Usain Bolt: The World's Fastest Man

Gi Dem Donkey Lents Usain




On Sunday Morning I awoke to the great news. Usain Bolt is now the fastest man in the world. Wow! It made my heart swell with pride. Usain accomplished this mighty feat in what was essentially a preparation race for his better events, the 200 and 400m. This means he wasn’t even trying to set a record, yet he did. That makes it phenomenal.

My pride was even larger when I realized that another Jamaican champion, Osafa Powell, was the previously fastest man last year. We are producers of athletic champions - Drug and hormone free. We are unrivaled in this prodigiousness. Who can test?

I was not totally surprised because I had read of his achievement at the Jamaica Invitational earlier. I thought then that he had it in him to do great things, but I was thinking Olympic gold medal and apparently so was he. In his modest tone, he stated that while it feels good to be the world’s fastest man, he is mindful of the fleeting nature of that glory. True, as he says, his record can be broken at any time. He is looking to the more lasting memorial of Olympic gold. I appreciate his reasoning. All the world watches the Olympics and your name is written in the history books for posterity. I hope he achieves this, but for now I will bask in the reflection off his glow and feel good about being a Jamaican.

People are excited and of course many now hope that he will do the 100 at the Olympics too. I hope he makes a wise decision and does the events he feels most comfortable with.

Congratulations Bolt. I am now even more excited for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Tyson Gay our boys going to whoop your ass. Watch Out!

No Place for Gay Men

A few days ago PM Golding declared to the world, via the BBC in England, that he would never allow a gay person to sit in his Cabinet. This opinion was widely hailed in Jamaica as a true show of strength and leadership by the PM. He was lauded for sticking to it the cultural imperialist who want to impose their views on Jamaica. Of course Jamaica, being a God fearing country, would have none of this.

My Opinion? I disagree. Bruce Golding represents the people of Jamaica and should encourage legislation and government that represents the interest of all its citizens. The laws in Jamaica prohibit discrimination. Golding by these words has just expressed a disregard for the law of the land even while touting the law that says that buggery is illegal. True it is illegal, but like so many other politically inconvenient issues the law being used as an excuse for inertia. Former PM Patterson infamously stated that the law is not a shackle, and then went on to declare an impromptu National Holiday to celebrate the Reggae Boyz success in their World Cup march. Patterson is right. The law is not a shackle it is a tool to be judiciously and justly to the benefit of the citizens of a country, and if the Reggae Boyz and Jamaica could enjoy the fluidity of the law so too can this segment of the population. From where I sit gay rights are human rights as surely as women, children and black people have rights. I always hasten to remind people that not too long the law allowed slavery, treated women and children as property and denied the vote to everyone including white people unless you were a white male of a certain amount of property value. The law changed. These anti-gay laws can change too. The law is not a shackle.

However, in order to change laws politicians must be able to take unpopular positions and demonstrate leadership. It also requires the expense of some political capital. In these days of political pandering no politician is going to show such leadership or expend such capital, and causes that that are definitely unpopular will go nowhere. I would hope that we could have more politicians in Jamaica that are willing to buck the populist trend and institute reforms that gives more protection to their gay and lesbian citizens. These men and women work as hard as anyone else and their money is just as green. They contribute to the economy, their families and the country. They should have some protection and equality under the law. I find it strange that in Jamaica’s bible thumping society, so bent upholding the ways of the bible, that criminals can murder people in front of large crowds and walk away without being fingered, but a gay man can’t walk down the street without fear of being beaten to death by a mob. I find it strange that the music glorifies gunmen, dons and bad boys but denigrates gay individuals with threats against their lives and property. The masses sing and dance and extol the bad man tunes, lifting their figurative guns to the air as they big up the scourges most often identified as the biggest sources of problem in Jamaica, the bad man. They also do the same when the selector asks them to voice their disapproval of gays. No, they must never be allowed to walk in the dance, and you should never associate with people of that kind. But I wonder when the schools are closed down from violence, and mothers hold their head and cry from losing a son or daughter to crime, when people run in the night from their burning houses in the midst of rival gang warfare, when grandmothers are killed on their doorstep and children cower under their beds hiding from men running through the backyard who the culprits are. I’ve never heard of any gay going on a crime rampage. Still we big up the gunman and denigrate the gays. I find this incompatible with my religious views about the sanctity of life.

When I had this discussion with my friend in Barbados she said I had been living in the US for too long. Funny. I worked in DuPont circle for a while and that is one of the gayest places you could ever set foot in. During my lunch breaks on warm spring days I would eat lunch in the park. There, milling about openly and unashamedly, were all kinds of gay couples - Men, Women, Transsexuals, Black, White and Asians. At first it was a shock to sit on a park bench and see too men holding hands and sharing a salad but after awhile I didn’t even notice. In Tallahassee, there were many female cross dressers who I couldn’t even tell until after careful consideration that they were women. I was the target of some of their pick up attempts and I know people who cry bloody murder for this kind of thing but after the shock of it I just didn’t care. I know I’m not gay and they could never turn me gay so who cares. It’s just someone else to turn down. I don’t think my friend was right though, it’s not that I’ve become desensitized, it’s just that their lifestyle doesn’t affect me. I think my energies are better spent on things that matter and those who would do real harm to society.

Now here in the US California has legalized gay marriage and America continues to discuss where they want to go on the issue. I don’t support gay marriage. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I support civil unions and the rights of gays in those relationships. That's not US desensitization, it’s just my view of human rights.

Additionally, I am one of those of the opinion that being gay is not uniformly a lifestyle choice. I understand the biology of how gender and sexual preference is determined and understand from science that people occupy a wide spectrum along this path. People may have fully functional and developed male genitalia but have genetic codes mixing male and female. Hormones released during pregnancy could cause an excessive amount of exposure to a biological female that makes her more like man in personality and sexual preference. It’s a fact of life, these things happen. I could no more discriminate against someone because of their skin colour, or their sickle cell condition, both caused by genes, than I could someone who is gay.

My mom, little sister and I had a discussion on these very same issues and she told me of her recent visit to a department store. MY little sis pointed out a male cross dresser to her. Uncertain but curious they trailed this man around the store so they could get a good look. When the man turned and they got their look they ran off bewildered. My sister, she fell on the floor laughing. My mom, a very conservative woman who has never before witnessed any of this kind of thing, was bewildered. She ended bent over laughing and crying at the same time. She felt pity for someone who would make himself look so appalling to go out in public. We both asked why anyone would choose a life of such suffering if they could help it. She supports Bruce Golding and his Cabinet policy. However, after our discussion of the legal, human rights, biblical and cultural aspects and biological science of the matter she acknowledged her agreement with me that most of these people need sympathy and understanding.

A Pastor friend of mine discussed the apparent biological and biblical conflict of gayness. I asked him why God would allow anyone to be made/ born gay and then have to spend their whole lives as condemned beings, fighting their biological natures. He reminded me that God gives us all challenges to bear and overcome in our lives, being gay is one of them. He says that not because you are gay (and God gave you these genetic predispositions) means you have to succumb to these impulses. He says we have freedom of choice and can exercise control over these desires through prayer and a relationship with God. My relationship with God is complicated right now, so I still am thinking about that one.

Health Care Reform - Freeness, Quality and Equity

It has been a long while since I have updated my blog. It’s not there haven’t been things of interest occurring in my life and the world; it’s just been that I have been a bit lazy and distracted. This post may have already been blogged to death, but here is my 2 cents worth on health care reform.

I recently watched a very interesting documentary called “Sick Around the World” on PBS. It compared the Healthcare system of the US to the developed countries of Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland and the UK. You may view the summary of findings here. The healthcare debate is raging here in the US Presidential elections as Americans clamor for a reformed system that is more affordable and responsive. Despite the broken system, most Americans abhor the idea of “socialized medicine” as practiced in Europe. The candidates have put forward their suggestion and unsurprisingly, the Republican John McCain is still advocating the continuation of a failed market based system. The democrats are somewhat better in their proposals, and despite the fear of “socialized medicine” propose plans drawing on features practiced in Europe. Hillary Clinton supports government mandated “Universal Health Care” where Americans will be required to purchase health insurance, facilitated by lower prices, with penalties that might include garnishing of wages for those who don’t. Barack Obama, supports lowering premium costs to allow more person to purchase portable insurance and access care in a system with reduced costs and improved services. He asserts that only those who don’t want to purchase health insurance would not have it. He essentially sees the issue as a problem of costs, not of will, and therefore would not institute a government mandate. In reality there is very little difference in the details between the democrats’ plans. They essentially share the same goals and strategies but seem to differ mainly on the issue of the mandate.

From the documentary I learned that US ranked highest amongst the countries in patient satisfaction but still had the most expensive system. It also appeared to have the most inequitable system of the industrialized countries. Among other things the costs are high and represent a significant and rising share of wages, patients with pre-existing conditions are routinely denied care and health insurance is not portable thus leaving or losing a job means you are without insurance. It is not uncommon for people to go bankrupt over healthcare costs. All the other countries basically found the notion of people going bankrupt to pay for health care ridiculous and alien. Starting from the point of view that health care is a fundamental human right that a government is obligated to provide to its citizens, these countries have designed various systems that guarantee affordable and access to quality care. The overarching features appear to be government set prices aimed at affordability not profitability. The ways people pay into the system vary from universal taxation managed by the government in the UK, to buying into non-profit “sickness funds” in Germany – home of socialized healthcare, and mandated health insurance purchase in Japan. In these countries those who can’t afford to pay are subsidized by the government. At the end of the day all the citizens have access to medicines, doctors and medical procedures. Additionally, the administrative costs are lower, record keeping is comprehensive and few have gate keepers in the form of doctors who must refer you to specialist before you can access those services. Gate keepers tend to raise the delivery cost and I find them to be a waste of time. In Japan you can go to any specialist as often as you like. This is good but there is no comprehensive medical history. In Britain, they reduce costs by encouraging preventative medicine. However, they are paid from the National Health System, not the individual patient as in the US. Switzerland has “frilly stuff” like massage therapy and spa treatments. But if it sounds frivolous just consider that the citizens of Switzerland and these other countries also have a longer life expectancy than the US and no doubt Jamaica.

These systems aren’t without their problems though. The doctors, highly trained specialist, do not feel adequately compensated and do not enjoy the rich lifestyles of their counterparts in the US. In Germany doctors were protesting the wages and a few in Japan complained that their businesses were unable to turn a profit because of prices being set by the government. The price of medicine, equipment and insurance were not reflective of the market situation. They are set by the government to eliminate competitive pricing and keep the system “affordable”. I wondered why doctors would continue to practice under such a system and although the documentary did not directly address this, there were references to a few individuals seeking more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. My own naïve opinion is that some people just continue out of love and duty. I couldn’t think of anything else.

Meanwhile, Jamaica has moved ahead with its plan of offering free healthcare to all its citizens. I commend Jamaica for its bold stance on providing healthcare as matter of human right and its acknowledgement of the role this plays in human development. I expect that if properly managed, this will undoubtedly contribute to our national development. However, I wonder about the efficacy of the new system. Worthy of note is that all these other developed countries commissioned studies to look at the best of the best systems around the world. They took the good, left out the bad and adopted it to their countries needs and abilities to produce a system that worked for them. I have not heard of any such thing in the Jamaican system and while I hope that this is just due to poor media reporting I seriously doubt that that is the case. The news of budget scrambling and tax increases that had to be enacted to pay for the system seems to bear this out. This does not sound like the most efficient and sustainable way to carry out of reform such a large magnitude and importance.

The Jamaican system was, and is still, seriously broken. The abolition of the user fees benefits the poorest in the Jamaican society and, according to The Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), because it contributed little to the overall Health budget the government can make up the shortfall elsewhere. That might be true but CaPRI, the other experts, practitioners in the field and me all agree that we need to consider is that what we need is a system that is not only “free” but efficient and of a high quality. Free access to hospitals with insufficient nurses, doctors, beds and medical supplies is not really a substantial improvement in healthcare delivery. The two, healthcare quality and access, must work together if the overall system is to improve and people are to truly benefit. Until then Jamaica will continue to have a dual system of the haves of the have-nots. Those who can afford to will continue to use the private option, and those who can’t, will endure the inefficient government system. Truly, it is better than nothing, but this duality has no place in a society where everyone is equal and should be treated as such. The least fortunate in our society should have care as good as the most fortunate. That’s how human rights work – everyone is equal.

I advocate that Jamaica does the prudent thing and examine the systems of other countries to determine what works and what doesn’t. We don’t need to reinvent a non-functioning wheel, laboring stupidly over a broken system with hodgepodge solutions instead of implementing sensible tested solutions. I haven’t heard anything of bringing more payers into the system to spread the cost burden. There is no word of using technology to reduce administrative costs through information linkage, storage and sharing systems. The shortage of doctor’s in an open market system like Jamaica’s leads to higher prices, poor care and overworked doctors. The government has plans to recruit and train more doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. This should increase access and reduce costs. This is a long term plan though, and the government must seriously consider training these professionals while absorbing some of the costs and compensating through bonding them to public service, somewhat like they did for nurses. Additionally, I don’t necessarily advocate price setting but a review of costs for medical services should be conducted to ensure that they are fairly priced. Generally, facilities need to be improved, machinery installed and specialized services expanded. I am no healthcare policy professional but free healthcare is just a start and Jamaica needs to seriously consider how to improve the entire system.

At the end of the documentary it was noted that the US has a disjointed system, offering “separate systems for separate classes of people”. Jamaica faces a similar dilemma. It also notes that while the plans of the US Presidential candidates represent some improvement they are not comprehensive enough, and they need to contemplate more seriously the successful examples of other countries. I agree with the documentary and believe that both countries need a system that serves everyone equally, fairly and cheaply.