Is East Jamaica Conference (and West Indies Union) really serious about Adventist Youth in this day and age?
Are the leaders aware of how they are perceived by the young Adventists today? Do they CARE about how they are perceived?
Are they willing to make a difference, or will they just do whatever it is they want to do without getting feedback (and actually listening to feedback) from those who are on the front lines?
Sad to say, I believe the answer to these questions is in the negative. I am not sure whether this is because they are ignorant/unaware of the issues on the ground, or whether it is because they don’t care about the issues on the ground; and I am not sure which option would be worse.
For me, I perceive that the head conference officials either do not trust young persons to be able to lead, or do not think it important to facilitate the growth of young leaders or to account for the true importance of young people. I don’t know if this is because they think that they will be around forever, or that the young people will automatically have the experience and knowledge needed when we reach their age (and we are fast approaching that age as well). Either way is a poor state of thinking and will only lead to disaster.
The West Indies Union has established a “Youth Month” which is a very good push designed to involve the youth in leadership. Unfortunately, this push may obscure the fact that youth should have already been involved in such leadership even without the push. It is a sad truth that many youth perceive that their church leadership is fighting them down/not giving them a chance to do their part for the Lord.
I will admit that some youth do not present themselves as ready for this level of responsibility; at the same time, we must be ready to give people a chance to prove themselves. We must also be ready to provide support in the case that someone fails. Failure is not the final end, nor can we always just rely on “what’s always worked.” Church mission is risky business, but with Christ at the controls, the risks will always be managed.
So, what is the solution? I believe there needs to be a frank and open discussion between conference officials and youth leadership in the church, where conference can clearly state what they believe is the situation with our young people and where the young people can clearly state what they believe is the situation with their leaders. Conference needs to unequivocally state that they are here to uplift and support the young persons in our church, and will provide them with the chance to be ready to contribute towards the SDA church’s mission in Jamaica and around the world. Conference also needs to put its money where its mouth is, and realize that they are not the end-all-be-all of the SDA church’s existence. The Young People need to realize that they need to step up and be true Christians, true leaders, true participants and not just followers or bench-warmers. Things that have been said in private need to be made public; organization needs to be a true activity and not a nebulous state hoped to be attained. Leaders must lead proactively, not go reactive and timid.
Only then can we in the Jamaican SDA church begin to rise out of the mess that we are currently in.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Just do it
From 110 posts in 2006 to 4 posts in 2009, that's just crazy. I have only my unmotivated self to blame...but the thing about doing work like this is that you can't rely on motivation to get you to do it. You gotta just do it. Will I just do it?
I certainly will try...once I get some sleep. Laters!
I certainly will try...once I get some sleep. Laters!
Friday, March 27, 2009
From pro-choice to pro-life
I used to be pro-choice/anti-abortion, where I did not agree with abortion personally but I agreed with the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I would have encouraged a woman to not have one, I would have done everything I could to convince a woman to not abort a fetus, but at the end I would say it’s her choice and I would not try to change the law that allowed her to do so.
Recent discussions and arguments have led me to switch my position from pro-choice to pro-life, where I believe that abortions of convenience or on-demand should be made illegal, and abortions should only be allowed for cases of rape or the mother’s health. I have not become a militant pro-lifer, nor would I be too upset if abortions were severely limited to pre-first trimester or earlier, even up to one month or so. However, I have reached the mind-set where I can’t call myself a pro-choice person anymore. Before I say what changed my mind, I just want to give my thoughts on the majority of pro-life persons and arguments that I see out there.
Abortion is a topic that is like gasoline on a fire. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the matter without assumptions being made on both sides, and propaganda coming from both sides. Some pro-lifers seem to be intolerant, propaganda-spouting, non-thinking fundamentalists, unwilling to engage the opposition or acknowledge the points that they may have. For them, all pro-choicers are baby-killers and that’s all there is to it. Such close-mindedness doesn’t do anything for me, and those arguments played no part in my shift to a pro-life position. Some pro-choicers view the fetus as some form of parasite, and think that abortion is just another method of birth control, and until the baby is born, it’s an it. I never held that view, and I think that such a view is just as intolerant and unrealistic. I’ll grant that it’s hard to discuss something this touchy in a rational method, but if you as a pro-lifer are going to convince someone like me who was pro-choice, you have to come at it with a willingness to dialogue and answer questions from a non-partisan viewpoint. I was not proud to be pro-choice, but based on my view of free will, I felt that I had to respect the views of those who may not agree that life begins at birth, etc.
That brings me to my next point; Arguments on whether life begins at birth or not did not play a major role in changing my view. As a Christian, I am pre-disposed to believe that life does begin at birth…but I can’t force my view on someone else, especially when there is sufficient evidence that can be interpreted as saying life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own or not, etc. Arguments along this line will eventually boil down to whether one is using a religious worldview or not, and while this can work from a moral perspective (abortion is wrong), I don’t think it can work from a legal worldview. “Abortion is wrong, therefore it should be illegal.” “Why is abortion wrong?” “The Bible says so.” “But I don’t believe in the Bible.” “Doesn’t matter, I’m still making it illegal.” There are valid arguments against this position that I could entertain, but the main point I want to make here is that this argument leads to much moralizing and less clarity from a legal standpoint, at least to me.
The argument that changed my mind was when I realized the existence of the Unborn Victims of Violence act. I post it below:
he operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
When I became aware of this act, and read it, I realized that the law itself had defined life as being at birth, from the bolded section in clause (d). Having established that, I immediately saw a disconnect between clause ( c) and (d). Why is it a crime for someone else to harm an unborn child at any stage of development, yet it is ok for the mother to do so? I cannot answer that question, so I conclude that if it’s a crime for the one, it should be a crime for the other.
That is what caused me to become pro-life. I am interested in hearing other’s positions trying to explain this conundrum, but I think that this is the best argument the pro-life side has to repeal/alter existing abortion laws.
Recent discussions and arguments have led me to switch my position from pro-choice to pro-life, where I believe that abortions of convenience or on-demand should be made illegal, and abortions should only be allowed for cases of rape or the mother’s health. I have not become a militant pro-lifer, nor would I be too upset if abortions were severely limited to pre-first trimester or earlier, even up to one month or so. However, I have reached the mind-set where I can’t call myself a pro-choice person anymore. Before I say what changed my mind, I just want to give my thoughts on the majority of pro-life persons and arguments that I see out there.
Abortion is a topic that is like gasoline on a fire. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the matter without assumptions being made on both sides, and propaganda coming from both sides. Some pro-lifers seem to be intolerant, propaganda-spouting, non-thinking fundamentalists, unwilling to engage the opposition or acknowledge the points that they may have. For them, all pro-choicers are baby-killers and that’s all there is to it. Such close-mindedness doesn’t do anything for me, and those arguments played no part in my shift to a pro-life position. Some pro-choicers view the fetus as some form of parasite, and think that abortion is just another method of birth control, and until the baby is born, it’s an it. I never held that view, and I think that such a view is just as intolerant and unrealistic. I’ll grant that it’s hard to discuss something this touchy in a rational method, but if you as a pro-lifer are going to convince someone like me who was pro-choice, you have to come at it with a willingness to dialogue and answer questions from a non-partisan viewpoint. I was not proud to be pro-choice, but based on my view of free will, I felt that I had to respect the views of those who may not agree that life begins at birth, etc.
That brings me to my next point; Arguments on whether life begins at birth or not did not play a major role in changing my view. As a Christian, I am pre-disposed to believe that life does begin at birth…but I can’t force my view on someone else, especially when there is sufficient evidence that can be interpreted as saying life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own or not, etc. Arguments along this line will eventually boil down to whether one is using a religious worldview or not, and while this can work from a moral perspective (abortion is wrong), I don’t think it can work from a legal worldview. “Abortion is wrong, therefore it should be illegal.” “Why is abortion wrong?” “The Bible says so.” “But I don’t believe in the Bible.” “Doesn’t matter, I’m still making it illegal.” There are valid arguments against this position that I could entertain, but the main point I want to make here is that this argument leads to much moralizing and less clarity from a legal standpoint, at least to me.
The argument that changed my mind was when I realized the existence of the Unborn Victims of Violence act. I post it below:
he operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
When I became aware of this act, and read it, I realized that the law itself had defined life as being at birth, from the bolded section in clause (d). Having established that, I immediately saw a disconnect between clause ( c) and (d). Why is it a crime for someone else to harm an unborn child at any stage of development, yet it is ok for the mother to do so? I cannot answer that question, so I conclude that if it’s a crime for the one, it should be a crime for the other.
That is what caused me to become pro-life. I am interested in hearing other’s positions trying to explain this conundrum, but I think that this is the best argument the pro-life side has to repeal/alter existing abortion laws.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
What am I going to watch now??
It seems the days of good TV are numbered...
"The Wire" is over. "Battlestar Galactica" ends this coming Friday. "Lost" has a season and a half to go, but the writing is on the wall. "The Shield": powerful finale, gone for the ages. "Pushing Daisies": Gone before its time. "Chuck" is still around, but for how long? Old faves like "Dexter" and "24" are still on my radar, but I've only downloaded them, yet have not watched them yet. Is there no good TV left?
There is still hope, I guess. I've heard good things about "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", "Sons of Anarchy" and some other ones that have popped up. I downloaded 'em, but haven't started to watch yet...time not being on my side. I got into "In Treatment" and can't wait for the second season, just as soon as I finish the first season.
I am going to miss those shows when they're gone though...here's to the new ones up-and-coming. Don't write for the masses, write for your own vision, eh?
"The Wire" is over. "Battlestar Galactica" ends this coming Friday. "Lost" has a season and a half to go, but the writing is on the wall. "The Shield": powerful finale, gone for the ages. "Pushing Daisies": Gone before its time. "Chuck" is still around, but for how long? Old faves like "Dexter" and "24" are still on my radar, but I've only downloaded them, yet have not watched them yet. Is there no good TV left?
There is still hope, I guess. I've heard good things about "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", "Sons of Anarchy" and some other ones that have popped up. I downloaded 'em, but haven't started to watch yet...time not being on my side. I got into "In Treatment" and can't wait for the second season, just as soon as I finish the first season.
I am going to miss those shows when they're gone though...here's to the new ones up-and-coming. Don't write for the masses, write for your own vision, eh?
Friday, January 30, 2009
A great column from today's Observer
I really appreciate and agree with the points made in this column.
Social mobility and social exclusion
We block the ghetto exit and we pay the price!
Franklin Johnston
Friday, January 30, 2009
The channels to social mobility are at a trickle and our promising youth now turn to mischief. In past decades, we turned back the programmes which enabled the poor to move up in large numbers. This crop of leaders in medicine, politics, management, law, etc, is the last large group to come through the upwardly mobile pipeline.
Franklin Johnston
This group is old school and can be shamed; those after have no shame. So too, old money is urbane and understated; new money (legal and illegal) is loud, ill-mannered, in-your-face, sets a bad example and has no sense of service. Most of today's leaders are the first in their family to attend university; the first to attend high school, to complete primary school or to read and write. Many mastered the knife and fork late in life and found out that a dry white wine is wet. But they are the product of a healthy, orderly social process. We learn, advance and replenish all classes.
Today, the upwardly mobile channels are blocked as that great host of escapees from the ghetto (now aged 45 to 60 plus), by their policies and rhetoric, broke the ladders they climbed and slashed the social fabric. Trainable people are few and have no jobs; new workers are not replenishing the middle class and the top people - our repository of experience and financial security, not intimidated by politicians, is depleted. This group upholds our principles, defends the rule of law, are benefactors of the poor and the gatekeepers of our democracy. This group is passing, silenced, migrated or marginalised. Politicians want to supplant this group by using our taxes to curry favour with poor people for them to depend on politics instead. Most poor people make no progress, but they are ambitious, and sadly are leaching into the dark side in order to "make it".
Many no longer aspire to work; as one said when asked to cut a lawn, " I not lookin' slavery, I want cash." Workers are not revivifying the middle class which is also stagnant and the top class is no longer our vigorous arbiter and defence against corrosive people and policies. Our social contract is in breach.
The most feared people today are gunmen and corrupt politicians. Take your life or take your livelihood; both wreak havoc on the society. Citizens are destroyed or neutered; starved of work, lose their savings and driven to exile. We are afraid to speak so as not to upset powerful people. Some, poor and rich alike, see no evil, hear no evil. They don't want to be involved as they have families, jobs, contracts, permits and licences which depend on politics. they are involved already as our democracy is threatened. Victimisation (real or imagined) is rife. People don't buck the going orthodoxy, we are losing our freedom and don't care because we make money or hope to do so. We "bite our tongues", say nothing, but we have consciences, and at home we vent and bitch. Our family and our nation suffer. Our silence makes us ill. Stress kills. Our friends (men) die prematurely in their 60s and 70s. We are a nation on the edge! Some years ago we won a public contract. Soon after, there was a change of government and the new PM took away the job and gave it to "his consultant". That consultant, a professional colleague who did not have the expertise, gave us a sub-contract to do the work, with one change; the reports were to be printed on their letterhead. and some wonder why we don't work much at home; mind free, man free!
Independent opinion is not valued. The upper class used to keep the rapacious in check by ostracising them as the law couldn't touch them. Today, raptors savage the mores of our land. They don't care for principle or decorum; they were never habilitated and cannot be rehabilitated. The rich support the status quo; most made their money honestly, against all odds and deserve every penny. My mentor, the incomparable, late Abe Issa would say "business must always be in power". support all parties, give extra to the one you like. The rich are immune from victimisation and need to get active in protecting our values; the clergy, university teachers and those who by vocation and tenure cannot be victimised, should speak up for the speechless. Their silence is deafening.
Entry-level jobs are so scarce, they are bequeathed to worker's children by collusion with employers. Poor people without contacts cannot get a job. Sadly, in the past three decades few workers made it into the middle class. The nouveau riche went from poor to rich in one jump (even the taxman can't fathom it). They live in the right areas, but as they did not progress via the social conduit and don't have the values. They are visible, loud, gaudy, have more money than sense, no work ethic or community spirit. They can donate more; their chariots are bigger; their children are walking brands with the latest gadgets; but they don't write, are not missed at civic meetings and do not drive a social change agenda. They are tolerated; what they think is respect, is fear.
The social circulation system is broken and social exclusion is growing. As legitimate expectations flounder, drugs, the antisocial and the criminal take their place. I spoke to some students at Jose Marti and found that their "get out of jail free" card was to cut a tune like Beenie Man and get rich; school was an obstacle, not an opportunity. To get our social mobility pipeline flowing again we must fix the broken education; the decline of ethics, values, aspiration and desire. Fix the postcode lottery which stigmatises the poor. If your postcode is not Kingston 6 or 8, "dog nyam yu suppa" for good schools and jobs. Next, government's failure to plan and regulate housing. We started in Jones Town; money and family grew so we moved above Torrington Bridge, then above Cross Roads and finally into peri-urbia. Our planners have no progressive housing model; there is no "starter home" - the one bedroom for the person or young couple - new workers. If you start across the causeway, when money or family grows, instead of selling up to a young couple and buying a bigger house, you keep adding blocks and steel until this modern, prized seaside town becomes a slum. Last, we are taught to work, not to make a job; new jobs are few, yet we reward existing jobs - teachers, nurses and security forces etc and ignore new entrants. We must reopen the conduits of social mobility, otherwise the seething magma in the bowels of our nation will erupt and destroy the dollyhouse. More anon!
Social mobility and social exclusion
We block the ghetto exit and we pay the price!
Franklin Johnston
Friday, January 30, 2009
The channels to social mobility are at a trickle and our promising youth now turn to mischief. In past decades, we turned back the programmes which enabled the poor to move up in large numbers. This crop of leaders in medicine, politics, management, law, etc, is the last large group to come through the upwardly mobile pipeline.
Franklin Johnston
This group is old school and can be shamed; those after have no shame. So too, old money is urbane and understated; new money (legal and illegal) is loud, ill-mannered, in-your-face, sets a bad example and has no sense of service. Most of today's leaders are the first in their family to attend university; the first to attend high school, to complete primary school or to read and write. Many mastered the knife and fork late in life and found out that a dry white wine is wet. But they are the product of a healthy, orderly social process. We learn, advance and replenish all classes.
Today, the upwardly mobile channels are blocked as that great host of escapees from the ghetto (now aged 45 to 60 plus), by their policies and rhetoric, broke the ladders they climbed and slashed the social fabric. Trainable people are few and have no jobs; new workers are not replenishing the middle class and the top people - our repository of experience and financial security, not intimidated by politicians, is depleted. This group upholds our principles, defends the rule of law, are benefactors of the poor and the gatekeepers of our democracy. This group is passing, silenced, migrated or marginalised. Politicians want to supplant this group by using our taxes to curry favour with poor people for them to depend on politics instead. Most poor people make no progress, but they are ambitious, and sadly are leaching into the dark side in order to "make it".
Many no longer aspire to work; as one said when asked to cut a lawn, " I not lookin' slavery, I want cash." Workers are not revivifying the middle class which is also stagnant and the top class is no longer our vigorous arbiter and defence against corrosive people and policies. Our social contract is in breach.
The most feared people today are gunmen and corrupt politicians. Take your life or take your livelihood; both wreak havoc on the society. Citizens are destroyed or neutered; starved of work, lose their savings and driven to exile. We are afraid to speak so as not to upset powerful people. Some, poor and rich alike, see no evil, hear no evil. They don't want to be involved as they have families, jobs, contracts, permits and licences which depend on politics. they are involved already as our democracy is threatened. Victimisation (real or imagined) is rife. People don't buck the going orthodoxy, we are losing our freedom and don't care because we make money or hope to do so. We "bite our tongues", say nothing, but we have consciences, and at home we vent and bitch. Our family and our nation suffer. Our silence makes us ill. Stress kills. Our friends (men) die prematurely in their 60s and 70s. We are a nation on the edge! Some years ago we won a public contract. Soon after, there was a change of government and the new PM took away the job and gave it to "his consultant". That consultant, a professional colleague who did not have the expertise, gave us a sub-contract to do the work, with one change; the reports were to be printed on their letterhead. and some wonder why we don't work much at home; mind free, man free!
Independent opinion is not valued. The upper class used to keep the rapacious in check by ostracising them as the law couldn't touch them. Today, raptors savage the mores of our land. They don't care for principle or decorum; they were never habilitated and cannot be rehabilitated. The rich support the status quo; most made their money honestly, against all odds and deserve every penny. My mentor, the incomparable, late Abe Issa would say "business must always be in power". support all parties, give extra to the one you like. The rich are immune from victimisation and need to get active in protecting our values; the clergy, university teachers and those who by vocation and tenure cannot be victimised, should speak up for the speechless. Their silence is deafening.
Entry-level jobs are so scarce, they are bequeathed to worker's children by collusion with employers. Poor people without contacts cannot get a job. Sadly, in the past three decades few workers made it into the middle class. The nouveau riche went from poor to rich in one jump (even the taxman can't fathom it). They live in the right areas, but as they did not progress via the social conduit and don't have the values. They are visible, loud, gaudy, have more money than sense, no work ethic or community spirit. They can donate more; their chariots are bigger; their children are walking brands with the latest gadgets; but they don't write, are not missed at civic meetings and do not drive a social change agenda. They are tolerated; what they think is respect, is fear.
The social circulation system is broken and social exclusion is growing. As legitimate expectations flounder, drugs, the antisocial and the criminal take their place. I spoke to some students at Jose Marti and found that their "get out of jail free" card was to cut a tune like Beenie Man and get rich; school was an obstacle, not an opportunity. To get our social mobility pipeline flowing again we must fix the broken education; the decline of ethics, values, aspiration and desire. Fix the postcode lottery which stigmatises the poor. If your postcode is not Kingston 6 or 8, "dog nyam yu suppa" for good schools and jobs. Next, government's failure to plan and regulate housing. We started in Jones Town; money and family grew so we moved above Torrington Bridge, then above Cross Roads and finally into peri-urbia. Our planners have no progressive housing model; there is no "starter home" - the one bedroom for the person or young couple - new workers. If you start across the causeway, when money or family grows, instead of selling up to a young couple and buying a bigger house, you keep adding blocks and steel until this modern, prized seaside town becomes a slum. Last, we are taught to work, not to make a job; new jobs are few, yet we reward existing jobs - teachers, nurses and security forces etc and ignore new entrants. We must reopen the conduits of social mobility, otherwise the seething magma in the bowels of our nation will erupt and destroy the dollyhouse. More anon!
Friday, January 02, 2009
Happy New Year to all!
I won't make any promises about blogging more, but I have become interested more in writing. What I need now is motivation and muses...
I randomly wrote this dialogue just to see what would happen, this is where I stopped. Would you be interested in learning more of the story?
“What do you think?”
“I think he’s wrong. I don’t believe that Martin would actually kill someone, y’know?”
“You never know…some people can and will surprise you. Martin always seemed kind of weird to me.”
“Weird? How?”
“Remember the time in 5th form when we found that baby’s skeleton in that abandoned house behind school?”
“how can I forget. What about it?”
“When we were walking away, I saw Martin hanging around a bit longer, gazing at the skeleton with a strange look…almost as if he were longing to touch it, or wondering what it felt like to leave the baby there…”
“Naw, that’s crazy man. You’re just reading your own feelings into the situation. I know you never liked Martin from he first came to our class, how would you know what he was wondering?”
“Yeah, well maybe I was right to not like him. You didn’t see that look on his face, and I hoped I’d never see it again.”
I randomly wrote this dialogue just to see what would happen, this is where I stopped. Would you be interested in learning more of the story?
“What do you think?”
“I think he’s wrong. I don’t believe that Martin would actually kill someone, y’know?”
“You never know…some people can and will surprise you. Martin always seemed kind of weird to me.”
“Weird? How?”
“Remember the time in 5th form when we found that baby’s skeleton in that abandoned house behind school?”
“how can I forget. What about it?”
“When we were walking away, I saw Martin hanging around a bit longer, gazing at the skeleton with a strange look…almost as if he were longing to touch it, or wondering what it felt like to leave the baby there…”
“Naw, that’s crazy man. You’re just reading your own feelings into the situation. I know you never liked Martin from he first came to our class, how would you know what he was wondering?”
“Yeah, well maybe I was right to not like him. You didn’t see that look on his face, and I hoped I’d never see it again.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)