Tweet
What’s in a name?
Friday, April 23, 2010
CARRERAS put a $300-m price tag on the amount of revenue it stands to lose as a result of the pirating of its popular Craven A brand of cigarettes. However, it is our opinion that in matters like this the loss is incalculable. For a good name -- even within the context of a product that poses health risks -- is priceless. There's no telling how much, in terms of goodwill, the work of the pirates mentioned in our lead story yesterday have cost the company's brand.
Remember some years ago the threat our Blue Mountain coffee brand came under when unscrupulous individuals chose to piggyback on its success?
Mention of Ananias, Jezebel and 'Tricky Dicky' bring the words liar, wicked and President Richard Nixon to mind.
Closer home, the names Louise Bennett, Ian Ramsay and Usain Bolt represent icons of excellence in culture, law and athletics.
These are but a few individuals who, by virtue of the positive contribution they have and are making to society, naturally become role models for our young people. Others become so, solely by virtue of their position.
It is this latter group, which includes politicians and other professionals, that worries us, especially within the context of what is currently taking place in our society today.
For it seems to us that too many of the people who are occupying the limelight care too little about their name.
Our Government is blowing hot and cold and being less than generous with the truth concerning important issues that are impacting the tone and texture of the society.
Yes, we are in fact talking about the Government's handling of the US extradition request for Mr Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, the strongman of Prime Minister Bruce Golding's West Kingston constituency.
Despite overwhelming evidence that almost everything that the Government has told us about this one is as far from the truth as the east is from the west, we have yet to hear anything that bears even the slightest resemblance to a correction or retraction.
Yet we are asked to listen to lengthy budget speeches chock-full of self-praise, which we all know is no recommendation.
We are asked to accept apologies about the Government's inability to honour its financial obligations to various public sector workers, even as we hear of thousands of dollars -- most likely taxpayers' money -- going into the coffers of an American law firm, presumably on Mr Coke's behalf.
Any government which gave two hoots about what its citizenry thinks of it would have addressed this issue long ago.
Instead, we are going to be subjected to yet another song and dance, the lyrics and moves of which are still unclear to us, in the Supreme Court next month.
As we understand it, the application for a declaration concerning the exercise of Justice Minister Mrs Dorothy Lightbourne's discretion in the 'Dudus' affair is addressed in the legislation governing the issue.
In any event, the prime minister, by his previous declarations, has already settled the matter and declared himself willing to pay the price of whatever consequences attend it.
What possible value can this exercise have?
Is the Supreme Court, which albeit not perfect but still has a good enough name, fixing to join the merry-go-round of political gimmickry?
We hope not.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...--2010_7546424
Friday, April 23, 2010
CARRERAS put a $300-m price tag on the amount of revenue it stands to lose as a result of the pirating of its popular Craven A brand of cigarettes. However, it is our opinion that in matters like this the loss is incalculable. For a good name -- even within the context of a product that poses health risks -- is priceless. There's no telling how much, in terms of goodwill, the work of the pirates mentioned in our lead story yesterday have cost the company's brand.
Remember some years ago the threat our Blue Mountain coffee brand came under when unscrupulous individuals chose to piggyback on its success?
Mention of Ananias, Jezebel and 'Tricky Dicky' bring the words liar, wicked and President Richard Nixon to mind.
Closer home, the names Louise Bennett, Ian Ramsay and Usain Bolt represent icons of excellence in culture, law and athletics.
These are but a few individuals who, by virtue of the positive contribution they have and are making to society, naturally become role models for our young people. Others become so, solely by virtue of their position.
It is this latter group, which includes politicians and other professionals, that worries us, especially within the context of what is currently taking place in our society today.
For it seems to us that too many of the people who are occupying the limelight care too little about their name.
Our Government is blowing hot and cold and being less than generous with the truth concerning important issues that are impacting the tone and texture of the society.
Yes, we are in fact talking about the Government's handling of the US extradition request for Mr Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, the strongman of Prime Minister Bruce Golding's West Kingston constituency.
Despite overwhelming evidence that almost everything that the Government has told us about this one is as far from the truth as the east is from the west, we have yet to hear anything that bears even the slightest resemblance to a correction or retraction.
Yet we are asked to listen to lengthy budget speeches chock-full of self-praise, which we all know is no recommendation.
We are asked to accept apologies about the Government's inability to honour its financial obligations to various public sector workers, even as we hear of thousands of dollars -- most likely taxpayers' money -- going into the coffers of an American law firm, presumably on Mr Coke's behalf.
Any government which gave two hoots about what its citizenry thinks of it would have addressed this issue long ago.
Instead, we are going to be subjected to yet another song and dance, the lyrics and moves of which are still unclear to us, in the Supreme Court next month.
As we understand it, the application for a declaration concerning the exercise of Justice Minister Mrs Dorothy Lightbourne's discretion in the 'Dudus' affair is addressed in the legislation governing the issue.
In any event, the prime minister, by his previous declarations, has already settled the matter and declared himself willing to pay the price of whatever consequences attend it.
What possible value can this exercise have?
Is the Supreme Court, which albeit not perfect but still has a good enough name, fixing to join the merry-go-round of political gimmickry?
We hope not.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...--2010_7546424
Comment