Just my ramblings

[Jangle]

Last night I was flipping back and forth between "AI" and "Thank God you're here" on NBC. I was moved...again, at the images of the poverty in Africa and at the Katrina victims. I am going to be honest (sorry Bruce, Zeppo and my other white bredrins). I wasn't moved at the sight of the white children in Kentucky and at the Boys and Girls institution in LA. I will get back to that later.

Seeing my fellow black people suffering like that, especially in Africa really touched my core. Whilst the whole idea of raising money to help these people is very noble, and i am sure with the popularity of AI they will raise millions, I said to myself "here we go again". This is another "We are the World" or "Live Aid" or "Farm Aid". The real question is why is Africa still in the same position it's in as in 1984-1985 when the light of the world was focussed on it. Why is there no single country on the continent of Africa that can be held as a beacon, as an example of good governance? Why is it that a continent of such riches cannot have not one country emerging as a leader? Why is it that a continent of millions of inhabitants cannot find leaders with vision and INTEGRITY? Is there a genetic flaw that makes blacks unable to effectively govern ourselves? Why is AIDS and diseases so rampant in Africa? Who is controlling the strings that is keeping Africa in a constant state of depression and poverty? Who is causing this genocide of negroes in Africa?

I am tired of seeing all these white superstars giving handouts to Africa. The Bonos, the Angelina Jolies, the Madonnas. They are keeping Africa in a constant state of dependency. I would respect them more if they and AI use their popularity and influences to shine a light on Africa's real problem - the powerful European countries, and the USA that is raping Africa. The eyes of the world are focussed on the Middle East and all this talk about terrorism when an set of people are being eliminated. Imagine, 1.3 MILLION persons living in an area the size of NY's Central Park.

Getting back to my point of lack of sympathy for the poor whites down south. Even though their situation is grim, it is by far, no comparission to the children in Africa and Louisianna. Those children looked fat and happy. I even saw a little boy wearing braces on his teeth. Even though they may be poor and illiterate, they still have the means to feed themselves. They have running water. They have houses to live in. They have soft beds to sleep on. They have a choice.

[Muadib]

Re: Just my ramblings

Last night I was flipping back and forth between "AI" and "Thank God you're here" on NBC. I was moved...again, at the images of the poverty in Africa and at the Katrina victims. I am going to be honest (sorry Bruce, Zeppo and my other white bredrins). I wasn't moved at the sight of the white children in Kentucky and at the Boys and Girls institution in LA. I will get back to that later.

Seeing my fellow black people suffering like that, especially in Africa really touched my core. Whilst the whole idea of raising money to help these people is very noble, and i am sure with the popularity of AI they will raise millions, I said to myself "here we go again". This is another "We are the World" or "Live Aid" or "Farm Aid". The real question is why is Africa still in the same position it's in as in 1984-1985 when the light of the world was focussed on it. Why is there no single country on the continent of Africa that can be held as a beacon, as an example of good governance? Why is it that a continent of such riches cannot have not one country emerging as a leader? Why is it that a continent of millions of inhabitants cannot find leaders with vision and INTEGRITY? Is there a genetic flaw that makes blacks unable to effectively govern ourselves? Why is AIDS and diseases so rampant in Africa? Who is controlling the strings that is keeping Africa in a constant state of depression and poverty? Who is causing this genocide of negroes in Africa?

I am tired of seeing all these white superstars giving handouts to Africa. The Bonos, the Angelina Jolies, the Madonnas. They are keeping Africa in a constant state of dependency. I would respect them more if they and AI use their popularity and influences to shine a light on Africa's real problem - the powerful European countries, and the USA that is raping Africa. The eyes of the world are focussed on the Middle East and all this talk about terrorism when an set of people are being eliminated. Imagine, 1.3 MILLION persons living in an area the size of NY's Central Park.

Getting back to my point of lack of sympathy for the poor whites down south. Even though their situation is grim, it is by far, no comparission to the children in Africa and Louisianna. Those children looked fat and happy. I even saw a little boy wearing braces on his teeth. Even though they may be poor and illiterate, they still have the means to feed themselves. They have running water. They have houses to live in. They have soft beds to sleep on. They have a choice.

What is Nigeria's real problem ?

What is Jamaica's real problem ?

What is Botswana secret ?

[Karl]

Re: Just my ramblings

Let's be real - The idea that you are putting out there is countries run by blacks are poorly managed and those run by whites are.

The question is: Are the countries run by the whites really better managed?

...or, is the present realities of the countries managed by blacks...and, I may add, other non-whites...battling with subtle...and, not so subtle, control of their economies by the now (as in what happened over time & we are where we are) powerful countries? Is that "we are where are are" a legacy of past poor decisions by non-white rulers the albatross around the necks of the now non-white rulers? What expectations...realistic expectations should we have? What time-frame...in what time-frame should we expect the 'catching up' to occur? ...and or, is it really possible to 'catch-up' to/with the current first world countries? Is it the first world countries can only improve as %age of where they currently are...by small increments...
...and, the second(?) world countries as a %age of where they currently are improved faster/by larger increments that the first world countries...and third world countries by even faster increments...???? if all have leaders (throughout their societies - president/ruler/etc. to all other areas of their societies) of equal good qualities?

Are the countries ruled by whites compared to those always ruled by non-whites - looking at where they were 50 years ago - further along the way to utopia? Will there be some time in the future when both, i.e. those ruled by whites and those rules by non-whites...'dead eeks'/become mirror images of each other in say, standards of living of their people?

Aside:
Sure we enjoy more of the 'goodies' in the first world countries...but, considering the resources at hand...are these first world countries at or near maximum potential benefiting all members of their societies? Are the 'goodies' there for all their peoples (various people) to enjoy? Could they, when compared to how all countries are managed, be 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. better managed? Are the leaders that great? ...or, is it those countries are on a path that regardless of those occupying the presidency/'PMship' or whatever, at the stage where they are operating on autopilot? ...on a path that has a life of its own?

It appears to me that in the US - I have 17 years of observing at first hand the activities of those around me and in some degree the activities of corporations that interest me...plus listening with 'one ear' to some of the activities of various government(s - local & national/federal) - it is the ordinary citizen, more than any other factor, that spurs economic activity and thus standards of living.

Interestingly many are quick to say, "I did"...and, either say outright - 'the government' did not help/has not helped or 'the government' is a hindrance. Truth is government services/services supplied by - speaking of my experiences - Jamaica and the USA - have contributed tremendously.

[Muadib]

Re: Just my ramblings

Let's be real - The idea that you are putting out there is countries run by blacks are poorly managed and those run by whites are.

The question is: Are the countries run by the whites really better managed?

...or, is the present realities of the countries managed by blacks...and, I may add, other non-whites...battling with subtle...and, not so subtle, control of their economies by the now (as in what happened over time & we are where we are) powerful countries? Is that "we are where are are" a legacy of past poor decisions by non-white rulers the albatross around the necks of the now non-white rulers? What expectations...realistic expectations should we have? What time-frame...in what time-frame should we expect the 'catching up' to occur? ...and or, is it really possible to 'catch-up' to/with the current first world countries? Is it the first world countries can only improve as %age of where they currently are...by small increments...
...and, the second(?) world countries as a %age of where they currently are improved faster/by larger increments that the first world countries...and third world countries by even faster increments...???? if all have leaders (throughout their societies - president/ruler/etc. to all other areas of their societies) of equal good qualities?

Are the countries ruled by whites compared to those always ruled by non-whites - looking at where they were 50 years ago - further along the way to utopia? Will there be some time in the future when both, i.e. those ruled by whites and those rules by non-whites...'dead eeks'/become mirror images of each other in say, standards of living of their people?

Aside:
Sure we enjoy more of the 'goodies' in the first world countries...but, considering the resources at hand...are these first world countries at or near maximum potential benefiting all members of their societies? Are the 'goodies' there for all their peoples (various people) to enjoy? Could they when compared to how all countries are managed be 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% better managed? Are the leaders that great? ...or, is it those countries are on a path that regardless of those occupying the presidency/'PMship' or whatever, at the stage where they are operating on autopilot? ...on a path that has a life of its own?

It appears to me that in the US - I have 17 years of observing at first hand the activities of those around me and in some degree the activities of corporations that interest me...plus listening with 'one ear' to some of activities of various government(s - local & national/federal) - it is the ordinary citizen, more than any other factor, that spurs economic activity and thus standards of living.

Interestingly many are quick to say, "I did"...and, either say outright - 'the government' did not help/has not helped or 'the government' is a hindrance. Truth is government services/services supplied by - speaking of my experiences - Jamaica and the USA - have contributed tremendously.

Who is this directed to ?

In anycase, let me give you a news flash, Jamaica has been underperforming compared to the region and the rest of the world over the past 14 years because of the people that have been placed in charge of managing its economy.

The North Coast Highway was started in 1996....

[Assasin]

Re: Just my ramblings

Karl who run Botswana?
There are some countries that are run by black that are enjoying good growth and economy, such as Barbados, Bahamas, Botwsawna, etc but many are faultering and it part of the reason is they are run by the heart and not economic principles. How else can you explain places like Haiti, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc.

The Congos, Ivory coast, Sudan, Nigeria, Jamaica have no reason to be poor and can't enjoy decent growth. They have precious minerals, and resources but we continue to fail ourselves and make excuses for our inept leadership.

Time to be stand up and counted and stop talking.

[Lazie]

Re: Just my ramblings

Well, looking at the HDI rankings I also wondered why all the countries at the bottom were governed by black leaders. Well as Peter Drucker said, "there are no poor countries, only poorly managed ones." Looking at the state of our country, he was damn right.

[Jangle]

Re: Just my ramblings

What is Nigeria's real problem ?

What is Jamaica's real problem ?

What is Botswana secret ?

Let's hear your answers to your own questions.

[Jangle]

Re: Just my ramblings

Let's be real - The idea that you are putting out there is countries run by blacks are poorly managed and those run by whites are.

The question is: Are the countries run by the whites really better managed?

...or, is the present realities of the countries managed by blacks...and, I may add, other non-whites...battling with subtle...and, not so subtle, control of their economies by the now (as in what happened over time & we are where we are) powerful countries? Is that "we are where are are" a legacy of past poor decisions by non-white rulers the albatross around the necks of the now non-white rulers? What expectations...realistic expectations should we have? What time-frame...in what time-frame should we expect the 'catching up' to occur? ...and or, is it really possible to 'catch-up' to/with the current first world countries? Is it the first world countries can only improve as %age of where they currently are...by small increments...
...and, the second(?) world countries as a %age of where they currently are improved faster/by larger increments that the first world countries...and third world countries by even faster increments...???? if all have leaders (throughout their societies - president/ruler/etc. to all other areas of their societies) of equal good qualities?

Are the countries ruled by whites compared to those always ruled by non-whites - looking at where they were 50 years ago - further along the way to utopia? Will there be some time in the future when both, i.e. those ruled by whites and those rules by non-whites...'dead eeks'/become mirror images of each other in say, standards of living of their people?

Aside:
Sure we enjoy more of the 'goodies' in the first world countries...but, considering the resources at hand...are these first world countries at or near maximum potential benefiting all members of their societies? Are the 'goodies' there for all their peoples (various people) to enjoy? Could they, when compared to how all countries are managed, be 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. better managed? Are the leaders that great? ...or, is it those countries are on a path that regardless of those occupying the presidency/'PMship' or whatever, at the stage where they are operating on autopilot? ...on a path that has a life of its own?

It appears to me that in the US - I have 17 years of observing at first hand the activities of those around me and in some degree the activities of corporations that interest me...plus listening with 'one ear' to some of the activities of various government(s - local & national/federal) - it is the ordinary citizen, more than any other factor, that spurs economic activity and thus standards of living.

Interestingly many are quick to say, "I did"...and, either say outright - 'the government' did not help/has not helped or 'the government' is a hindrance. Truth is government services/services supplied by - speaking of my experiences - Jamaica and the USA - have contributed tremendously.

Karl, and here I thought I was the one who was rambling. Huh........? What language are you speaking?

[Karl]

Re: Just my ramblings

All I am saying is...and, it is questioning...

1. Where these black countries ever well managed?

If so, who were the managers and in whose interest were they 'well managed'?

If they were never ever well managed, who were the 'early' managers? Who are the 'now' managers?


2. OK - How many countries are there in our today's world?
How many are well managed? - What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are well managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Well managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

3. ...and, the poorly managed countries? What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are poorly managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Poorly managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

4. Specific as it relates to Jamaica - forget the politics? duh? - say using that last 50 years, has progress been made?

Have we over-achieved during the period? If yes, why do you think so?

If no, why do you think so?

Homewook - Name:
Fifty 'good' changes/advances that have occurred during Jamaica's last 60+ (1944 to present) years?

Fifty 'failings' during the same period?

[Karl]

Re: Just my ramblings

Karl, and here I thought I was the one who was rambling. Huh........? What language are you speaking?

Have you forgottten your topic?

Shady Pines beckons!

...it is ramblings, boss! Thoughts on what is...and, what should/could have been...and, what it is I really want to see happen.

...and, what are the thoughts of...rambling thoughts of others?

[Muadib]

Re: Just my ramblings

All I am saying is...and, it is questioning...

1. Where these black countries ever well managed?

If so, who were the managers and in whose interest were they 'well managed'?

If they were never ever well managed, who were the 'early' managers? Who are the 'now' managers?


2. OK - How many countries are there in our today's world?
How many are well managed? - What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are well managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Well managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

3. ...and, the poorly managed countries? What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are poorly managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Poorly managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

4. Specific as it relates to Jamaica - forget the politics? duh? - say using that last 50 years, has progress been made?

Have we over-achieved during the period? If yes, why do you think so?

If no, why do you think so?

Homewook - Name:
Fifty 'good' changes/advances that have occurred during Jamaica's last 60+ (1944 to present) years?

Fifty 'failings' during the same period?

The North Coast Highway was started in 1996....

Examine the track record of the UDC from inception to current.. that might also give you a clue..

Compare the Nation Building Resumes of Edward Seaga VS Michael Manley VS PJ Patterson.. that might also give you a clue..

Then again... your problem might be your 'eyes'...

[Comment]

Re: Just my ramblings

Compare the Nation Building Resumes of Edward Seaga VS Michael Manley VS PJ Patterson.. that might also give you a clue..

Well Michael Manley gave us Jamal, and P.J. gave us penis park.........

[Comment]

Re: Just my ramblings

Let's hear your answers to your own questions.

Leadership

Leadership

Leadership

[Muadib]

Re: Just my ramblings

All I am saying is...and, it is questioning...

1. Where these black countries ever well managed?

If so, who were the managers and in whose interest were they 'well managed'?

If they were never ever well managed, who were the 'early' managers? Who are the 'now' managers?


2. OK - How many countries are there in our today's world?
How many are well managed? - What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are well managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Well managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

3. ...and, the poorly managed countries? What are the various criteria used to arrive at the conclusion that these are poorly managed? Who were the past managers - whites or non-whites? Poorly managed then? Who are the current managers - whites or non-whites?

4. Specific as it relates to Jamaica - forget the politics? duh? - say using that last 50 years, has progress been made?

Have we over-achieved during the period? If yes, why do you think so?

If no, why do you think so?

Homewook - Name:
Fifty 'good' changes/advances that have occurred during Jamaica's last 60+ (1944 to present) years?

Fifty 'failings' during the same period?

If only Seaga was black..

Maybe is the roll of the dice.. some people roll the dice and dem get Lee Kwan Yue or a Castro or di bredda from Botswana.. anneda time yuh roll di dice and you get Mugabe.. or a PJ or a Manley

"What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient. Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society -- the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country's political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana's plentiful diamond reserves responsible: Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.

It is Botswana's history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana's founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity. When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae."

'Yuh cyan fahget it"
"The Law is not a Shackle"
"We always believe..."
"Comrades better wi create di problem so dat wi can win...now dat wi reach.. wi can karrec it"

Poor Karl... all now him still tasting, him not convinced seh is ********************...

[Karl]

Re: Just my ramblings

The North Coast Highway was started in 1996....

Examine the track record of the UDC from inception to current.. that might also give you a clue..

Compare the Nation Building Resumes of Edward Seaga VS Michael Manley VS PJ Patterson.. that might also give you a clue..

Then again... your problem might be your 'eyes'...

Well my eyes have given me a look from the days when "Tiger transport" and "Royal Mail" roamed the countryside. When the vast majority could not afford to be in schools on Fridays...'bare-foot' was the footware of choice...a vast many areas no public transport...the majority of the island no electricity...no 'water closets' in 90+% of homes, rather the 'out-houses'...no TV station...Radio Jamaica and Redifusion did not yet make it...Telefunken was a top of the line radio...no 'running water' in most places...if an aeroplane passed overhead it was 'an event'...Busta, Norman were the political leaders...most basic school, infant and elementary school classes were held, at least for some of the time, unda-tree...'pop-seed gun', wood toy cart, bamboo cricket bats, football was a secondary school novelty to most (no primary and or prep school football)...

...yuh coudda walk any weh, hat henni time a day or night an ebryone a yuh fren...


...any adult cudda bus yuh tail effen yuh a mis-behave! ...

...then...there was...no common entrance, secondary schools were for the 'rich kids'...(I was in the first batch that got the opportunity to sit the common enttrance and enter secondary schools)...there were properties - 'public properties' you could not enter unless it was by the back entrance...