The New York Post runs a small editorial this morning about Sean Delonas’ ape-stimulus cartoon, which ran in the paper earlier this week and which some have characterized as a racist swipe at Barack Obama. In some quarters the editorial is called an “apology,” but it’s way too pugnacious for that. “It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. Period,” says the punchy notice. “To those who were offended by the image, we apologize. However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. To them, no apology is due.” So if you ever were mad at the Post, you can go fuck yourself.

The response has the intended effect: “Post writes apology so canned, even a trained monkey could have done it,” says a Farker. “Sean Delonas is a hateful, intolerant, homophobic, racist, jackbooted conservative who has been penning deliberately inflammatory cartoons for years,” says Flaming Pablum.

Meanwhile recording artist John Legend has issued a lengthy statement against the cartoon which includes this interesting passage: “Freedom of speech still comes with responsibilities and consequences. You are responsible for printing this cartoon, and I hope you experience some real consequences for it.” Settle down — he means a boycott, a la Reverend Al. Air America obligingly lists the paper’s national sponsors.

Everyone get enough press out of this? Good, because it’s time to laugh at Huffington Post, which got punked by a fake video of a Fox News anchor doing something similar (“John Gibson Did Not Compare Eric Holder To Monkey With Bright Blue Scrotum [UPDATED]“). We’re still waiting to see what people make of the Politico article which refers to the Obama cabinet’s “Black Hole.”

Listen Here..

 

 Judge Hatchett On WB Radio [18:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

JAMAICA HAS become an environment in which life is cheap. There appears to be a lack of compassion and a fascination for the macabre. As a nation, we have become desensitised to death and suffering.

On any murder scene, men, women and children can be seen viewing the body with little or no emotion, even as the victim’s family members wail.

Let’s consider the mentally ill young man who, in his distress, climbed on to a top-floor window-ledge of the Kingston Public Hospital and threatened to jump.

The response of many of our fellow Jamaicans on the ground was beamed around the world. Many stopped what they were doing to get a better view; laughter and mockery could be heard; mobile phones sprung into action; the crowd bayed for blood as communal chants of “Jump!” “Jump!” “Jump!” rang out.

He jumped and was impaled. Some persons turned away in disgust, but others, their need for destruction now satisfied, all but burst into a round of applause.

What is it in our psyche that drives our rush to view mangled and twisted, even decapitated bodies? How have victims of murder or accidents become just another thread in our rich tapestry of social entertainment?

The answer may lay in our traumatic, dehumanising history in which a lynching would be served up as a social spectacle and a deterrent to other slaves.

Historical context

Jamaica’s history can be compared to that of the borderline individual.

The island nation was born out of a four-hundred-year period of dehumanising brutality and exploitation in which people were regarded and treated as commodities.

The sum total of slavery was the complete ownership of the individual – the slave had no rights over his body, his mind, his sexuality, his offspring; even the union of marriage was forbidden. His life could be taken at his master’s whim.

Death and suffering were a common sight. As a nation, we have been physically, emotionally and sexually abused. This was Jamaica’s childhood.

Our slavers, our colonial masters, our mother country – ironically they were all one and the same – abused us.

What can we make of this unhealthy attachment and what is the impact today?

Is this the reason the country has borderline personality disorder?

AN INVESTOR

in the troubled David Smith-led foreign-exchange trading club, Olint, has failed in his bid to have the Supreme Court bar the National Commercial Bank (NCB) from paying over money which it holds in accounts opened by Olint.

Dr Christopher Walker, who lives and practises in Florida, claimed that he had US$2.4 million invested with Olint and for the past 17 months, he has not received any money from his account.

He said he feared that if the money in the NCB accounts was paid to Olint, it would be dissipated without the trading club settling its debts.

Ownership of Olint money

According to Dr Walker, a substantial amount of the money in the Olint accounts belonged to him.

He was seeking an injunction from the Supreme Court to bar NCB from paying out the money to Olint. He said he wanted the money to remain in the Olint accounts for at least 15 days.

This would give him time to obtain the support of like-minded investors so they could pursue a final order to bar NCB from paying out the money to Olint.

Attorney-at-law David Rowe, who also practises at the Florida Bar, represented Dr Walker.But Michael Hylton, QC, who is representing NCB, opposed the application which was heard in chambers last Friday before Justice Lloyd Hibbert.

Last week, the United Kingdom Privy Council gave NCB the go-ahead to close Olint’s account.

The Court of Appeal had ruled last year that the account should remain open until the civil suit between Olint and NCB had been determined.

Failed to comply

The bank had served notice on Olint that it was going to close its accounts because it had failed to comply with certain requests, which included the presentation of audited financial statements.

Olint went to the Supreme Court, which turned down its application to bar NCB from closing the accounts. Olint appealed and the Court of Appeal ruled in its favour.

But NCB took the issue to the United Kingdom Privy Council and won.

Smith was arrested last Thursday in the Turks and Caicos Islands on fraud charges. He is on US$1 million bail with surety. The arrest stemmed from months of investigations into the operations of Olint.

The Jamaican Court of Appeal is to hear legal arguments tomorrow in an appeal which Olint has brought against a Supreme Court ruling in December 2007.

The court upheld a cease-and-desist order issued by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) in March 2006. The FSC issued the cease-and-desist order on the grounds that Olint had breached the Securities Act and was not licensed to carry out foreign currency trading activities.

PRESIDENT OF the Jamaica Employers‘ Federation, Wayne Chen, says “rapid economic growth” must be the central theme of the current social-contract discussions involving the Government and stakeholder groups.

Going forward “will require a deeper level of mutual understanding and the making and keeping of commitments that lead to greater levels of trust and cooperation,” Chen argues in a Sunday Gleaner article. He adds that the sacrifice required for sustained national development must be “equitably shared”.

In this regard, Chen expects the Government to be efficient, responsive and accountable; and the business sector to aim at being “world-class”, while remaining committed to nation building. “More business leaders need to recognise that efficient management is enlightened management and that happy workers are more efficient and productive,” Chen advises.

Chen’s comments coincide with the recent research conducted by the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), which found support for the resumption of social-partnership dialogue between the relevant stakeholder groups.

Based at OPM

CaPRI argues that the worsening economic crisis facing the country compels the establishment of a social partnership, which ideally should overlap with the writing of the country’s next budget, to facilitate the emergence of a “fully integrated growth strategy”. CaPRI suggests that for the social-partnership agreement to be effectively implemented, it should be based in the Office of the Prime Minister.

AS ANTICIPATION mounts about the court’s ruling on the appeal in the dual-citizenship case which People’s National Party (PNP) candidate Abe Dabdoub has brought against Member of Parliament (MP) Daryl Vaz, The Sunday Gleaner has learnt that a ruling will be handed down within days.

President of the Court of Appeal Justice Seymour Panton, Justice Algernon Smith and Justice Karl Harrison heard the appeal and indications are that the judgement is to be delivered shortly.

Following lengthy submissions last year, the court reserved its decision on December 3.

Since then, political watchers have waited patiently for the decision, which could greatly affect the country’s political scene.

Second petition

This is the second time that Dabdoub has brought an election petition in the courts. He was successful in an election petition he filed against Phyllis Mitchell alleging irregularities in the North East St Catherine constituency in the general election

of 1997.

At that time, Dabdoub contested the election on a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) ticket and was awarded the seat in June 2001.

Now, he is again trying to enter Parliament through the court, but this time on a PNP ticket.

Dabdoub has expressed optimism that, based on the law and the cases cited to support his contention, he will be victorious.

But Prime Minister Bruce Golding has made it clear that he will not allow anyone who was rejected by the people at the polls to sit in Parliament.

This has led to speculation that if the court awards the seat to Dabdoub, the nation could be called back to a general election.

Vaz won the seat by 944 votes in the 2007 general election. He remains in the House of Representatives because he has been granted a stay of the court ruling, pending the outcome of the appeal.

If the appeal is in Dabdoub’s favour, it will reduce the Government’s four-seat margin in the House.

Dabdoub had filed an election petition after the general election on September 3, 2007, claiming that Vaz was not entitled to be a member of parliament because he was an American citizen and the holder of a United States passport.

Not entitled to be an MP

Chief Justice Zaila McCalla heard the matter in the Supreme Court and in April last year ruled that although Vaz had inherited citizenship through his mother, who was an American citizen, he had obtained a passport, travelled on it and, therefore, was not entitled to be an MP.

She ordered a by-election in the constituency for which Vaz has prepared by renouncing his American citizenship.

Dabdoub appealed, contending that the chief justice erred in her ruling because he should have been returned as the duly elected MP for the constituency.

Vaz has also appealed the chief justice’s ruling and his lawyers argued that if the court did not allow the citizens’ votes to be counted, it would deny the implicit right of each citizen of Jamaica to participate in the democratic process.

Avril in the studio with Chris “the Dubmaster”…