I've sat back for a while now and watched the debate about whether or not the government of Guyana is actually threatening the freedom of the press. I was on the fence leaning towards the 'yes it is' side until about 2 minutes ago.
Firstly, I'd like to ask what freedom of the press entails. Freedom of the press is freedom from whom or what? A state's governing body has the legal monopoly on the use of coercive force. If the government is one of your newspaper's larger clients, does that increase or diminish your freedom to publish what you want? I can think of arguments that could go both ways.
A safe assumption may be that if government is no longer a client of a publication, the publication would have more liberty to publish material that is critical of the government.
Likewise it is helpful to examine the government the way one would a self-interested individual. Who in his right mind would choose to fund another entity that is highly critical of it? It's counterintuitive to bankroll the exposure of one's own impropriety. The government is a consumer of advertising. It should be expected to react to the same incentives a company might. Would Banks DIH buy advertising in the same medium that also writes exposes of its executives?
It's fallacious to deal with government while expecting it to act on a higher plane when in fact it will usually act like everyone else, or worse.
It seems to me that Stabroek News doesn't view government ad revenues in this light. My guess is that it sees them as a tax rebate or as a subsidy. A newspaper that gets handouts like that from government can hardly be expected to continue to play the important role of an independent medium. Stabroek News can better serve the public by doing what it can to execute a successful business model without government ad revenue. Businesses that would like to support the newspaper in this new endeavour will do well to continue to purchase ad space.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Google Trends rating of candidates' popularity as of today.
It speaks for itself.
I removed the news article flags myself in Microsoft Paint.
See Google Trends website for any disclaimers about accuracy.
Geraldo Rivera gets ambushed by 9-11
Do you think that this is happening because there is too much corporate control of Media?
I think that Fox News will think twice about doing a live show outside.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Guyana: Georgetown Mayor Arrested - False Reporting?
Guyana: Georgetown Mayor Arrested - False Reporting?
An article has apparently been circulating in e-mails of Guyanese the world over. As far as many of us can tell, it's false. There is nothing in the news media that we've searched that has anything to do with this topic. There isn't even anything in the media seeking to rebutt the claims if this incendiary article below.I would welcome any clues that could reveal where this article came from. You can leave a comment or send me an e-mail. My address is in my profile at the bottom of the page.
=============================
"Guyana: Georgetown Mayor ArrestedE-MailPrint Reprints Save ShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESSPublished: March 8, 2007Hamilton Green, the mayor of Georgetown, the largest city in Guyana, was ordered arrested by a local court on suspicion of embezzlement and abuse of office. He left the court in handcuffs. Mr. Green, who was stripped of his Mayoral (capitalization error) post ,is suspected of handing out plots of land to unidentified individuals for private use and of using city funds to pay for private guards and to back a gang of ex-Burnhamitie thugs who wanted to overthrow the present PPP/Civic government. The Associated press said sums allegedly embezzled by Mr. Green and other top city officials topped $13 million US dollars. Mr. Green who used to be a Vice-President in the previous People's National Congress government, broke away from that group when it lost power in 1992 and formed his own party that is called GGG ( Green Good for Guyana). Hamiliton Green was born a christian, later converted to Sun Moon's cult, however, he considers himself a practicing Sunni Muslim and regularly visits a Georgetown Buddhist Temple for prayers. Allegedly, he is responsible for the dissapearance and death of several Guyanese citizens during the People's National Congress reign of terror and corruption from December 1964 to December 1992.More Articles in International"
An article has apparently been circulating in e-mails of Guyanese the world over. As far as many of us can tell, it's false. There is nothing in the news media that we've searched that has anything to do with this topic. There isn't even anything in the media seeking to rebutt the claims if this incendiary article below.I would welcome any clues that could reveal where this article came from. You can leave a comment or send me an e-mail. My address is in my profile at the bottom of the page.
=============================
"Guyana: Georgetown Mayor ArrestedE-MailPrint Reprints Save ShareDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESSPublished: March 8, 2007Hamilton Green, the mayor of Georgetown, the largest city in Guyana, was ordered arrested by a local court on suspicion of embezzlement and abuse of office. He left the court in handcuffs. Mr. Green, who was stripped of his Mayoral (capitalization error) post ,is suspected of handing out plots of land to unidentified individuals for private use and of using city funds to pay for private guards and to back a gang of ex-Burnhamitie thugs who wanted to overthrow the present PPP/Civic government. The Associated press said sums allegedly embezzled by Mr. Green and other top city officials topped $13 million US dollars. Mr. Green who used to be a Vice-President in the previous People's National Congress government, broke away from that group when it lost power in 1992 and formed his own party that is called GGG ( Green Good for Guyana). Hamiliton Green was born a christian, later converted to Sun Moon's cult, however, he considers himself a practicing Sunni Muslim and regularly visits a Georgetown Buddhist Temple for prayers. Allegedly, he is responsible for the dissapearance and death of several Guyanese citizens during the People's National Congress reign of terror and corruption from December 1964 to December 1992.More Articles in International"
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Rant on the War on Drugs
I am willing to admit that I do not know enough about enough things to know exactly what would happen if what I proposed above were to be be implemented. Maybe it would better in some ways and worse in others. I have ZERO experience with drugs. Which not only means that I haven't used them, but I haven't lost any friends to them or had friends sent to prison or shot over them.
I realize that the 'solution' that I tabled isn't morally or socially acceptable to most people.
I was speaking of them in terms of US law, not just Guyana. I do stand by my assertion that making something illegal puts it in the control of 2 kinds of people: Criminals and Government officials. Neither are good.
In addition to that, it makes it expensive. This makes it worth dealing in BY criminals. The very reason that I even contemplate this very idea is because:
1. Nobody's government is successfully combating the drug trade. Some (like Guyana's) are even joining in on it. The potential commercial gain by far outweighs the risk. that's why the US customs agents on the US border have HUGE warehouses TEEMING with drugs and the stream will never end because the value of the drugs rises to compensate for the increased scarcity. If anything, seizures of mass quantities of drugs make the ones that don't get seized more valuable when the arrive in the market place.
2. The US government or officials therein have been reliably accused of dealing in drugs. With huge warehouses of drugs and a climbing price, do you think those officials are going to destroy all that stuff? Whistle blowers have been taunted, blackballed and even shot. This is what the prevailing configuration of incentives has brought us.
3. The US has THE highest prison population (in terms of percentage of people) in the entire developed world. That's a huge expense for people who are unproductive and for a program that isn't working. The US taxpayers pay for it all.
4. Just because something ought not be, doesn't mean that it should be criminalised. There are other way of dealing with things in ways that don't enrich criminals at the expense of poor people and turn governmental officials corrupt. A government in general is good at handling some societal problems and terrible at handling others. Even when there is a good way for a government to handle it, it's usually not done because what's politically or socially popular takes precedence even though it's ineffective and individual politicians are scared to point it out for obvious reasons.
Let me join all of you in condemning the use of illicit drugs. I personally believe that they are dangerous to body, mind and spirit and that they take away a person's ability to act freely to bless himself, his family and to control his destiny to any extent.
When I personally have met people in the past with 'lesser' addictions, I have done my part as a missionary to help free them from that addiction. I can't even remain in good standing with my church if I drink Coffee. Many people in my church don't agree with my political views by the way.
In parting, alcohol and tobacco have HUGE body counts. I would even place tobacco above ganja for its addictive powers and propensity to kill. Alcohol has killed more than them all put together. Aren't we hypocrites to draw a line and place some addictive, unhealthy substances on one side of it and some on the other because some substances are more popular than others? Am I the only person that sees the danger in raising a government that has the power to tell you what to put in your body? Where else could that power extend?
Imagine that alcohol were once again outlawed in the US.
I can see the RUM Lords of Guyana coming into existence to traffic it into the US......It's not a stretch of imagination. It's the way the world works.
So if we're going to be socially responsible and not hypocritical, I say: Outlaw them all or legalize them all.
Right now we're living in La la land.
=========================================================
Addendum
=========================================================
Squingy,
Yeah I would never make them an over-the-counter item. The main reason why I suggest selling them in state-owned stores is because, it might possibly have to be subsidized to bring it far enough below the street price.
One thing about the free market though. The market of currently illegal drugs isn't free, it's illegal and therefor underground. Being sold in a state-owned store is therefore a step in the 'free direction'.
Even within the underground drug economy, that isn't free at all. Since it's underground and therefore not subject to government regulation, cartels form and stifle any potential competition.
Selling it in a state-owned store would mean that nobody would profit from the selling of it.
=================================================================
Addendum
=================================================================
Sean,
You bring up a point that my father and a few close friends have also brought up before. What kind of society would we be living in if these things were legalized?
Firstly, I want to make the distinction between criminalized, legalized and regulated.
Some of these things are already legal, alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol can't be sold just anywhere in many countries. You can't show up to work drunk and you can't DRIVE drunk. Likewise, many places have strict guidelines about where you can and cannot smoke and how old one must be to buy cigarettes.
Decriminalization means you don't go to prison for having or selling it. It also doesn't imply that these things aren't regulated.
I would support decriminalization and regulation of who can sell and what age of people can buy and penalties for operating a motor vehicle or any equipment while under the influence.
This can be done and society can go on happily while not paying to stuff the overflowing prisons.
Best of all, decriminalization will take the money away from criminals.
What kind of society would we be living in if the criminals don't have drug money to buy AK47's with? What kind of society would we be living in if we didn't have coke addicts breaking into our homes to steal our electronics so they can pay the inflated prices of illegal drugs in the underground economy?
There are many sides to each topic...
===================================================================
Addendum
===================================================================
DISILLUSIONED wrote:
Exactly. No one spoke about legalizing everything. This is the kind of response that is forthcoming from those who do not read what is written. I will agree with executing drug dealers if they apply that penalty against Government Officials whi steal and embezzel from the public coffers. A drug user's victim is largely themselves. A corrupt oficial's victims is an entire nation. Let the punishment be proportionate to the victims created.
When I was a little boy there was a song that was sung in Guyana that goes, "ganja mannyo, ganja mannyo, gimme wan shilling ganja manny, oh massa gimme wan shilling ganja manny". I was reliably informed that the song depicted a time on the sugar estates when the ganja man would come around during breaks with shilling parcels of the stuff to sell to the sugar workers, many of whom were women. If that is true, then smoking ganja is common to Guyana's heritage as apple pie is to America's.
The thing is, Government Oficials who drink themselves into oblivion at their damn orgies have no moral or ethical foundation to prescribe punishment for an adult getting high on something other than what they endorse. It is kind of ironic that the argument that we cannot legalize everything was not uttered when the discussing was about that other vice, you know the one that might make Buddy and his clique rich, gambling. You have to always beware of those who advance arguments inconsistently and conveniently. Their's is not a quest to illuminate the discussion. Their's is an assigned quest to spread teflon.
Possession of small amounts of marijuanna that people might have for personal use should certainly be de-criminalized. No legitimate arguments can be advanced against this while the freedom to get plastered on high wine and get cancer from nicotine exists. Certainly there should be controls designed to preserve public order, and social mores, to the same degree that operates with alcohol and tobacco. And no Government Official, Individual or group who comes out in favour of the legalization of a new vice should talk about legalizing everything. If they saw a way of infusing that into the hotel business, as they propose to do with gambling, without raising international angst they surely would. The hypocrisy this debate brings out is nauseating.
I realize that the 'solution' that I tabled isn't morally or socially acceptable to most people.
I was speaking of them in terms of US law, not just Guyana. I do stand by my assertion that making something illegal puts it in the control of 2 kinds of people: Criminals and Government officials. Neither are good.
In addition to that, it makes it expensive. This makes it worth dealing in BY criminals. The very reason that I even contemplate this very idea is because:
1. Nobody's government is successfully combating the drug trade. Some (like Guyana's) are even joining in on it. The potential commercial gain by far outweighs the risk. that's why the US customs agents on the US border have HUGE warehouses TEEMING with drugs and the stream will never end because the value of the drugs rises to compensate for the increased scarcity. If anything, seizures of mass quantities of drugs make the ones that don't get seized more valuable when the arrive in the market place.
2. The US government or officials therein have been reliably accused of dealing in drugs. With huge warehouses of drugs and a climbing price, do you think those officials are going to destroy all that stuff? Whistle blowers have been taunted, blackballed and even shot. This is what the prevailing configuration of incentives has brought us.
3. The US has THE highest prison population (in terms of percentage of people) in the entire developed world. That's a huge expense for people who are unproductive and for a program that isn't working. The US taxpayers pay for it all.
4. Just because something ought not be, doesn't mean that it should be criminalised. There are other way of dealing with things in ways that don't enrich criminals at the expense of poor people and turn governmental officials corrupt. A government in general is good at handling some societal problems and terrible at handling others. Even when there is a good way for a government to handle it, it's usually not done because what's politically or socially popular takes precedence even though it's ineffective and individual politicians are scared to point it out for obvious reasons.
Let me join all of you in condemning the use of illicit drugs. I personally believe that they are dangerous to body, mind and spirit and that they take away a person's ability to act freely to bless himself, his family and to control his destiny to any extent.
When I personally have met people in the past with 'lesser' addictions, I have done my part as a missionary to help free them from that addiction. I can't even remain in good standing with my church if I drink Coffee. Many people in my church don't agree with my political views by the way.
In parting, alcohol and tobacco have HUGE body counts. I would even place tobacco above ganja for its addictive powers and propensity to kill. Alcohol has killed more than them all put together. Aren't we hypocrites to draw a line and place some addictive, unhealthy substances on one side of it and some on the other because some substances are more popular than others? Am I the only person that sees the danger in raising a government that has the power to tell you what to put in your body? Where else could that power extend?
Imagine that alcohol were once again outlawed in the US.
I can see the RUM Lords of Guyana coming into existence to traffic it into the US......It's not a stretch of imagination. It's the way the world works.
So if we're going to be socially responsible and not hypocritical, I say: Outlaw them all or legalize them all.
Right now we're living in La la land.
=========================================================
Addendum
=========================================================
Squingy,
Yeah I would never make them an over-the-counter item. The main reason why I suggest selling them in state-owned stores is because, it might possibly have to be subsidized to bring it far enough below the street price.
One thing about the free market though. The market of currently illegal drugs isn't free, it's illegal and therefor underground. Being sold in a state-owned store is therefore a step in the 'free direction'.
Even within the underground drug economy, that isn't free at all. Since it's underground and therefore not subject to government regulation, cartels form and stifle any potential competition.
Selling it in a state-owned store would mean that nobody would profit from the selling of it.
=================================================================
Addendum
=================================================================
Sean,
You bring up a point that my father and a few close friends have also brought up before. What kind of society would we be living in if these things were legalized?
Firstly, I want to make the distinction between criminalized, legalized and regulated.
Some of these things are already legal, alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol can't be sold just anywhere in many countries. You can't show up to work drunk and you can't DRIVE drunk. Likewise, many places have strict guidelines about where you can and cannot smoke and how old one must be to buy cigarettes.
Decriminalization means you don't go to prison for having or selling it. It also doesn't imply that these things aren't regulated.
I would support decriminalization and regulation of who can sell and what age of people can buy and penalties for operating a motor vehicle or any equipment while under the influence.
This can be done and society can go on happily while not paying to stuff the overflowing prisons.
Best of all, decriminalization will take the money away from criminals.
What kind of society would we be living in if the criminals don't have drug money to buy AK47's with? What kind of society would we be living in if we didn't have coke addicts breaking into our homes to steal our electronics so they can pay the inflated prices of illegal drugs in the underground economy?
There are many sides to each topic...
===================================================================
Addendum
===================================================================
DISILLUSIONED wrote:
Exactly. No one spoke about legalizing everything. This is the kind of response that is forthcoming from those who do not read what is written. I will agree with executing drug dealers if they apply that penalty against Government Officials whi steal and embezzel from the public coffers. A drug user's victim is largely themselves. A corrupt oficial's victims is an entire nation. Let the punishment be proportionate to the victims created.
When I was a little boy there was a song that was sung in Guyana that goes, "ganja mannyo, ganja mannyo, gimme wan shilling ganja manny, oh massa gimme wan shilling ganja manny". I was reliably informed that the song depicted a time on the sugar estates when the ganja man would come around during breaks with shilling parcels of the stuff to sell to the sugar workers, many of whom were women. If that is true, then smoking ganja is common to Guyana's heritage as apple pie is to America's.
The thing is, Government Oficials who drink themselves into oblivion at their damn orgies have no moral or ethical foundation to prescribe punishment for an adult getting high on something other than what they endorse. It is kind of ironic that the argument that we cannot legalize everything was not uttered when the discussing was about that other vice, you know the one that might make Buddy and his clique rich, gambling. You have to always beware of those who advance arguments inconsistently and conveniently. Their's is not a quest to illuminate the discussion. Their's is an assigned quest to spread teflon.
Possession of small amounts of marijuanna that people might have for personal use should certainly be de-criminalized. No legitimate arguments can be advanced against this while the freedom to get plastered on high wine and get cancer from nicotine exists. Certainly there should be controls designed to preserve public order, and social mores, to the same degree that operates with alcohol and tobacco. And no Government Official, Individual or group who comes out in favour of the legalization of a new vice should talk about legalizing everything. If they saw a way of infusing that into the hotel business, as they propose to do with gambling, without raising international angst they surely would. The hypocrisy this debate brings out is nauseating.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The Nation News, Barbados - The only news is the need to proof read articles.
The Guyana, Venezuela border row
Is this an article about the latest developments in the Border dispute between said countries or is it an obituary? This article accomplishes neither. At first I was annoyed by the lack of real news contained in this article, then I noticed the following error: " Surprisingly, however, having confirmed his participation in the summit, the Venezuelan leader failed to turn up, as expected, last Friday with an explanation being offered that we was "not well"."
'We', of course, refers to 'HE', the Barbadian diplomat Oliver Jackman.
One would think that since Oliver Jackman was a BARBADIAN diplomat, that he'd get the honour of an obituary instead of an unceremonious burial in the lines of an article that doesn't even give substantive material related to its own title.
For heaven's sake, if he is to be written about properly, the 'H' key is 4 keys from the 'W' key 'as the finger flies' on a qwerty keyboard. Don't make me post an image of that on here.
Is this an article about the latest developments in the Border dispute between said countries or is it an obituary? This article accomplishes neither. At first I was annoyed by the lack of real news contained in this article, then I noticed the following error: " Surprisingly, however, having confirmed his participation in the summit, the Venezuelan leader failed to turn up, as expected, last Friday with an explanation being offered that we was "not well"."
'We', of course, refers to 'HE', the Barbadian diplomat Oliver Jackman.
One would think that since Oliver Jackman was a BARBADIAN diplomat, that he'd get the honour of an obituary instead of an unceremonious burial in the lines of an article that doesn't even give substantive material related to its own title.
For heaven's sake, if he is to be written about properly, the 'H' key is 4 keys from the 'W' key 'as the finger flies' on a qwerty keyboard. Don't make me post an image of that on here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)