

Thank you, Mr. Obama?

2008-04-06T09:11:00.007-04:00

Whatever the outcome of the US presidential candidacy races and then elections, I believe that many people will owe a debt of gratitude to Barack Obama. What he has done by being a very credible black candidate is to raise race and colour to a new level of debate, clearly in the US for now. But I think, that in a wider international context, he has done much to bring to the fore some of the fluff and confusion in discussions about race and colour. Mr. Obama is a black candidate with whom many white voters clearly feel comfortable for the time being (see his primary wins in predominantly white states). Yet, he is a black candidate whose blackness has been questioned by several prominent voicesincluding in the black community (see, for example, Time report). But he has opened up the question about what it means to be black.

For many people who identify themselves as black or are described as black they know that having some visible element of whiteness in their appearance really changes nothing in the eyes of people who identify themselves as white or are described as white. Once the darkness is clear the line tends to be drawn. In the US, the so-called "one-drop" rule tended to ensure that: a person with any trace of non-white ancestry (however small or invisible) could not be considered white. You were black or white. As a result of 400 years of living alongside white people, the majority of "African Americans" have white admixture, and many white Americans also have African ancestry. Some have suggested that the majority of the descendants of African slaves are white. In modern times, you have clearly dark people in America, of clearly mixed racial heritage, possibly raised by a white parent but in no way feeling "white" or being seen as "white". Yet they are not necessarily seen as "black". What is Derek Jeter? What is Mariah Carey? What is Jason Kidd? Each is a product of Irish-something mothers and African-soemthing fathers. (There are separate issues about those who are seen as mixed race and I want to deal with some of them in a separate post.)Mr. Obama brought a different wrinkle to the discussion with his very recent arrival as a black American (a true African-American, with black Kenyan father and white American mother), and with his absence of "black history" by not really being a product of struggles through the civil rights movement, and hailing from Hawaii. (Do Americans really see those islands like the mainland?)

In north America, Europe, and the Caribbean, we have lived through several hundred years of clearly black and clearly white peoples mixing, voluntarily and accidentally (both amicably and by force), with the outcome being a range of people who are not clearly as white (or classically European-looking) as most of the original settlers who travelled from Europe across The Atlantic, nor as clearly black as those who came originally from black tribes in Africa. During that period, which spans a good 500 years, we have known that on the one hand that those who could be seen as white or nearly white gained many privileges that were denied to those who were seen as black. Let's simply by saying they got their hands on economic and political control. So, if possible, there was a natural tendency to be seen as white/European. People are not stupid and rarely choose to impose suffering on themselves. In visible ways, that meant that through time many vestiges of a black/African origin were displaced in simple and complex ways: hair was de-kinked, skin was bleached, manners and tastes were changed to seem more white/European. These are familiar processes of assimilation--no different than learning to speak like a local when you move to a new place. They made sense in a time when clearly privileges were tending towards the whites/European.

In a broad sense the privilege structure did not change much, but through processes such as decolonization from European rule and civil rights successes a black identity started to take on a different and positive meaning. Skipping through the years, we moved to a point where black people could take pride in their blackness and believe that maybe this did not automatically penalize. In some places and the minds of some people, this created a new thin line to tread. At its extreme, "black" people would omit or suppress references to a clear set of white/European roots and/or relations with "white" people, because this was now a possible negative in a world that saw blackness as a positive and whiteness or relationships with it as negatives. So, now being black is alright. But the degree to which whiteness is looked down upon varies. Here in Barbados, there was an instance 2-3 years ago of a black Cabinet minister, Environment Minister Elizabeth Thompson, being overheard using the word “Caucasian” as a derogatory racial term.More recently, Barbados' new mega-star, Rihanna, reportedly admitted in a media interview that she was bullied in school for being “white” (see report and picture alongside of her and Jay-Z).

Various social systems in countries that have a significant proportion of white and black people, but where whites tended to be on top have not yet fully embraced the elevation of blackness. By that, I mean that they have not moved to make things fully even for blacks and whites--hence all the discussion about Mr. Obama's run for president. On the one hand, America has over the past 50 years embraced more the black person as truly an integral part (as the prime sports heroes and heroines; icons of popular culture, especially music; increasingly as a leader in local legislative politics as high as Congressperson and Senators; as important in national affairs--head of the armed forces, in charge of foreign affairs and national security policies; increasingly leaders in large businesses),but up to the past 12 months did not seem ready to embrace the possibility of their political leader being black.

Britain, which has seen a significant increase in its black population through mass immigration in the 1950s and 1960s, and reproduction since, has seen the black person as "British" (and that is synonymous with "being like the white Britons" in many people's minds) especially in the sport world, but seems to have lagged in this process in the areas of politics and business (see report). The rest of western Europe is mixed. France (which is complicated because it includes already black islands like Guadeloupe and Martinique as part of the "mainland") and Holland (which similarly has the Caribbean islands of Aruba and Curacao as part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands), who were both colonial powers, have seen immigrants and their offspring from former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, become integral part of their sporting lives. They have also shown interesting recent political developments in including non-whites in national political office. Countries such as Germany, Sweden, Italy, and Norway are seeing the integration of non-whites move along a range of varied lines; but such countries without much of a history associated with centuries of slavery and mistreatment of nonwhites move on a different track. [The pitcure of Inter Milan footballer Mario Balotelli-Buruwah tells a micro-story of what some of Europe is trying to deal with. He was born in Palermo, Italy, in 1990, of Ghanaian parents, then entrusted to an Italian family at age 3, but still is not an Italian citizen (he must be 18 to make that request).] If the discussion is broadened to include "ethnic minorities" we can see that the progresses have been more widely spread.

So, being being black now carries many elements of confusion within and outside of black communities. It's hard to be too general not least because I believe that there is a world of difference between various experiences. There is America (with its strong, still recent history of racial segregation and intolerance). There is Britain-France (with their ex-colonial powers and mass immigration histories). There is much of western Europe (with little mass immigration, though seeing increasingly migration through asylum seekers and economic refugees). There is the Caribbean (with our history of much inter-racial mixing, being overseen by European colonists and the favours they disposed to those who were seen as "white" or acted more European). Inside the "black community" it tends to be a good thing. Outside the black community, one has to judge the context and it could be a good or a bad thing. At a micro-social level outside the black community, it could be a plus such as being the "black friend(s)" that some white people would claim.

Few of us blacks are truly black through and through. I think most black people know this.

My wife is from the Bahamas (intriguing enough in the region, with "family islands" that were historically quite different in racial mix). Her family on her mother's side would be categorized as "Conchy Joe" (a Bahamian term for a white person or a non-white person who acts white). Her maternal great grandmother was white French-Haitian, and blackness was introduced variously by Jamaicans and Bahamians. But my wife looks more brown than anything else (there's another blog to come on women's skin colour in the Caribbean).

I have very dark brown skin and everyone in my family before me looked much the same, but I must have Celtic genes. Why? My first wife was clearly a Celt (white and a redhead, with family from Scotland and the Isle of Man). My first daughter has skin that is paler than it is dark and is also a redhead. For that to happen, there must be a recessive gene--one that is present in both parents--such as gives blond hair and blues eyes. Therefore, somewhere (probably in that southern St. Elizabeth melting pot of Jamaica) some Celtic blood entered my line. History tells us that the Vikings sailed from northern Europe to the Caribbean, centuries before Columbus. But it could have been from post-Columbus intermingling. I look and feel black. My daughter? She was raised in mainly white neighbourhoods. She has been described as "white", "black" and "other" (which is the description that covers her best, probably). Her racial experiences have been quite different in the US, Canada, and the UK (about which she will write soon). At the family level some of the pertinent questions are:

Do we think we are black? Yes.

Do white people see us as black? Yes. (I can't go beyond that to say if that means they see us as friends or foes, but most experiences suggest more the former than the latter by far. As we have never been criminals it's hard to talk too much about how being on that side would change perceptions.)

Do we act like we are black? Yes, as befits people from our respective island. Which means that we often do not see ourselves as subservient to white people and we are proud of our colour.

Do we feel disadvantaged for not being white? No.

Do we mix with black and white people freely? Yes.

Do our children mix with black and white people freely? Yes.

Do our children have more white friends than black friends? Yes.

Do our children see themselves as black? Yes.

Do people see our children as black? Yes. No. Sometimes.

Looking beyond my immediate family the debate that has been broadened is complex and long and won't be resolved quickly, if ever. But it's a good one with which to get engaged.

What's Eliot Spitzer going to do for us?

2008-03-13T05:46:00.010-04:00

It's not just comedians such as David Letterman, Jay Leno and Chris Rock who will make someone new the butt of their jokes as they get a batch of fresh material coming from the rapid fall from pub[l]ic office of New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, who resigned yesterday in the midst of allegations that he was involved in a prostitution ring. A fall that may be heavier and further because of the moral high ground that he had staked out attacking corruption and all kinds of malfeasance. He has put new meaning to the phrase "cut and thrust of politics".

So, as the bottom falls out of the ex-Governor's world, the fallout now unveils a new star, who says she wanted to make music her career: a young lady named "Kristen" (a.k.a. Ashley Alexandre Dupre). Her details (and I am sure those of her other "clients") will quickly find their way from the bedspread to the newpapers' centrefold sheets and course their way to the Internet (see link). She was the singer in a band named Amie [French for female friend, if you are not aware] Street at Bed Supperclub (no kidding), in Bangkok, Thailand (how did that city get that name?).

Some upstrokes. New York now has its first black Governor, David Paterson, and the US has its first blind Governor (see Times report). Sorry Obama, your historic place is still there but ...

The downstrokes may include money laundering charges awaiting Mr. Spitzer. He had ambitions of making it to the big house, you know the White one. Chances now? Nil? A legal big wig chirped to me yesterday that at least Bill Clinton waited until he became president.

Does this have any impact on the US presidential elections? Former (1994) Democratic vice presidential nominee, Ms. Geraldine Ferraro, tried clerverly to deflect attention with her "racially divisive" remarks about Mr. Obama and then smartly stepping down from her position on Hillary Clinton's finance committee (see report). I noted yesterday to a friend that the Spitzer affair could pose questions about Mrs. Clinton's endorsements--Mr. Spitzer was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton and a super delegate. Lo and behold one English paper has latched onto part of that (see Times report). Mr. Spitzer had said that the would-be-president was someone who had "proven herself time and again".

America's political culture is puritan, and sex sins are rarely forgiven and never forgotten. David Letterman tried to make it easier by saying "I thought Bill Clinton legalised this years ago." Some other commentators are comparing pictures of Mr. Spitzer's wife (indeed a sad-looking woman) standing by her man with those of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton in similar circumstances-- presumably one of those moments when she proved herself "time and again". Provokingly, the Times notes that Mr. Spitzer refused to campaign for Mrs. Clinton in Ohio last week because he was too busy. Doing what, exactly? the newspaper chips. Speculating that he was playing hooky or was it hooker? Naughty, Times. Funny peculiar, though is that US politicians are rarely drummed out of office for sexual misconduct, but on some other charge that comes associated with that. In the Caribbean for sure, we tend to leave the sexual conduct of politicians as their private business, even looking askance if the man is not involved with at least one outside relationship and set of children.

I have never gone deeply into politics but am always astonished that those men on the top keep getting caught literally with their pants down by a machinery and equipment that they should understand fully. Wire taps? Closed circuit videos. When this happens in Liberia, with its totally invisible infrastructure, you can understand, but in the US? Are all the politicians really inane if they are not supported by their good briefs? How does a former state attorney general and now governor or president not know that they are surrounded by or followed by a raft of sophisticated surveillance? They get into such simple problems and do such crass things. Playing shell games with money. Trysts in hotel rooms. Consorting in public toilets. What the ****. Did Mr. Spitzer really sneak away from his security detail in Washington DC's Mayflower Hotel on the night of February 13 to meet his calling? Duh! I said to a legal friend yesterday that the minute more than two people are involved in something illegal or undesirable then that's the moment from when one of them is doomed.

The number 9 has many supposed properties, mathematical and spiritual, though not as significant as 3, 6, or 7. It will be interesting to see who wants to emulate Mr. Spitzer. The number 9 shirt used to be the one worn by the main scorer in a soccer team. Will Ronaldo or Eto'o ask for their numbers to be changed this weekend? The American professional baseball season is about to start and the numbers on players's shirts are not so restricted as in soccer. But I noted that the Yankees active roster does not have the number 9 allocated, nor do they allocate the number 69 (see link). Will the street traders in New York City have a field day selling jerseys with 9 and/or 69 and the name Spitzer on them? Quick! Go print up some shirts. Billy Crystal, reported by the Yankees website as a "hardcore Yankees fan" (I'd ask for that to be explained), is due to make a celebrity appearance for "The Pinstripes". Oh, oh. The fun is only just starting.

Comments on this post will only be accepted if they are in the same vein.

Barack Obama is the real thing

2008-02-20T06:49:00.012-04:00

No doubt about it. Barack Obama (and I will refer to him as "Obama" or "Barack" because it sounds good and is not meant as disrespect) is a real presidential contender. That much is clear from the performance he has put up so far in the Democratic Primaries and Caucuses. He continues to win against Hillary Rodham Clinton and by sizeable margins. His message of "change" seems to be listened to intently. He has just won his 10th consecutive statewide competition, fittingly with the victory in his home state of Hawaii; he also won Wisconsin, by 58 percent to 41 percent. However, there are bureaucratic hurdles that need to be overcome in the form of the complicated formula the Democrats have of pledged delegates (those assigned as a results of votes in the primaries and caucuses) and "super delegates" (who represent party good and great and are not obligated to support any particular candidate). One hopes that the Democrats will not trip themselves up with this attempt to be democratic.

We knew that Obama became a serious contender when he started to win the state contests, but had to take him seriously when opponents started to try to find negatives to pin on him; but that's part of politics and it will affect every real contender. His ability to make rousing speeches is now being put as all he has--words and no solutions--by both those opposing him as a Democrat and his Republican opponents. But give me a politician whose words have passion and whose delivery can match that. Actions will take more than words and it will require good advisors and help to make tough decisions. But a president should be made in office not before.

For Americans, Obama is defying many stereotypes that people would like to pin on him, including racial ones, but I am not going down any of the racial roads now. (Sir Ronald Saunders made some interesting points in part one of a column in last week's Barbados Advocate, with which I agree in part.) I refuse to refer to Obama as "African American", except as an accuarate reflection of his mixed parentage (Kenyan father and American mother). I will say, however, that I believe that Obama's mixed racial heritage is a factor in his acceptability to a significant strand of white voters. Although in the eyes and minds of most people and in America in particular he is "black", and nothing will make him "white" in American eyes, he is not so black as to pose a threat for many. This is a part of the cultural and social racial antagonism in the USA. If he were in the Caribbean there would be some debate about what is his color, but this racial aspect would not be much of an issue for us in current times.

For him to win the nomination he needs to do what he has been able to do more recently: gain the votes of white women, working class voters, older voters, and Hispanics. Increasingly, it seems that Democrat supporters see Obama as more likely to beat the probable Republican contender, John McCain. That can give tremendous momentum. Obama is not unstoppable but he is running ahead fast. His momentum may be what takes him to victories in the upcoming big and important states of Ohio and Texas.

A few things could derail Obama's train. There are some not well hidden skeletons in the closet concerning his associates in Chicago, namely Antoin "Tony" Rezko, billed as a "shady Chicago property developer". Questionable associates also linger in the Clinton closets though, many related to the possible "first man" and former president known affectionately as "Bill". But some of the things in the closet fit Mrs. Clinton or the couple (including association with the same Mr. Rezko in the 1990s). Obama may have to weather that possibly withering criticism of American politicians as being "left wing" or even "socialist", including his relationship with William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois and former member of the "Weather Underground", a leftwing terrorist group that planted bombs in the Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s.Will Obama be a "tax and spend" liberal? It's hard to say. He has the endorsement of some free market-leaning heavyweights around him, such as former US Federal Reserve President, Paul Volcker, and his chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee (see picture) is a Univeristy of Chicago professor, a free marketeer.

Michelle Obama has added the occasional banana skin for her husband to slip on, most recently with her remarks about "feeling [really] proud of...my country". But she is trying to do a good support job and will have to think a little faster on her feet. I like the look of the potential first family, though.

I am not amazed by what Obama is achieving. America has draped itself in a flag of racial intolerance for so long that it is hard to spring from that and see that it is not the issue. Sure, it's a very new phase for Americans to deal with, but not so new when one considers that black politicians have risen toward the top of elective politics in recent decades, as senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, and not just where the majority population is black; they have also gained high office through their abilities (as is the case with Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice as Secretaries of State). I am glad that in some senses Americans now have a good chance to grab this nettle at the highest level. My personal feeling is that Colin Powell (who has Jamaican roots) would have had a similarly good run as a potential presidential candidate had he chosen to run, so I think Americans have been ready for this possibility for a while.

And if Obama wins, what then? I have heard a lot of black people express the fear that he will be assassinated. My take on that has been to say that if this were to happen it would not be a surprise. The USA has a long history of assassinating or trying to assassinate its presidents (see website), and mostly since 1900; I believe it leads the world in this uneviable statistic (even if we include other heads of state such as monarchs and prime ministers). Four US Presidents have been assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. Attempts have been made on six others: Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ford, and Reagan. All were white males, so somewhat facetiously we should not be surprised if at the very least someone will want to take the record for killing the first black president. But we cannot get into the minds of mad people. There is the fascinating sidenote to presidential assassinations (and deaths in office) of Tecumseh's Curse, whereby presidents starting with William Henry Harrison who were elected in a year ending with a zero were assassinated or died while in office. The curse ended with Ronald Reagan, but it could be in Obama's favor. So I am not focusing on this threat.

Unless the Caribbean freezes I cannot see the possible "dream team" of an Obama-Clinton pairing being put in front of the electorate. But I do hope that the Democrats do not resort to beating each other up and take their eye off the real political opponents in the Republican party. The contest is exciting and I look forward to a few more months of hope and speculation.

What makes the news?

2008-02-09T07:24:00.001-04:00

When you have lived in places as different as Barbados (middle income status; physically and economically very small and relatively unimportant in most senses), the USA (high income status; economically and physically huge; politically and economically very important in an international sense), Guinea (dirt poor; physically small for Africa but big compared to many countries; small national economy; politically and economically insignificant), you feel you have some perspective on things in the world. But that is all a matter of viewpoint, literally and figuratively. I found it interesting to approach the weekend with a thought on how what goes on in these places makes the news.

An adage says that all politics is local so I don't want to dismiss any place because when seen in a larger, world context they can be like dust specks. But is many places one could say the same about news. While the big news of the week to me and many others has been about subjects like the developments in the race for presidential candidates in the USA that does not mean that issues important to local life get left behind. So while major national and international newspapers such as The Times will have focused on that electoral fist fight, it has not found space for what goes on in Barbados or Guinea. My eyes have been on all three places.

So, the dominant US news. The real drama of "Super Tuesday" had to wait until Thursday. Mitt Romney, was not far behind the front runner, John McCain, but decided that to help his party he would pull out of the race to become the presidential nominee for the Republican Party. He had spent a reported US$ 35 million of his own money to finance his now failed campaign (see report in The Times). He had great credientials (see Romney's website). He worked as a vice president for Bain and Co. in the late 1970s/early 1980s. In 1984, he founded Bain Capital, which became one of the nation's most accomplished venture capital and investment companies. In 1999 he left Bain Capital to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and subsequently helped save 2002 Winter Olympics in that city. He was elected in 2002 as the 70th Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and left that office January 2007. His record of successful financial and business management and taking hard decisions in both private and public sectors was not enough in itself to get his nominated. Such is life in politics.

In Barbados, we can get down to earth, so to speak and focus on the story that had me wondering about what people find important. In a week when a bunch of burglars were caught who preyed on empty houses and targeted laptops and cell phones, other thiefs were getting some meatier goods. Mr. Lionel Hill, a supermarket owner, was glad that police found and recovered some 165 (of 195) buckets of pigtails that had been stolen from his business, valued at B$ 20,000 [US$10,000] (see report in Nation). If you are from the Caribbean you will know the many dishes that need pig tails (salted or fresh). I discovered a new dish recently of barbequed pigtails and would have loved to get my jaws around some of those buckets.

As regards, Guinea, all eyes in that country--mired in poverty and political loop-di-loop--had been focused on how the national team was faring in the African Nations Cup, being played in Accra, Ghana. The tournament had some coverage in the local papers. I watched some games online. After playing well enough to get through to the quarter finals, Guinea then had to face the losing finalists from two years ago, Cote d'Ivoire, with their stellar line up including Kalou, Drogba and others. They had to enter that game without their star player, Feindouno, who scored two goals in the previous game against Morocco, then had lost his sense of perspective and got himself expelled for stamping on an opponent.(You can see from the picture that he can use his feet well.) Inevitably, Cote d'Ivoire won 5-0. So, Guinea will miss out on the ultimate glory of being finalists. The team members can get back to playing for their clubs, many abroad. The country can refocus on whether it will go on indefinite strike to get more political change.

The final game of the tournament in Ghana will be between Cameroon (the "Lions"; who devoured the hosts) and Egypt (the "Pharoahs", who beat Cote d'Ivoire's lions convincingly). How fitting that the contest will come down to that apt challenge. Certainly, the Lions have plenty of bite and the tactical build up with triangles that is a part of the Egyptian game will be well tested. All I hope now is that I can find a television channel that will show the game tomorrow.