Dignity

People who associate with me know or get a good sense that certain things rankle me. One of those things is when people start to become disparaging about other individuals [to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison); speak slightingly about], usually when they are not present. which to me starts to diminish the person(s) being discussed, and ultimately takes away some of their dignity. Maybe I'm the only one that sees it this way.

Dignity is defined as "the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed"; it also refers to high rank, office or position. I'm not so concerned about that because that is something given. I'll give some examples from personal experience about the first definition, and I'll note upfront that it may be easy to offend in terms of taking away dignity, and I will admit that I may be guilty too.

My father, who suffered a stroke, previously fit and able and active, now has to deal with not being able to walk easily, can't do much exercise himself, and needs help with a lot of personal functions such as going to the bathroom. He never complains about being limited but he loses some dignity in the eyes of people because someone has to help him urinate and manage his bowel movements. (This is a family blog, so I try to be careful with expressions.) Therapists and I have tried to work with him over the past year or so to give him back some of his independence and that should help him regain some of his dignity. For the time being, he can't walk for miles (a tour around the house is like a marathon) or just jump up and dig yams or pick oranges. His appetite is good, though, and he can be proud that he is able to feed himself and, bit by bit, is getting himself mobile again. His brain functions very well and he can still express himself as clearly as almost anyone.

Disabled people (or "challenged" as now seems politically correct) often suffer indignities that may not be apparent; the blind person being helped to cross the road may not appreciate the help if unsolicited. I remember once in Germany taking the hand of a blind lady when the traffic lights changed [when it's safe to walk there is a high pitched signal]. She hit out at me with her cane and said "Listen, whoever you are! I don't need your help. Once I hear the signal I know I can cross, and I know where I'm going." Ouch! I thought I was being helpful, but she did not need to feel "pitied" or whatever was offending her. Being helped was undignified.

Black people being given jobs because of quotas instead of on clear merit may feel undignified because there will always be speculation about whether they deserved what they got. If you got your job normally but are the only black person in an organization, questions about "How did you get to work here?" can sting when you know you were at, or near, the top of your class. Or, because of our different physical characteristics, we may be mocked. Again, once in Germany, I sat on a park bench with my then brother-in-law, who is white, and lived and worked there. Two elderly ladies started to eye me. Then chattered in German (which I spoke badly then and even worse now). My bro' started to giggle madly. Then one of the women reached out toward me and before the panic could hit me, touched my hair. I recoiled. "Entschuldigung" [meaning "Sorry"], she said and then proceeded to explain that she had never touched a black man's hair wanted to know how it felt. Was I offended? No. Confused, yes. Did I feel undignified? No? Did I feel dignified? Yes, in part. (She felt that I was noteworthy rather than to be shunned for my colour or for being a foreigner.) I always ponder what would have happened if she had said to herself, "I've never had sex with a black man...".

My little daughter often puts on a face that shows she's offended. When I ask her what's the matter, after a little pouting she says "The children at school say that I'm [fat, ugly, black, have bad braids, suck my thumb, can't spell]." I pause and look her in the eye, then reply "But you know that those things are not true or [that you really are beautiful]." She sniffs. "I know, but they still hurt my feelings." So, damage done, and someone has to repair that. Teacher may not be aware. She has not run around crying in front of the class. But she did not feel good and this was no simple tummy ache which medicine could ease. How long will the child go on feeling bad about herself? That depends. We as parents have to do all we can to bolster her self-image not least to ward against the negative images that others will try to paint on her. Oh, and as she will grow into a black woman we know that the world out there could be very uncomfortable for her.

A work associate has his or her personal foible [a minor flaw or shortcoming in character or behavior] discussed by other colleagues, none of whom have asked the person being discussed anything about this foible. The conversation suggests that the colleagues "see" or "find" some problem with this foible, and may even start to make judgements and assertions about other aspects of the person's character. To me, this is not innocent banter. The conversation is not neutral; some prejudice is "at work" (or "in play"). Something bothers the people having the discussion, but they have not "done the dignified thing" of getting the matter out in the open with the person concerned. They may even say "Well, he (she) might be offended by the question." I would say people, if you think that then surely you have to figure out what will cause the offence, and pose the question as delicately as you can. Talking about the person "behind their back" in non-complimentary manner or making negative speculation about that person diminishes their dignity. If one of the people in the discussion is the manager does this make this speculation worse?

Going beyond personal experiences, look at recent events. One interesting, and perhaps complicated, instance is (black male) American presidential candidate Barack Obama's (white female) Irish aide, Samantha Power, calling (white female) American opposing presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham-Clinton "a monster" in an off-the-record newspaper interview (see Washington Post report). Ms. Power said her remarks were "inexcusable" and resigned almost as soon as they were published. She is also reported to have said "We f***** up in Ohio," [I presume the "f*****" is that well-known expletive deleted, but that's how it's reported. It could be "fouled" I guess, but probably not as it was deleted.] "Monster was inexcusable? But "f*****" is excusable? Ok. Ms. Power said several undignified things. She acted with dignity by resigning immediately. Ms. Rodham-Clinton's dignity was tarnished. Mr. Obama's dignity? Perhaps enhanced by not condemning Ms. Power and by not condoning her remarks. The journalist who quoted the off-the-record remarks? Undignified in my book: off-the-record should mean protecting the source. (But see a New York Times journalist's (Ms. Maureen Dowd) take on the Obama-Clinton oppostion getting heated up.) Is there dignity in politics?

Dignity is a two-way street and, I think, part of a virtuous spiral (say "feeling good") or part of a downward spiral ("feeling bad"). If we behave with dignity, we are dignified, we can feel good ourselves and the other person(s) should feel good too.

If we behave in an undignified manner we will be undignified; we diminish someone else and we should feel worse about ourselves. Look at three images of that great basketball player, Dennis Rodman, pictured here in some public off-court charity activity to promote rights for short people, doing his "thang" on the basketball court, and in some comfortable off-court leisure wear, and ask yourself some questions about his acting with dignity or if he is treating others with dignity. Your call. Don't duck it and hope for a jump ball.







We don't have to go to the extremes of abuse in our words or actions to become undignified or make someone else undignified. I don't know if it balances out. It can obviously ebb and flow. If you have taken it away can you get it back?

Sleep, baby. Sleep. Redux.

Saturday and Sunday I have taken to be days when I don't have to get up early to trade. Sure, my body clock is triggering "wake up" around 3-4am. But I tell it to "Ease up and go sleep."

So, why am I up at 3.30 in the morning? "Uncle! Auntie! I want my Mummy. ... I'm having a bad dream. ... I don't like the dark." Our guest for the night was having nightmares. I don't know who planned the sleep over, but they didn't come rushing in and sure are oversleeping at this time.

What do you do for other people's children when they get upset and wake in the middle of the night? Same as I would do for my own, I guess. Rub the back. Say "Hush". Close their eyes. Tell them "No more bad dreams." Should work, eh? Well, kind of. Took a while. We needed to get through "I'm thirsty", "My nanny sometimes gives me breakfast in the middle of the day" and a few other twists and turns before we got back to quiet rhythmic breathing and just listening to cats wailing, dogs barking, frogs whistling, and leaves rustling.

I know that we all are better off after a good night's sleep, and fortunately, I had gone to bed really, really early. Children need ample sleep to develop well. Surely, National Sleep Week isn't ending tomorrow. With more sleepless nights I need to demand an extension.

Sleep, baby. Sleep.

I get up early most mornings to trade. This morning, I had woken (without an alarm) at about 1am and checked developments in Asia (interest rate decision by Bank of Japan had been due), and went back to bed after about 10 minutes. The day is due to be momentous in the markets as key US data will be published, which could put the nail in the coffin of whether or not the economy is in recession. So I figured go and get some more sleep.

I was then woken about an hour later by a whimpering voice, saying "My tummy hurts." I took my little daughter to the bathroom, gave her a hug and then popped her back into bed. I tried to get back to sleep, but no joy. Let me start writing, I thought. Half an hour later, I was running up from the basement to the sound of vomiting as my little daughter was finding her way to the bathroom. A quick wash up by me and some cleaning up by her mother and back she went to bed, this time with her mummy. Daddy's awake now.

Just as I started to think about subjects to write on I came across a video on Yahoo, which must have been posted specially, in celebration of National Sleep Week (March 3-9). The video is posted below, but if it does not work here is an alternative (see link).



I don't generally have a problem sleeping. My older daughter seems to though and we were discussing this week her univeristy schedule and ways to maximize her sleep. I wont make light of the problem. The littlest daughter usually has it off pat, and one of my thoughts as I was waking was how she sleeps 11 hours straight and must really be at peace with herself. We adults take on or have given to us a bunch of problems that can ruin a night's rest.

The tips in the video are worth thinking about.

Soaking up morning sunshine? Yes. Do a lot of that. We're lucky in the Caribbean: we get a straigth 12 hours almost all year round with very little variation in times of sunrise and sunset. That helps keep our body clocks regulated. Pity those Europeans in places, especially in northern climes like Finland and Latvia, where in the winter (October-April) it gets dark at 3pm and the sun does not appear until about 9am--and it gets bitterly cold. That's the time of year when they should be snuggling under their duvets hugging a dog, a bottle or vodka, some friend or all of these or hibernating, like some of the animals. In the summer, they get days when the sun rises early and sets late or never sets...and the children never want to go to sleep. Yikes!

Early evening exercise? I tend to do mine in the early morning. It is supposed to energize your day and I figure that at the end of the day I will be good and tired. I used to play football occasionally in the evenings but always found that I was "wired" for hours afterwards. Maybe it was playing under floodlights that was the real problem or it was just the adrenalin. Funny thing was that games were regularly midafternoon, and after them I often had an easy time sleeping by late evening. Body tired for sure; but sometimes I am sure the post-match beers helped. Here in Barbados, judging by what I see around The Garrison, lots of people (and horses) take their exercise early in the morning; some of the people are back or there is a new batch between 5-7 pm. The horses are laying down in the hay. So I guess that Barbados is a pretty sleep place in the night time.

Dimming the lights? Yes. I try to do that but my wife loves to have lights burning all over the place. I try to make our carbon footprint small and keep turning them off. The BlackBerries are put into their cases, and on silent, so that they can also have a good night's rest. Not watching TV before sleep? No problem: hardly watch it anyway. No e-mail before bed? I will send myself a message about that one. Dimming the light may be taken as a signal in some relationships for some anti-sleep type activities, so I'm in two minds about this one.

The scented pillow? Very nice if it does not clash with other scents in the bedroom. But what do you do if "he" likes lavender and "she" likes something else or nothing at all (or vice versa)? "Go on. Take your stinky pillow and sleep somewhere else!" Hmm. A sleepless night thinking about where this relationship is going?

Relaxing in a warm bath? No bath to lie in here in Barbados, only showers. I will try the nightly warm shower and get the cold draft by the window to get this one working. We have a lovely deep jacuzzi in our US house and it is nice to have candles on the side and the occasional glass of champagne or wine. Or, as we did when we first arrived in Barbados and lived in a hotel, Mummy, Daddy and little child all had a deep, hot, foamy soak in the jacuzzi.

Anti-insomnia kit? Knitting? Have not done that since primary school. Crossword puzzles? Yes, I know they work, especially when you are struggling to crack those cryptic clues. Sudoku, on the other hand, or Rubik's cube, can often be guaranteed to keep you awake as you fail miserably to solve the basically simple puzzles.



Another good trick my wife uses is reading a bedtime story to our little child. Cozy up. Warm little body in the crook of your arm. Rhythmic breathing. 1-2-zzzzz. But really, nothing beats turning off the light, pulling up the covers, and closing my eyes.

It's your wicket. Protect it.

You may be forgiven if during recent days the major cricket story has passed you by. Sandford 20/20 is over and we are all focusing on the next drama series involving the West Indies team, when they deal with Sri Lanka (see report).

Australia were playing India in a one day test in Brisbane, Australia, at the famous Gabba ground. The score is not important here. What was of interest was the unscheduled introduction of a "third man", so to speak; or was it a "long on"? A streaker (not the one pictured) decided to run across the field while Australia was batting. However, he ran towards the "non striker's end" (that's where the player who is not facing the balls--again, so to speak) stands. But this time, the man with the golden bun met something quite unexpected. For the squeamish, the sequence of still pictures in the UK's The Telegraph are really quite stunning (see images and report). For those who are really sensitive I suggest that you DO NOT watch the video below. Yer man was flattened by a shoulder charge from Andrew Symonds that any self-respecting fooballer or rugby player would want to copy. Budum! Splat! Kerplunk! Take that! Oh yea! Middle stump gone! Bails (or is it balls?) everywhere.



As Cricinfo says about Symonds: "Andrew Symonds brings gusto to whatever he does, whether firing down offbreaks or mediums, hurling his ungainly bulk round the field or vigorously ruffling the bowler's hair at the celebration of a wicket." Well, he did a bit of that. Now, Symonds has had a very torrid time in matches against India, especially in India where the crowds took to making racist monkey chants. This time, Symonds found that a good section of the Aussie press and public were aiming to bowl him out. For a short while there was speculation that the cricketer would face the prospect of sanction by the Australian cricketing authorities and possible prosecution. The International Cricket Council's Level 4.2 regulation covers "physical assault on another player, umpire, referee, official or spectator", but Symonds will not face a penalty from Cricket Australia.

Cricket used to be descirbed as a gentleman's game. The Australians have been criticized in recent years for the approach that they brought to the game. Some saw it as "too professional" (whatever that meant). Others did not like the apparent heavy emphasis on "winning at all costs" (professionals don't usually go far if they try to lose at all costs). Some of their onfield antics were reportedly not savoury. Many of their players are great athletes, that is clear. Many learned to play other very physical sports, such as rugby or Australian Rules football (played on a cricket field, with an oval rugby ball, and involves kicking the ball high and long, with goal posts at each end for targets). Symonds often epitomizes the Australian cricketer par excellence. Did he do wrong to deck the streaker? I don't think so. It's not clear what were guy's motives and he seemed to be running at Symonds. If I were the streaker I would be glad that with the little protection that I had--none--I did not get hit for six by Symonds' bat.

Go into the garden, darling. Mummy wants to clean your room.

Mummy wants to check what "little Johnnie" has been hiding under his bed; or see what "sweet Caroline" has tucked into her clothes drawers; or, if "bright Bobby" is lucky enough to have his own computer, where he might have been surfing or to whom he has been sending messages. Cleaning house? Yes, but she wants to assure herself that her household is as good as she thinks it is.

One aspect of democracy that I like is that by having changes of government the level of transpareny should rise. How so? When I worked in the financial sector in London, I was always fascinated by the requirement to take at least two weeks holiday every year. Thanks, I thought. My employer really cares for my welfare. Not so. The reason was that research over the years had shown that an absence of that length would usually expose any "unusual" activities, though if there was collusion between employees in the same institution this could still remain under covers. With that in mind, I remain skeptical about what really went on at Societe Generale that allowed a "rogue" trader to generate positions to create a Euro 5 billion loss for the bank.

A similar principle can apply to governments. In most democratic countries, the flavour of the government does not change the permanent civil service much. Governments have their programs and the public servants charged with implementing them can usually rest assured that as the winds change they do not have to be blown in or out of work; they may not like where the winds blow them but they "grin and bear it". However, changes of government allow for a thorough review of what the previous administration did. These reviews often show "misuse of public money".

Usually most government business is well documented so if there are underhand deeds they will usually be found eventually. Some ministers and public servants guard against that to a degree with "private files" but they can usually be scrutinized too, either through internal auditing (like with a Public Accounts Committee). Documentation is often more extensive in the electronic age, where many records are kept on computers. E-mails, for example, can provide a wealth of incriminiting evidence because they usually remain archived even though the sender/receiver has erased them. As I often say to people, if what you put in an e-mail message should not see the light of day, don't put it in the message. Make you sweat more than when you wukkin up?

We have seen that Jamaica's new government has found many issues not to its and the public's liking: the "Cuban light bulb scandal" (and alleged corruption of a former junior minister), and the "Trafigura affair" (where bribery allegations are coming to the surface again with Dutch investigations into the transfer of J$ 31 million from Trafigura to an account controlled by the People's National Party's then general secretary, Colin Campbell, see report), to cite just two.

So, the new Democratic Labour Party adminstration in Barbados is going about its review business and finding things done by the preceding Barbados Labour Party (BLP) administration that it does not like. It appears to be a quest to unearth "waste of public money" or ways in which public money could be used better to serve the needs of the people.

So far the review has shown a dislike for the state of affairs at St. Joseph's Hospital, which had been left idle and is now delapidated (see report and picture). [The hospital seems to have been a political football. It was once run by a Roman Catholic order, was opened in 1966 and closed in 1986, after it became unprofitable. The Democratic Labour Party (DLP) government bought it, refurbished it and reopened it, but in 1995 the Barbados Labour Party administration closed it, charging financial wrongdoing had occurred under the DLP's stewardship.]

A list of "consultants" employed by the BLP government and their salaries [which combined to more than B$ 1/2 million annually] was recently published, and many of these consultants have recently been dismissed. The new PM has noted that he is not on any witch hunt. The former PM has indicated that he is on the warpath over this development, saying that he sees the firing of most (highly-paid) consultants as a "reign of terror". (Some of this "sabre rattling" strikes me as a little odd because it appears that the former PM felt some kind of obligation to "help people out"--a noble sentiment--but was doing so with public rather than private funds.)We economists prefergovernment "subsidies" to be visible (these were not) and well-targeted (hmm?). Political commentator Peter Wickham wrote today [electronic version of article not yet available] that any embarrassment caused by this set of firings and "loss of livelihood" for the consultants is the fault of the former PM for not having indicated sooner who the people were and what they were doing. I tend to agree. Use of public money should be publicly known, except in those rare cases that truly involve national security, and should be properly justified.

Capital expenditure is being reviewed, particularly the project concerning the "ABC Highway". Just yesterday, the DLP govenment said it would not put more money into the controversial Greenland Landfill Project, on which B$ 50 million had already been spent, thus saving a reported B$45 million (see picture). The PM has also promised an "urgent" audit into Hardwood Housing Factory Inc. and its substantial funding by the Enterprise Growth Fund Ltd., which now needs capital to continue financing small businesses (see report).

Further north in the region, the Bahamian Prime Minister, Hubert Ingraham, was reported in The Tribune on February 28 to have said the equivalent of "enough to hiding spending" (see report):

"Fundamental decisions must be made about loss-making public sector enterprises such as Bahamasair, Water and Sewerage Corporation and the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas. At least 20 per cent of the monies borrowed by the Bahamas government under the disguise of capital expenditure will continue to be transferred and pumped into these entities to pay operational expenses, such as salaries, office supplies and gasoline, diesel and whatever other recurrent expenses...And then we burden the taxpayers of the Bahamas for 20-30 years to pay that money back. In respect of these items that can't be seen, can't be felt, anything....Just consumed, it disappears. Generations after generations have to pay it back. Fundamental decisions have to be made..."

He reportedly added that the government will be changing the system to budget up-front the exact money that will be allocated for the year, and the entities will have to make do. This is a bold admission and if he is serious it will mark another good page for transparency.

None of this is to say that the moves by the new governments are not politically motivated, or will stop them doing things which we and their successors will later find hard to justify or understand. But "stuff comes out". There are lessons for the electorate and for politicians in these processes.

America has a citizens' watchdog group (Citizens Against Government Waste), who have an annual Pork Barrel Report. It is fascinating reading. There is a trend towards this sort of pressure group reporting to keep government on the straight track. I wonder if in the Caribbean we are ready for that.

The Voice of Vietnam

A good friend of mine, whom I met in Guinea, is now living and working in Vietnam. She works on health sector issues. We "talk" often, using the Internet in its various forms: e-mail, Skype, Facebook messages and pictures. Because of the time difference, my evening is her morning and vice versa. She gives me many vivid images of living in south east Asia. But most interesting is the insight on Vietnam she gives, of a society that is still slowly moving from its communist past.

I am no expert on the history of Vietnam, but it has a long history of foreign intervention, mainly the French, who left in 1950. Following that, "friendship" with communist China put it on a collision course with the United States through the "Cold War". The two countries went to war in the early 1960s and that conflict ended in 1975. It was a bitter period in the US's modern history and its memory is still alive in Vietnam, which remains a relatively closed society. I have asked my friend to give a taste of life there, little by little . It is still essentially a state-run country.

******
The "Voice of Vietnam" is starting on the loudspeaker in the street. It begins with some message of public interest: my little understanding of the Vietnamese language provides me with some understanding. The message is for pregnant women and children, maybe vaccination.

Musical Intermezzo, a popular song all can sing; stand up and build this nation.

The next broadcasts will be between 11am and noon, during lunch time and before resting, then between 5-6 pm. I asked: "Don’t people sometimes cut the cable?" Can you imagine this in a peaceful village in the mountains? Yes they do, of course, but there is always someone there to quickly fix it. One day I should record it! One day it will be history I guess in this country. Only when is what I wonder. Other ways of communicating will have to be reinvented, reassembled.

******

Just reward again

I asked a few days ago (see previous post) what honours had been showered on Shane Brathwaite, the young Barbadian athlete, who won the 1997 World Youth Games octathlon in the Czech Republic. Well, I was really pleased to read in the papers today that he received his award from the National Sports Council as their Sports Personality for 2007 (see Nation report; why is it that by 9am the Advocate for the current day is not available online?). Amongst his haul for this award is a "fully loaded" car (Ford Focus), from Ansa McAl. He also won the Junior Outstanding Sportsman of the Year award. Well done, is all I can say.

It's also worth noting that young sprint hurdler, Ryan Brathwaite, who is on an athletics scholarship in the United States, was named Emerging Athlete of the Year and will benefit from a B$8 000 bank account which was opened on his behalf by FirstCaribbean International Bank. Nice gesture. Let's "get there together" as their jingle says.

Dont try to fit into a mould. Be yourself.

While I drove around Barbados this morning a number of thoughts went through my mind about the many words that had been written and said recently about the hot "hair debate" in Barbados and I am not really planning to add to that specifically. My mind goes to what the discussion showed about some of the thinking that prevails in Barbados, and perhaps elsewhere in the Caribbean. I then saw the point that is the title of this post in an article in The Advocate--it relates to many things, including peer pressures in life style and choices of occupation. It seems apt for my thoughts. That article ends by saying that "The Lord knew what he was doing when he created this world with all the variety in it...Don't smother your individuality as it defines who you really are."

I sensed in the recent debate more than a touch of uneasiness about individuality. That somehow that could not be managed. Need to get back in line; stay with the fold; don't stray too far from the tried and trusted line. To make that point stronger, add to it some absurd comparisons and try to scare the bejeebers out of everyone by making it seem that the walls are going to fall around our ears, if we let this instance pass. The fact that this kind of argumentation came from a respected educator is another issue.

When I think of what it will take to make our region all we want it to be, I think about what our individuality has had to do with our successes. It's never easy. For example, we play and enjoy cricket differently than its originators and from other parts of the world and we celebrate that. We felt uncomfortable with the recent Cricket World Cup when our style did not seem to be taken into account in many aspects of the tournament's organization. In a word, the fun was killed for us. We wanted our noise; we wanted our food; we wanted our cheering. We don't enjoy cricket sitting still and occassionally saying "Good shot." We don't want cucumber and water cress sandwiches, but fried chicken and rice, peas, macaroni, etc. When we dance at our festivals we love to gyrate and get close and wave our arms; we don't dance around a maypole or walk around the room stiffly twirling and keeping our partners at a distance.

I also sensed in the initial arguments what to me was more than a little confusion about what some things mean. What is an institution and what is its role in setting standards for more than those who are active in it? If I have a child in a school, I look for those in it to set standards appropriate for good education and general upbringing of school children. But there would be limits to what I expect school to set standards on beyond that, e.g., political views. But beyond secondary school, I would expect institutions of higher learning (colleges, university) to deal with its students differently. In the latter, we need to address the fact that we have people who are near to being adults or actually there, and that changes the kind of regulations we will generally set for them. We also need to ensure that the rules we have are not arbitrary and are clear from the start and applied consistently.

Look at another institution, Parliament. This is where the country's elected and selected representatives make new laws to govern our lives and take decisions about raising and spending money for the "good of the people", and debate issues that will shape the state's direction of the country. But does it have a bigger role? What should it be doing in guiding what else goes on in our lives? In democracies, parliaments often get into trouble when they try to set limits on truly private behavour. Parliament does not run businesses, but should set a framework within which industries can operate. If businesses go beyond what is deemed acceptable then we set up other institutions to deal with that, through the legal system, for example. Parliament is an institution to which very few will be exposed and even fewer aspire to be exposed. It's not clear that it is really in touch with how a society develops so why should we give it a role in setting standards except for itself and how it passes legislation? Do I really want to look at politicians as my models of good behaviour? What do Parliament's activities tell us about our nation and what might they tell the rest of the world about us? If we look at the British Parliament, do we think that the country is full of buffoons just because Parliament's traditions are more than a little strange? We see a great example of a certain kind of debating tradition but I am not sure what else Parliament is doing for standard setting beyond its actual legislative role. Because a certain proportion of politicians are rude to each other or are shown to be wanton with public money or downright corrupt does that set the standard for me? I think not. Because most politicians prefer to dress in a certain way does that, or should that, affect my choices? Do I really worry about how they comport themselves within those hallowed walls? If I do, I will trust them to deal with it all amongst themselves. If I have issues with individual politicians I will seek to get rid of them through the ballot box.

Do most of us really feel the need for institutional standard setters? I thought, and had often seen, that sort of desire really only prevalent in centralized/state controlled/socialist economies and countries. At its worst, in China, with everyone in a "Mao" suit. Maybe at heart that is what is underlying the thinking of some in Barbados: a hankering for centralized control.

What also concerned me was a sense that some people here do not have a clear idea of who or what they are. The world is constantly evolving and international contact puts us face to face with many different practices and styles. However, somethings remain constant. Most people of African origin or with traces of such origins have tight curly hair, when it grows. Our options and choices for our hair are not the same as for Caucasians. However, over the years, black people have tended to follow Caucasian hair fashions--looser, straighter, glossier hair--and felt or were made to feel that we had "achieved" something if we got closer to that. When there was slavery in the US or Caribbean there was no choice for black people in matters of personal style. Naturally, after being transported from Africa, slaves could not retain much of that continent's style and adopted Europe's tastes. Since slavery's abolition black people in the US and Caribbean have tended to look down on those of African origin who did something close to African in terms of dress or more natural with their hair--letting it grow (Afro), braiding, or modifications of that (e.g., dreadlocks). We used that as a negative label. Black women rebelled some years ago when preferring colours for cosmetics more in keeping with brown skin tones. Do we want dark haired, brown skinned women to try to look like just like fair haired, pale skinned women?

Since independence was given to countries in Africa and the Caribbean those "natives" who held onto European traditions have tended to do so with a sense of assurance that they were in line with how most people thought and felt. In the Caribbean most people do not have a clear idea of what it means to be truly African; we are now part of the western hemispehere and have adopted its styles. But many are experimenting or trying to find out what it means to be different.

In most African countries, when it comes to comportment, national costume is still very common, especially in the west and north of the continent (look at dignatories and many others from say Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Morocco). Yes, you will also see them wearing western-style suits especially for certain kinds of meetings on foreign soil. But Africa's climate and lifestyle dictate different fashions: try going through the desert in a suit or even T-shirt and shorts. There is a good reason why many people dress the way they do such as available materials (e.g., cotton, grasses), or climate (sand storms or rains). Many high ranking French-speaking African officials studied in France and "evolved" so now love to dress at the height of European business styles. Show me the Armani. But there is no fixed rule. Guinea's president never wore anything but national costume, except when he dressed in his military uniform. He had a strict rule that none of his ministers should meet him wearing anything other than national costume. He also had a strict rule about speaking one of his country's native languages rather than French as left by the former colonial masters. But if you have lost your traditions what can you do?

In my teens I had my hair relaxed for a few months (I felt odd at first and then regretted it but grinned and bore it till it grew out; but there's no denying the episode and it's well remembered in photos of me playing football). During my time at university and after I began working in the central bank I wore an Afro; I also had a beard. As I matured more, I preferred my hair short, and as an active athlete until my early 40s, I rationalized this partly as needing to have something easy to tend. I was sweating and bathing so often that I felt I could get washed away. My sense of who I was changed during all those years. I don't feel ashamed of any of these hairstyles; they represented me at those times. All along, however, I never had any doubts about my abilities, and as far as I could see, hear, or sense no one ever saw my hair as reflecting anything other than the top of my body. My brain functioned very well all the time. My income and responsibilities rose despite the changes of hair style. My morals rarely varied with my hairstyles: I always knew right from wrong. I was harassed by the police in England irrespective of my hairstyle, but because of that which I could not change, my skin colour. Ironically, I lived in England at a time when people with short hair became feared, when "skinheads" came to symbolize a strand of right wing and racist groups and those black people who liked to wear their hair short had to think about what they might be symbolizing.

The kind of arguments that were flying around recently also reflected some loose approaches to gender bias: certain styles are alright on girls but not on boys. Reasons? None that I can think of other than "labelling". We seem to need gender labels, too. But more on that another time.

We also seem to need people in boxes. I want to see the region of my birth as a place where we show that we have more than a smattering of self confidence. I want us to show that we have a load of common sense. By dint of our locations and the size of our countries, we are very parochial that is true but most of us are not stupid. The US is huge but the views of its people are also very parochial.

Some people put forward arguments that in my assessment don't stand up to even the weakest of tests for logic or good reasoning, but reflect a set of opinions seeking to be credible due to the "position" of the presenter. Enough of that already. I want my children (aged 23, 20 and 4), living here or in the UK or US, studying or working, to be able to think clearly for themselves about important issues. I want them to make a contribution to development by what they do not how they look. One has braids and looks wonderful. One has the frizzies and is equally wonderful. One has hair that is loose and is equally wonderful. They all have great brains, which they seek to keep neat and tidy under whatever head covering they choose at the moment.

Getting a bad break

A lot of people in Barbados might not be aware of an horrific incident in England last week. During a football match between Arsenal and Birmingham, Martin Taylor of Birmingham tackled Eduardo da Silva on the shin bone and broke his leg. The video and pictures below are not mine nor are the views in it, but the images made me wince. As a former player, I knew that I was always one tackle away from a bad injury, yet somehow I got away with nearly 35 years of high level play with no breaks, torn hamstrings, many ankle sprains, and one removed cartilege (worn out joints late in my career), and now knees that need a lot of care but still function quite well. My worse experience came from mild concussion after a goal keeper and I collided and I crashed head first into a goal post.



You can see from discussions in The Times that opinions in England are really divided about the "crime", the punishment, how to try to eliminate such occurrences, etc.

A lot happens on the field and the only authority that matters is the match referee (aided by his assistants). However, referees have enormous discretion, and their actions are really only governed by the administrative bodies--FIFA and The Premier League, for example. Action taken on the field often does not seem to fit the offence (yellow or red card to cover all offences, some relatively minor (entering field without permission) some major (spitting or hitting an opponent), but that is a weakness of how football has developed, and its unwillingness to break its traditions. It does not have graduated penalties (e.g., yardage losses (like in American Football) or time in a "sin bin" (as in ice hockey or rugby), or a host of officials to cover the playing area. It uses technology to a very limited extent to review plays during a match or afterwards to correct mistakes or confirm decisions. Calls for that to change have been met with somewhat lukewarm responses.

I also know that if you play at a high level in England coaching there involves learning how to tackle very hard, and how to tackle "at the limit" of legality--it's a fine line.

Having also been a long time spectator from my youth, then coaching youth and adult teams, plus and a qualified referee I have seen most things that the sport has to offer and can understand the spread of views. Football is perhaps the most emotional of games for players and spectators. I think it remains the only professional sport that has sparked wars, when El Salvador and Honduras went to war in 1969, after a football game was the final spark between two countries with very different political outlooks and a lot of tension between them.

No conclusions from on this incident, which sparked Arsenal's manager to call for a lifetime ban for Taylor, but then he backed away from that. The offending player got an immediate red card and will face a several game suspension. I feel for Eduardo, who will have to wait nine months to recover. He will miss playing for Croatia in the Euro Championships later this year, which was probably on his calendar as a high point. Now he can look forward to just watching on TV. That's a really tough break.

What leadership means: I'll do it my way

The Times review of leadership styles concludes by noting that many managers find their favourite style and stick with it, perhaps occasionally calling on another technique for variety, but rarely stray outside their comfort zone. This can lead to several problems, particularly if they favour the directive or pacesetting style, both of which have an overall negative effect on the working environment.

The research conducted for the reviews by Russell Hobby, an associate director at Hay Group, shows that no single style alone is perfect; the best leaders can call on whichever style most suits a given situation, much as professional golfers pick the right club for each shot they need to make. Choosing the right approach can make you a more effective leader. The most outstanding leaders usually have about four styles, while the majority of leaders have only one or two.

The first step is to get objective feedback so that you can assess your style accurately. Self analysis rarely works because most people think that they are using one style but are actually using something totally different. Once you know how others see you, start looking for one or two other styles to add to your portfolio. For example, people with a very results-focused style such as pacesetting, could consider adding the big picture by developing their visionary skills.

Managers who feel nervous about getting to grips with a new leadership style in the office should consider testing it outside work where mistakes will not affect their career, perhaps in a voluntary organisation or a sports club, for example. If you are feeling brave, you can tell your team what you are doing. But this is only a good idea if you already have the support of the team. An alternative could be to tell a few trusted colleagues and ask them to help. Either way, support – including honest feedback when you stray off your new path – will be invaluable.

It’s also important to understand that swapping between styles needs to be done flexibly not mechanistically.

Did the earth move for you, too?"

The UK had its strongest earthquake in nearly 25 years on Tuesday night. Reports indicate that it was felt over most of the country. The epicentre, which measured 5.2 on the Richter scale, was Market Rasen (or is that "Market Raising"?) in Lincolnshire. We had our own similar brush with Nature's power in Barbados just a few months ago (see previous post). Here is an "eyewitness" account from my daughter, who is living in Nottingham, England, this year

******

I felt last night's earthquake. When it happened, I was seated on my bed, discussing with my flat-mate P* the morality of cheating on one's boyfriend. Tremors strong enough to make the bed buck, accompanied by rumbles not unlike thunder, interrupted our conversation. We had just agreed that P* had the right, if not the duty, to pursue her own self-interest even if that meant the end of her long-term relationship in favor of what could be nothing more than a fling. As soon as the tremors stopped, P* looked at me and shrieked, "It's a sign from God!". We screamed like little girls and ran from our flat.

Outside, other people were gathering, including a group of drunk boys. These -ah - "lively lads" had had so much to drink, they had not noticed the earthquake. I'll admit, I was completely dumb-founded. Just how much do you have to drink to not feel an earthquake? Especially one that measured 4.8 on the Richter scale. Although no great natural disaster, this was more than a "hiccup". We were soon joined by another flat-mate, X*, and her boyfriend, T*. T* admitted to giving into temptation and asking the unbelievably corny question - "Did the earth move for you, too?".

Was the earthquake a sign from God? I don't know. I don't feel comfortable thinking of it in those terms, either - it presumes that I even can know (too close to tempting fate). It certainly served as a reminder of the larger world - of the people, things, and ideas outside of my current little bubble in the East Midlands of England. As earthquakes go, this was a fairly minor one. Everyone who felt it can count themselves lucky to have had a brush with Nature, with the added bonus of a new silly party story. It could have been much worse.

Eighteen hours and one massive chewing-out from Dad later, I've had time to imagine some nightmare scenarios. If nothing else, yesterday's tremors were a not so subtle reminder of the inescapable fact of life's uncertainty. The only thing that is certain is that life will end. A depressing thought, but important to remember. An earthquake in a very literal sense serves as a catalyst - it forcibly changes the physical landscape. As a reminder of life's fragility, it will serve as a metaphorical catalyst for me - reminding me to act and live life to its fullest for as long as I'm able to.

Post by Eleanor*

******

Licence for larceny: ETF2?

In Barbados many people at the official level recognize problems, but for some reason that I have not yet fathomed dealing with them takes ages. One example is the water flowing down the street from a broken pipe in a road opposite the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, that has been that way every day for the year that I have lived here. Another example that is hitting the press pages is the making of licence plates for cars. As I drive around my extended neighbourhood, the signposts I see often are for "daycare", "hair treatments", and "licence plates made here". Now, the latter is no real surprise as I live not too far from the Barbados Licensing Authority offices, but it seems that plate makers are as common as Fordes or Benns in Barbados, and here car owners provide their own plates (they are not government-issued items). No wonder then that just a few days ago, when police were trying to apprehend some robbers and were giving the number of the vehicle on the radio, the information kept on changing, perhaps as fast as the reports were made. So, there is the Chief Commissioner of Police pictured holding up bogus plates that he was able to get in a jiffy, but he says that "We have recognized for years that persons have been using cars [to commit] crimes...it seems that there needs to be greater regulation in the Ministry responsible". Last year (July 2007) we read reports of the police finding a stash of illegal plates. The year before (August 2006) there were reports of a government bill [Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 2006] to the make the Barbados Licensing Authority responsible for the registration and regulation of the licence plate manufacturers. What happened? Seems, Mr. Commissioner? Complacent?

I have never lived anywhere, even in a so-called backward African country, where you can just get plates made, with no apparent government control on their authenticity, and where you can pick up a licence plate and a plate of fried flying fish in one stop. In the US, licence plates must come from the state vehicle licensing authority; they often have some form of embedded security marker and need to be related legally to the vehicle and its "vehicle identification number" (VIN) at the time of registration. In the UK, they are regulated by a government agency. This is good business for the state or national government and helps generate revenues through the sales and control of payment of road taxes. In both countries (but much easier in the state-run US system), you can buy "vanity" plates for an extra fee from these same licensing authorities to celebrate or commemorate a range of private or official events or special interest organizations (e.g. bicenntenary of independence or universities) or they offer "vanity" plates that spell something, such as "I82BL8" in the US or "THE1" in the UK.

By the way, the Commissioner also reports that latest figures show that crime in the first eight weeks of 2008 is up 5 percent over the same period in 2007. In more detail: use of firearms + 9 percent (and often in public); robberies +13 percent; burglaries + 24 percent [though the Nation reports in the same article that burglaries were higher and lower]; crimes against visitors 47 reported against 23 in 2007. The Commissioner said there would be a range of "creastive and innovative approaches" in the fight against crime. Less talk, more action needed?

Finally, it seems that every story now needs a congratulatory reference to Rihanna no matter how unrelated (to raise circulation or get more hits on the Internet?). I will not be doing that.

Back to normal...

Just a few pointers that after a period when it seemed that the country was going to the dogs, things seems to be getting back to where they should be.

Sartorial elegance

The Nation got us back to focusing on political issues as it reported on the first day of business for the new members of the House of Assembly. From what I could see of the pictures (not available to post but see link), most members did not dare cross the line of appropriate attire or hairstyles. Most of the men were in typically somber suits (black, grey) and had on nice shiny shoes (all laced, I hope, and no casual loafers). The papers noted that "Prime Minister David Thompson, [was] wearing a traditional black suit" and that "Former Prime Minister Owen Arthur looked a vision of relaxation, dressed in a navy blue suit complemented by a turquoise tie". Turqouise? Tss. Kinda close for comfort that. But we have a nice mantra: "Blue is relaxing. Hhhmm." They made no comment on the dress (or not) of Opposition Leader Mia Mottley; the photograph in the paper shows her in what looked like a dark olive trouser suit, but without a shirt, collar or tie. I wish I could get upset and rail about how "inappropriate" her attire was for the august chambers. Maybe someone else will soon fill that critical void. [On that and hair issues, some learned minds have now entered the discussions in the printed press looking at the legality and constitutionality of recent remarks and actions to ban students from places of education.]

The sparring started early and questions and answers were traded on the PM's recent use of a private jet, and whether this was paid for or a "freebie". We will crawl over the expenditure figures later to check the answers about the transactions.

Months of fun ahead.

LIAT (Left in Antigua Terminal)

For real this time. The Nation also reports that a plane cancellation (LIAT 729) yesterday stranded passengers there, including Bajan dignatories such as former central bank governor Sir Courtney Blackman, cricket expert and commentator Tony Cozier, and former banker turned talk-show moderator Tony Marshall. Reasons? According to LIAT CEO Mark Darby: "aircraft maintenance challenges" and a "manpower shortage caused by illness and resignation". Challenges are one of the new age euphamisms for incompetence. I am not sure which use of resignation is meant, quitting or admitting that you are beaten. So an expected 4.30pm departure turned into "other travel arrangements" for some, or a night at the Royal Antigua hotel for others (though not arriving till near midnight). Ironically, Mr. Marshall was back in Barbados in time to do his show and get down to brass tacks for an "explanation" from Mr. Darby. How fitting.

Such is life in paradise.

What accountability looks like: Shedding light on politicians' crimes

I will not say more than I am pleased to see that the case against former minister Kern Spencer has reached a point that will truly test Jamaica's criminal, judicial and parliamentary systems. Reports from Jamaica indicate that charges have now been laid against the former minister in the "Cuban light bulb scandal" and he has been arrested along with several associates. The current Minister of Energy, Clive Mullins is reported to have said he is "not surprised" and called this a "dark day" for Jamaica; it was he who brought the issue to public attention with a statement to the House of Representatives last year.

Mr. Spencer, the former Minister of State for Energy, who had recently sought leave of absence from Parliament, is now facing three charges of conspiracy to defraud, one charge for breaching the Prevention of Corruption Act, and three charges for breaching the Money Laundering Act. Also charged are Rodney Chin and Coleen Wright. Mr. Chin is facing two counts of conspiracy to defraud and two counts of breaches of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is the managing director of Universal Management and Development Limited and Caribbean Communications Media Network Limited. Ms. Wright, a supervisor at the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica who also worked as Mr. Spencer's personal assistant, is charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud, one for breaching the Prevention of Corruption Act, and four money-laundering offences.

Convictions for breaching the Prevention of Corruption Act carry a fine of up to J$1 million and or imprisonment of up to two years. A breach of the Money Laundering Act, which involves the transfer of property from Jamaica to overseas, of which Mr. Spencer is accused, could bring jail time of up to five years, and a fine of up to J$1 million.

More details will emerge as criminal proceedings move ahead, but in January, the auditor-general reported that about 176,380 of the four million bulbs, costing approximately J$92 million, could not be accounted for, while there was an absence of an effective system of budgetary control resulting in the making of payments and the incurring of unpaid obligations of J$185.3 million over the approved financial support of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica.

Mr. Spencer is not the first sitting member of Jamaica's parliament to face criminal charges, but they have been very few.

This latest case should shed light on what kind of government Bruce Golding is leading and what kind of democratic country Jamaica really is. It may also spark a heated and timely public discussion about what the two major parties represent on the corruption issue. Many blame the PNP's failure to shed more light and come clean on this: many will remember the series of scandals: the Netserve scandal; the Operation Pride scandal; the Solutrea scandal; the Trafigura. These and an apparent indifference to accusations of corruption were seen by some as a major factor behind their recent election defeat, and the issue had been raised from the start of the Simpson-Miller administration (see Gleaner report).

When your past catches up with you

Social networking sites such as Facebook have become big business. But they also are very much about what they are--connecting people. Over the past week my past caught up with me in a hurry when I got a message from a person whose name I knew, as a six year old new immigrant at primary school in England. He mentioned our school and a lot of names of boys and girls who were there at the same time, some also recently arrived from the Caribbean. We have exchanged a few messages and confirmed our recollection of more names and faces over the past week. He mentioned that he had been trying to relocate me, and others, over the past few years. Yesterday he sent me a photograph from those school days. I am not in the picture but he is. It must have been around late 1961, when I went to England.

For those from the Caribbean who have any direct experience of migrating to Britain, whether as travellers or those who were left behind by travellers, myexperience and the picture might evoke many thoughts. The wave of migration from this region to Britain from the late 1940s through 1960s, before most of the islands and countries gained independence, is to my mind one of the major social phenomena of the 20th century. Many of the effects will take a lot of analysis to really understand and the consequences for the exporting and importing countries have been and continue to be very significant. Some, such as old family friend, Dr, Fredrick Hickling, have done important work on one of the negative consequences, the mental health challenge for the Diaspora (people of African descent in Europe).

Everone will have a personal set of memories of for the first time being a black person in a world where almost everyone else was white. Dealing with ignorance ("Do you have a tail?" or "You speak English!"). A fairly normal sense of defending territory led many British residents to resist the influx of foreigners, whether they were from the Caribbean, Indian subcontinent or Ireland, by denying space through rentals or home sales, moving away, or fighting to keep them out (e.g, Nottning Hill's riots). Many black people felt racism and felt that their colour made them easy targets. The jobs that migrants (not just black ones) tended to fill often did not put them into the public eye as more than very ordinary: nurses, public transport workers, fitters in car factories, labourers, etc. After a short period of time in Britain black immigrants became almost synonymous with social problems, tending to concentrate in urban areas that were on the verge of decline (inner cities in London, Birmingham and Manchester), and then became depressed areas as industries closed and left behind people without jobs--not just the immigrants--and little income to maintain a decent life style. A familiar spiral of social ills became evident in these areas: crime, drugs, violence, dysfunctional families, etc.

Of course, there was always that group of very well-educated migrants who had been flowing to Britain to study or to take up diplomatic and representative posts, who also faced many racial challenges, but could often float around a world where they did not have to deal with some of the harsher social difficulties of migrants who were likely to become semi-permanent residents. Many of our prime ministers got their educational grounding in Britain. But they were not part of the common migrant experience.

Although many of the West Indian migrants tried to assimilate in Britain there were many reasons why that was difficult. We realized that the way we spoke English was often like a foreign language to the British; they way that the English spoke was equally hard to understand. A couple of examples:

• Englishman: "C'mon, Sweep, time to take a break from the trouble and strife." [Hey friend, why don't you take a break from your wife? "Sweep" was a black and white puppet dog in a TV series famous from the late 1950s, the reference is a familiar form of English allusion to something black and/or white. It could also mean a chimney sweep ,whose face was often blackened by soot. "Trouble and strife" is Cockney rhyming slang, meaning "wife".]


• Jamaican man: "Is wha' de rahtid you ask me?" [Damn it, man, what kind of question is that?]

Mutual comprehension? Zero or not far from it.

We had to adjust to a radically different climate, and experience living with real cold weather much of the year. Caribbean people are not bred for living in snow and ice and no amount of bobsled movies really changes that. It takes a certain exposure for black people to learn to enjoy skiing, which I do.

Some found that the work they could find was "not respectable" given the qualifications they had--gained in a British-based education system and believed, wrongly, to be equal to those in Britain. Many saw their children struggle for years in an education system that did not understand the cultural differences and shock that was part of the immigrants' base and too quickly labelled them as "difficult" or "unteachable".

Most of my personal memories of life in England are not bitter at all. When I arrived there at age six, I had already done three years of school and could read, write "copperplate", and do a lot of arithmetic. I seemed like a genius at infant school, and remember that I did not learn much in the first three years there. I do not recall ever feeling out of place, always being one of very few black people in a world of white people. My parents had never drawn attention to my colour as an issue before we left Jamaica, and never since they arrived in England. I could speak and understand standard English very well. I excelled at athletics but also academically. My parents had hoped that I would go to a "good school" in Kingston, even though they had had no success in getting me into one of the good prep schools there. In England, the education system was not something that was set to trip me up; I had had a good start. I moved through it relatively smoothly--there were some hiccups at school but I made many of them for myself; I did not learn how to study until after I took my O-levels, believing that good work during the term would take me through exams. Wrong! By the time I was studying for A-levels I had figured out that a different approach was needed and I took that to university and afterwards.

When I left universtity and went to work first in rural North Wales and later in The City of London at the central bank, much of the background for me was as it had always been: one or very few amongst many (a play on Jamaica's post-independence motto of "Out of many, one people" could easily have been for me "out of many people one person").

I remember vividly the experiences of overt prejudice that I faced or witnessed in Britain. I faced discrimination from black people (from the Caribbean) who objected that my wife was white and refused to rent to me. I remember also being in a committee meeting with one of The Bank's directors, and I was the committee secretary. The room shrank around me as he referred to something as "the nigger in the wood pile". With little thought, I reacted by saying "Excuse me, sir. Did I hear you correctly and do you want that recorded in the minutes?" He looked at me, rolled another cigarette in his Rizla machine. I honestly don't recall his next words. The phrase never went into the minutes and he never uttered a remark like that again while I was on the secretariat. To me the phrase was inappropriate. It was not a phrase used generally as a racial slur in Britain and I am sure the generation and class from which the director came probably made me "invisible" in the sense that there was no need to consider my reactions; he probably applied the same view to most others in the room. I remember the Bank's Governor walking into a room of mainly dark faces, with representatives from Commonwealth central banks who were having training, and asking me for which country I was central bank governor; he blushed when I told him that I was running The Bank's manager training course. (In his defence, he also made a similar mistake with a long-time (white) Advisor who was from Lancashire.)

I also remember being in a pub in Wales, where the (white) landlord steadfastly ignored a group of English (white) visitors, and continued to serve the rest of the locals (including black me--who spoke some albeit bad Welsh--and my white wife) as if the visitors had never entered the bar. In many parts of Wales the English are still detested.

I remember the "exclusion" I felt when I finished university in England and tried unsuccessfully to find a job in Jamaica in the late 1970s, at both the central bank (BSc. (Economics) should help) and at the Urban Development Corporation (M. Phil. (Urban Planning) should help). At least I got an interview at BoJ; I'm still waiting for UDC to reply. I felt bewildered that with all the flight of educated Jamaicans out of that country it still had no need for good university graduates. I did not realize how important it was to have a "backer" or to be "mi good, good frien'".

My parents (both trained nurses) had had to really work for their living, to make sense of their migration. My mother had led the move overseas after the system in Jamaica "failed her" (she needed a mark of over 90, but got just 90) and limited her scope for advancement. Britain needed nurses so off she went. My father had followed reluctantly, with me, leaving a very good position at Bellevue Mental Hospital. They promised me that in England I would still get the education that they wanted for me and they felt I deserved. When my father speaks nowadays he is often bitter about "mad Jamaican politicians talking about free education ... and not educating anybody". My father's Jamaican paper qualifications and previous experience were regarded as worthless in England and he was offered the opportunity to restart his studies; he declined. He worked as a bus conductor, then for the Post Office, doing mainly administrative work. Proud all the time, they worked hard. They both managed to move from one room flat in a basement (we lived five minutes walk from the primary school where I went) to becoming homeowners three times over, moving out of central London to the semi-detached suburbs.

On taking early retirement in their mid-50s they did the "middle class thing" and moved to the countryside, settling in Somerset, as English as it gets. Principally, this was to allow them the luxury of watching Viv Richards play cricket. But they settled into their new English country village and quickly became regular residents (and cards still come at Christmas from former neighbours), until they decided to up stakes and return to Jamaica in the mid-1980s. They had completed their "tour of duty" and the circle for them was almost closed. "Back home", though not in their parishes of origin; settling into a lovely part of that island--the parish of Manchester--where the climate is kind, and mostly cool, life is easier, and with a small cluster of "English people" (as some of the returning residents were called).

I read Andrea Levy's book "Small Island" about three years ago and remember how difficult it was to see anything other than my own experiences when I read about Hortense and her hopes, her disappointments, her adjustments to life in the "mother country".

My own circle has not yet closed. Here I am living in Barbados, back in the Caribbean but not quite "back home". A place referred to as "little England", which reminds me a bit of England, but only a bit and it's more to do with the amount of Cockney and scouse accents that I hear from tourists. Though the lay out of the countryside reminds me of some of the rolling hills of the south of England. But this place also has some irony in my life. Before I took a job in Washington I had come here in 1989 to interview for a job at the Caribbean Development Bank. But after being offered the post, the salary package was going to leave me losing money; not a good situation for a man with a wife and two year old. (Maybe I should have taken it and who knows by now I could have become super rich or a politician or....) I am now a trained economist who has left his career in Washington and would gladly class myself as an "island hopper". From one small island to a bigger small island to yet another smaller island.

I am not sure where my roundabout will stop turning but I am enjoying the way that it's turning.

World perspectives: Are Bajans oversensitive?

Just a provocative thought to start the week.

Much of Barbados was up in arms last Friday about how a DJ/MC (Kevin "KB Kleen" Hinds) at the concert to fete Rihanna the previous night might have disrespected the Prime Minister by calling him by his first name, David. The MC also made some remarks that were thought to be in poor taste by many who heard them. After a lot of public outrage, much of it on the radio call-in programme "Down to Brass Tacks", Mr. Hinds made a national public apology. From what I saw and have heard since the Prime Minister was not particularly shocked, offended or otherwise "unamused". But I was not there and I have not spoken to him personally on this matter.

Now some tables have been turned a little to show that rank (or is it rancour?) has its privileges. France's president was caught on video publicly and clearly insulting a bystander at an agricultural fair, who did not want the President to shake his hand; he said that the President made him feel dirty. President Sarkozy said “Casse-toi, pauvre con”, which for those of you who do not speak French can roughly be translated as “P*** off, stupid sod”, or “Get lost, silly b*****”. Not too nice that. The video, though a good short film, was not amongst last night's Oscar nominations.


But this incident lets me think for a few seconds about proper etiquette. I felt sorry for "Mr. Kleen", giving him the benefit of the doubt by thinking that he possibly did not know what was correct "in the circumstances"; apparently he has known the current prime minister since schooldays. I felt that those managing or advising Mr. Hinds should have either felt the vibes or given the man the word that he was on a slippery slope. He could be forgiven for a little confusion, though.

Beautiful Barbados, or "Little England" as some call it, who will you follow? In correct French, President Sarkozy should be called "Mr. President"; no name, thank you. In the United Kingdom, the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth the Second, is to be referred to as "Your majesty" at first then "Madam" or "Ma'am" afterwards, whether in public or private. Unless you're a citizen of the UK, don't curtsy or bow to the Queen. However, the Queen, like other British monarchs by tradition always signs by her first name, in her case "Elizabeth R" ("R" for "regina", Latin for queen; of if a king "rex", Latin for king). But don't use that as reason to say "Whassup, Liz?"

All of this is just to say that proper etiquette is a minefield and you can sample the Internet's offerings of dos, don'ts and horror stories. But at least Mr. Hinds now knows what Barbados expects.

What size are your feet? Caribbean countries need to get serious about how they use energy

News from the Cayman Islands this week shocked me: that small island (of 100 square miles and 45,000 people) was ranked 55 out of 207 countries for global carbon emissions per person, at 1.96 tonnes per person (based on 2004 data). The figures come from the United States Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. The carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.

The main culprit in the Cayman Islands and most of the Caribbean is oil consumption, which is used to power almost every thing in the islands. Ironically, the ninth annual Caribbean Conference on Sustainable Tourism Development (STC-9) took place in Grand Cayman from 21 to 24 May 2007. The Conference’s overall theme was, “Keeping the right balance: Health and Wellness – Communities, Environments and Economies,” and was hailed as a significant step toward developing the awareness, policies and practices for the sustainability of Cayman’s and the Caribbean tourism sector. But apart from talk I wonder if the region is getting serious about energy use and energy conservation.

For some context, the United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, accounts for 21 percent of carbon emissions. It is followed by China, which emits 18 percent. Both countries are heavy users of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Russia accounts for 6 percent of carbon emissions, just ahead of Japan, which produces 5 percent of the global total. Other major contributors to global carbon emissions are India, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Italy (see data).

Qatar, with 14 tonnes of carbon emitted per person, leads the world in per capita emissions. This is due in part to its booming natural gas industry and the distribution of free electricity to households. Per capita emissions in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates stand at 9 tonnes per person, followed by Kuwait at 7 tons. These countries have very small populations and thriving economies that contribute to high per capita emissions. The United States, Australia, and Canada each emit roughly 5 tonnes of carbon per person each year. This is five times the figure in China and 17 times that in India.

Much of the growth in carbon emissions over the next 25 years will come from developing countries. The world’s most industrialized countries currently account for 55 percent of all emissions. But developing and transitional economies led by China, Russia, and India are projected to be responsible for some 60 percent of global carbon emissions in 2030. A combination of rapid economic growth and heavy reliance on coal will drive this trend.

Though such projections are bleak, several promising examples can guide future action to reduce carbon emissions. Over the past 15 years, Germany reduced emissions by 10 percent, while the UK cut its emissions by some 3 percent. Each country simultaneously sustained moderate economic growth. These countries achieved reductions by lowering their reliance on coal, increasing taxes on fossil fuels, mandating energy efficiency targets, and funding renewable energy promotion. To help meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments, the European Union launched an Emissions Trading Scheme in January 2005, which limits carbon emissions and allows companies that reduce their emissions to profit by selling emissions permits to other companies.

In the US, plans exist to reduce carbon emissions at the state level. Seven northeastern states have committed to a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that mandates a 10 percent emissions reduction from 2009 levels by 2019. California, the world’s ninth largest economy, recently announced that it will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This policy is expected to boost state income by $4 billion and create 83,000 new jobs.

Jamaica's central bank governor, Derick Latibeaudiare, just flagged some of the issues for that country (see today's Gleaner editorial). He focused on the country's oil bill and the budgetary implications. The oil import bill reached US$2.2 billion last year, and is likely to jump another US$500 million or approximately 23 per cent in 2008, about the same level as the previous year. Indeed, Jamaica, in US dollar terms, in 2007, paid nearly 50 per cent more for the oil it consumed than it did three years earlier. Jamaica's public-sector deficit will close the fiscal year at around 5.5 per cent of GDP; the oil bill is nearly 70 per cent of merchandise exports and nearly 30 per cent of GDP.

Jamaica and other countries in the region consume large amounts of oil, in Jamaica's case about 27 million barrels a year, which accounts for 96 per cent of energy needs. Volume has shifted little in recent years, and any movement tends to be up; with world oil price rising sharply in nominal terms and hovering at US$100 a barrel you can do the maths.

I just read in today's Advocate that, according to Ministry of Energy figures, in 2007 Barbados spent a total of about US$ 208 million on oil imports. This included about US$ 75 million to fuel the over 100,000 vehicles on the roads here. That was for just over 828,000 barrels of unleaded gasoline imported from Trinidad (+2 1/2 percent) at about US$ 91 a barrel; in 2006 the amounts were about US$ 68 million, 808,300 barrels, and about US$ 84.6 a barrel, respectively. The figures show a dramatic rise in diesel imports to 749.5 thousand barrels (+14 3/4 percent) from 653.1 thousand barrels in 2006, costing US$ 64 million in 2007 compared to US$ 78 million in 2006. In Barbados, diesel retails at B$ 1.46 a litre compared to B$ 2.15 a litre for unleaded gasoline. Fuel ("Bunker C") imported for electricity generation decreased dramatically to 1.338 million barrels in 2007 (-21 percent) from 1.691 million barrels in 2006, paring that bill from US$ 87.8 million in 2006 to US$ 68.2 million in 2007.

Barbados' new Minister of Stete for Finance and Energy, Darcy Boyce, has mentioned that the new government is looking to reduce the nation's energy bill, and two initiatives will include first a plan for renewable energy sources (solar, biomass), and second a campaign to encourage energy conservation. The government will be looking at the financial feasibility of ethanol production in Barbados. Beyond that he is asking Barbadians to "be conscious" of how they use energy at home and on the roads. Barbados experimented with "park and ride" schemes during Cricket World Cup and some are pleading that this becoming a permanent feature to help deal with traffic congestion.

In this region, the damage to the balance of payments and governments' fiscal programmes are obvious, and are hard to offset by increased foreign exchange inflows from tourism or financial capital, so foreign exchange reserves are going to be pressured.

Countries are talking about their needs for an energy policy, and this should be applauded. But part of this must include programmes that aggressively target energy efficiency, use of renewable energy (such as solar power as is prevalent for heating water in Barbados, and where there have been projects with solar vehicles), and to reorganise public transport. But petrol is a political topic. Still, some hard decisions to be taken, starting with policies to reduce consumption, which might include higher taxes at the pumps. In Jamaica, previous efforts at this in 1978 and 1999 led to (some would say politically inspired) riots.

Some highly publicized efforts could help, Prince Charles--that renowned environmentalist--and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, will be making a tour of several Caribbean islands from March 4, and reports indicate that this will involve 40 percent less carbon emissions than his previous Caribbean tour in 2000. They will use a luxury yacht, the Leander, instead of a plane to travel between the islands (Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia, Jamaica and Montserrat) and use scheduled flights rather than a private jet to fly to and from the Caribbean.

Many of the region's politicians are cynical and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many when efforts in the area of energy conservation are seen by some political vultures and yet another opportunity to feather their nests, as with the current scandal in Jamaica about free energy-saving bulbs from Cuba (see latest report in yesterday's Gleaner concerning former government minister, Kern Spencer).

It wont happen today or tomorrow, but our lack of concern about the environment and energy use is sending a death knell for the livelihoods of the Caribbean islands. Many of the causes of climate change are not of our making, but we are reaping the "rewards". Declining fish stocks, polluted seas, rapidly dying coral, are affecting many islands and lessening their attraction to tourists, albeit very little for now perhaps. Our dependence on oil can only be sustained with higher production (only a reality for Trinidad) or by reductions in consumption. It's a bitter pill to swallow when people associate economic progress with a certain lifestyle that involves much higher energy consumption, but it's part of the new reality. We are unlikely to make much head way by taking individual national approaches, and we have to tackle that other nettle of trying to settle on good regional policies.