So I find myself a bit at odds this morning with several things in the newspapers, a couple of them related in a rather strange way.
Paco Nuñez takes exception in the Tribune (and reproduced in the letters section of the Guardian) to the Prime Minister's observation that the local press seems sometimes a bit too preoccupied with crime and those are the headlines that seem most days to figure most prominently at the top of the front page.
I must be getting old or something ... I find myself pretty well in agreement with the PM - at least on the observation that the Press sometimes sensationalises.
And if the Press pretends it doesn't, it loses credibility all on its own.
Certainly a response which essentially cries "Censorship" is taking the "best defense is a good offense" truism a bit too far indeed.
As much as I would champion the role of the press and value its freedom I said a couple weeks ago that headlines are sometimes a bit out of hand.
Many many years ago a couple kids at a school pretty close to the the Tribune dropped a couple cherry bombs in the boys toilet and blew it to high heavens. As far as I can remember it didn't make it to the newspapers, as messy as it was!
I can see the headlines today ... "Messy explosion at private school places children's lives in danger!" In bold 48 point type.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Close to Censorship?
According to the first paragraph of a piece by Taneka Thompson in today's Tribune, Dame Joan Sawyer is supposed to have warned that "Those who publicly bad-mouth the judicial system 'impinge upon the respect' of the Court of Appeal or any court of justice and can be cited for contempt of court ..."
If that's what she said, and assuming that's what she really meant, one hopes the eminent justice is cognizant of the fact that those words can easily be interpreted as a threat to freedom of expression.
If that's what she said, and assuming that's what she really meant, one hopes the eminent justice is cognizant of the fact that those words can easily be interpreted as a threat to freedom of expression.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Larry Smith on Crime - I've got an easy solution, but Pardon me, Larry, is that a bias showing?
Larry Smith writes, as usual, an eminently well considered article on the subject of crime. Read it here: What to do About Crime in the Bahamas
We flap our gums a lot about all this, and there is just too much navel gazing (Larry quotes the repeated commissions and study groups).
All that is needed is to enforce the law. Period. It's one thing that is not done in the Bahamas.
Last week heading to the Airport took us from 7:50 am to 9:20 am to travel about 13 miles. During that drive we watched repeatedly as cars pulled out from the lines and flew up the right hand lanes. In one instance when they reached the intersection there was a policeman there directing traffic. All he did was come over and speak to the driver, who was then allowed to peel off into the traffic to repeat the offense once more.
That's just one example. Most of my Bahamian readers can reel off countless others.
So I repeat ... unless and until we are willing to enforce the law AND to allow ourselves to be subjected to said enforcement, we can forget about all the other theoretical solutions out there.
What reduced crime in New York? Zero tolerance. What will reduce crime in the Bahamas? Same t'ing bro'!
By the way ... Larry quoted a pretty shaky statistical correlation in his article between Societal Health and Popular Religiosity from the Journal of Religion and Society. Wasn't it Mark Twain who quoted Disraeli as saying there are three types of untruth - lies, damn lies, and statistics? (Check out this book from 1954 updated in 1982: How to Lie with Statistics )
Unfortunately, as usual, even the most basic of personal experiences can counteract their implied claim that religion is somehow detrimental to society. As much as one might want to malign the correlation between crime and "fundamental" religious belief, in my experience the most religious areas of, e.g., the US are the safest. Iowa, anyone?
Is there perhaps something else at play which is not even detected due to the established bias of the "statisticians"??
Let's not forget, please, that much of what we take for granted in modern society is the result of "religious" campaigning.
Go no farther than the influence (sadly unheralded as it still is) of William Wilberforce. Where would we be in terms of crime if we didn't have universally free education, for just one example.
Check out these books by Rodney Stark for an alternate view:
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and
Western Success
and
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations,
Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery
We flap our gums a lot about all this, and there is just too much navel gazing (Larry quotes the repeated commissions and study groups).
All that is needed is to enforce the law. Period. It's one thing that is not done in the Bahamas.
Last week heading to the Airport took us from 7:50 am to 9:20 am to travel about 13 miles. During that drive we watched repeatedly as cars pulled out from the lines and flew up the right hand lanes. In one instance when they reached the intersection there was a policeman there directing traffic. All he did was come over and speak to the driver, who was then allowed to peel off into the traffic to repeat the offense once more.
That's just one example. Most of my Bahamian readers can reel off countless others.
So I repeat ... unless and until we are willing to enforce the law AND to allow ourselves to be subjected to said enforcement, we can forget about all the other theoretical solutions out there.
What reduced crime in New York? Zero tolerance. What will reduce crime in the Bahamas? Same t'ing bro'!
By the way ... Larry quoted a pretty shaky statistical correlation in his article between Societal Health and Popular Religiosity from the Journal of Religion and Society. Wasn't it Mark Twain who quoted Disraeli as saying there are three types of untruth - lies, damn lies, and statistics? (Check out this book from 1954 updated in 1982: How to Lie with Statistics )
Unfortunately, as usual, even the most basic of personal experiences can counteract their implied claim that religion is somehow detrimental to society. As much as one might want to malign the correlation between crime and "fundamental" religious belief, in my experience the most religious areas of, e.g., the US are the safest. Iowa, anyone?
Is there perhaps something else at play which is not even detected due to the established bias of the "statisticians"??
Let's not forget, please, that much of what we take for granted in modern society is the result of "religious" campaigning.
Go no farther than the influence (sadly unheralded as it still is) of William Wilberforce. Where would we be in terms of crime if we didn't have universally free education, for just one example.
Check out these books by Rodney Stark for an alternate view:
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and
Western Success
and
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations,
Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
