trininoob - Tumblr blog

[trininoob]

2 schools of though, either he didnt pay his cloud service bills or he mess up code trying to block people from seeing twitter content without logging in. Both stupid reasons

[trininoob]

Manosphere, from my side of the fence

Really couldn't think of a title for this but to me, the "manosphere" is really just an unhealthy expression of the vulnerability, aniexty and fears of men in a changing relations landscape that they project on to women. Make no mistake, men are also afraid of dying alone. And since several studies point to the fact that married men tend to do better, its no surprise this response to women's agency has been generated. Think about it, how do you construct an entire industry around talking about something if you're not concerned about it? Like one of the main focusses of the manosphere is to "dunk on" women, putting them "in their place", giving them the "red pill" and "not simping". Kevin Samuels and Andrew tate are probably the two most popular leaders of this cause, spreading the gospel of convenient conservative thinking whenever they can.

If one examines some of the things they do or say, you could clearly see the patriarchal and capitalist vein that flows through their talking points and work. The need for men to aspire to great wealth, the need for women to hold on to ideas of female purity and submissiveness, the focus on some women's fears of aging alone, the excusing of men cheating as "normal" often citing ridiculous comparisons (kings, knights conquerors) that most millennial men cant even dream to compare to (and nor should they). This is simply because the manosphere is a reactionary cause, its purpose is for the preservation of the status quo and since women are the ones leading revolutionary practice, it is designed in an attempt to break them.

The manosphere does not construct a new paradigm for men to examine themselves in their relation to women in a healthier way. On the contrary, it strips the relations of all nuance, making it almost purely transactional in capitalist tendency. The relations the manosphere desires is not partnership but dominance, its why it always talks about great men with great wealth as examples or codes of how men should live their lives. It wants to double down on the status quo and maintain patriarchal standards and expectations. Its why it has constructed new heirarchies for men to police themselves:

1) high value man 2) alpha male 3) sigma male (if you dont want to sound like a tool but the jig is up, you do)

most men would never achieve the aforementioned status and any analogies cited that seeks to compare millenial men to kings, conequerors, etc are useless.

Its also killing us. because to examine things in this almost transactional way that is a pathway to dominance and not partnership must continuously suppress the empathetic, emotional sides that reside in us. This same lack of empathy and emotion along with overwork from having to achieve the high value man status would only lead to men continuing to be the social group with the highest suicide rate.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. What I'm saying is that we as men need to properly investigate why women are divorcing us or turning away from us at increased rates and not speak from a reactionary standpoint that may do us more harm in the long run. It requires dialogue, conversation and investigation. It may require breaking some historically long held concepts like marriage has to last forever, or you have to be in a monogamous relationship or its ok for you to be stoic no matter what, or that its fine for you to show your love in your own way and that is the only thing that matters and not how the person receives that love as well. I think we would be a lot better off with those conversations as men certainly than what they talk about in the manosphere.

[trininoob]

think im gonna write on the commission of enquiry proceedings when i get a chance.

[trininoob]

Mandates. Who Owns Them?

Considering the news yesterday that 13 members of the THA executive resigned along with 2 councillors, the question of political mandate has been brought to the fore. This critical issue is particularly challenging considering our strict adherence to the West-Minster system and our legacy of typically voting for political parties that present a manifesto/mandate.

Let me be clear. There are no "independents" in the THA executive. This scenario is only possible because of ANR Robinson, who himself, probably could have never forseen a scenario like this. Let's stop that foolishness right now. People saying that are relying on maybe legal definitions but for all intents and purposes, and in the practical public view, everybody understands that the 15 ex PDP members are being lead by Farley Augustine and his deputy Chief Secretary, Dr. Faith B Yisrael. While it would be nice to think of a THA executive where people have no allegiance to each other and everyone makes decisions for the benefit of their community primarily, that is not what is happening here. everyone would take their directive from the chief secretary. The only way this idea of "independents" running the THA could hold up is if that is how they went into office. But it is not, and that is what has lead to this crisis of morality and ethics. Simply put, Farley and his team would have been active members of the PDP when drafting their social contract and committing to the people of Tobago. They would have also developed a mandate. This mandate is a political one that they would have then had to translate into executive policy upon winning the elections. This mandate would have also been developed under the leadership of their now former political leader, Watson Duke. So now the question comes, who owns the mandate? the party as an institution? or the people that helped craft it and bring it to life? does it remain with the political leader? or does it leave when most of the people who drafted the policy left?

Personally, i don't think there is a right or wrong answer for this. I think its up to each individual to decide. However, I would give my opinion on the matter. Let us deal with the facts. Farley and his colleagues left the PDP. You have a THA executive now that does not have a mandate or any representative documentation that the people of Tobago can refer to. This is nothing short of a political crisis. I say this because Watson Duke's vision would have been an integral part of the PDP mandate from before. This executive cant be expected to just continue a PDP mandate with Watson's vision while operating "independently" outside of the PDP. They have to clearly define deliverables which they cant be evaluated on. There have already been murmurings about how the PDP was not what it promised it to be and therefore you could now have an executive with no mandate hiding behind the constitution while they impose any new mandate on the Tobagonian people. This is simply an unethical way to approach governance. There would have been people who voted for all members of the executive because of watson duke and vice versa. You are now forcing those people to stick with you no matter what. Nothing good come from that. An essential part of good governance is "Buy in" from the public. At this point in time, no matter how inadequate it is, the only mechanism we have to measure "buy in" is the vote and it should be respected. The public, above all are the true holders and benefactors of the mandate as they hold politicians to account.

The only person that could call an election is the chief secretary. he has shown that he is not afraid to follow an ethical line in the face of grave difficulty. I hope he continues along that path.

[trininoob]

Water more than Flour: Crisis of the TT Working Class

The latest iteration of the PNM government headed by Kieth Cristopher Rowley has presented many challenges to local unions and by extension the working class since 2015.

They first moved aggressively against the OWTU and Petrotrin workers to close the refinery. This move was not supported by the either the Lashley committee or HSB Solomon and Associates+ McKinsey and Company Inc. The report from the latter was never laid in parliament. It would be reasonable to assume that the report would have presented a roadblock to the PNM's plans of liberalizing the creation of petroleum products such as gas, kerosene, bitumen, etc.

This was aided by local media who offered little pushback to government's narrative. None of the media sought to get their hands on the HSB report and publish what the recommendations were. They just published government figures and propaganda villainizing Petrotrin workers as unquestionable gospel. While they did report on the positions of the union and other opposing parties, IMO, it fell well below the standard of objective journalism to find the truth and help the public make informed decisions.

Having secured the destruction of Petrotrin with little working class resistance and winning the 2020 election, assisted greatly by the setup of dangling the sale of the refinery to the OWTU's Patriotic Energies, the PNM then swiftly moved on to focus on WASA, TTEC, TSTT and the public sector at large. A major WASA reform was announced and TTEC reform was teased. Petrol Gas subsidies were gradually reduced annually with NO PROPOSALS FOR WAGE INCREASES (I'll get back to this later on) . Property taxes were UNFAIRLY introduced for RESIDENTIAL OWNERS FIRST with businesses due to pay their property taxes later on in the implementation of the scheme.

These changes, along with the COVID pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war have lead to a crisis for the working class in Trinidad and Tobago. While Minister of Finance, Colm Imbert continues to peddle his speeches of economic recovery, interestingly, he continues to focus on macro-economic numbers such as GDP or GDP per capita. It is my humble opinion that these figures are useless for workers as they do not reflect the day to day purchasing power that workers have. Some key figures workers should demand to see are the mean and median wages for workers and the purchasing power for workers over time. Workers need to see how their dollars stack up against the market. Maybe the esteemed economists who were singing for their supper as the "middle class of TandT", begging for scraps from our capitalist overlords could provide some insight on this.

Naturally, being the opportunists they are, the PNM decided to engage in negotiations with unions in their second term, almost a decade late for most workers. Hoping to take advantage of the pandemic and economic downturn the government offered workers a 2% increase across the board for government workers citing "Country Stability and not wanting to go to the IMF". This was rejected out of hand by most unions and the government returned with a 4% offer. The PNM decided the workers of TT would pay for the country's adjustment disproportionally.

Seeing the impending doom for public sector workers, unions correctly banded together to present a united front under the Joint Trade Union movement against the state, but it was quite clear that they were not willing to go the distance, continuously calling for more "dialogue" time and time again. Some may argue that this was a reasonable position. In theory, and with governments that are innovative and negotiate in good faith I would agree. However, this PNM administration had already struck a crippling blow to the OWTU at this point that should have made it clear to everyone involved that this administration was not fucking around. They were out to impose their will relentlessly and unilaterally. They couldn't care less about worker support.

The repeated calls for dialogue and marches with poor turnouts was the trigger the PNM needed to aggressively pursue this 4% wage policy. They ended the consultative process prematurely and took the matter to the tribunals in the industrial court. Confident off of their win against the TTEC workers, where they gleefully imposed a 0% wage increase on them, the government carefully analyzed and assessed its situation and went in for the kill. Firstly, they could take advantage of a piss poor judiciary that is filled with delays. Justice delayed is justice denied, workers can't wait and struggle forever and would be more incentivized to accept a 4% as time went on. Tribunal-> court of appeal->privy council is a very long time. Secondly, as mentioned before, they believe they could peddle the "stability and imf" to the industrial court. Thirdly, they could take advantage of a working class beaten into submission by the effects of neoliberal policies for decades. worker consciousness and class solidarity isn't what it was (there are reasons for that but i dont have the range for that conversation), also the Prime Minister has been very potent in selling austerity to workers with his "conversations with the prime minister" that he has on a regular basis. Fourthly, not all union leadership is the same, take AWGU for example, they were the first to capitulate under Michael Prentice and it wasn't only that, they misrepresented their position to their fellow unions telling them one thing and doing another. On the flip side, the former TTUTA leader, Antonia De Freitas was militant, urging teachers to take days of "rest and reflection" and urging workers to engage in just collective action until she was stopped by a court order. This brings me to the fifth point, law. the government has the law on their side with respect to public sector workers. The anti-union law designed to break class and worker solidarity prevents public sector workers from engaging in strike action as they are an "essential service". It compels the workers to accept anything the government gives them.

Since AWGU's capitulation, 3 other worker bodies have joined them in accepting the 4% offer. This definitely would not hurt the government's case in the courts. As an engineer, trained to deal with worst cast scenarios, design fail safes and find solutions. i think of this as a system that has gone wrong and needs correction. Assuming that the government would be successful in imposing the 4% wage increase on workers (hoping for the best but preparing for the worst), we need to chart a course forward afterwards. How do we build unions back before they're perceived as useless by the working class. We are seeing a rise in class consciousness all over the globe (UK france spain US), why are we not seeing that here? what lessons are to be learned? how do we transform unionized action into political action and break down the barriers between union and policis.

The following are my initial thoughts on how to go about doing this: 1) The first step is acknowledging that we have a problem with working class consciousness in Trinidad and Tobago. We need to have a nationwide conversation starting with unionized workers and then extending that to non unionized workers. Unions need to understand why they have lost their appeal to workers and the public at large. why would so many people say "what the union good for?". there needs to be soul searching, we cant assume "its cuz rowley lying to the people" or "they don't know better".

2) Splitting of of unions into multiple federations needs to end. at this point the history of the separation of unions into different bodies is mute compared to the threat faced. the time for separation is over. We are dealing with a new phase of capitalist, neoliberalism and it is only through complete solidarity that we could ever hope of overcoming this

3) Unions MUST become political forces to secure the interest of the working class. if the PNM administration is going to use the law as a weapon to dismantle collective action and the working class wants to remain on the right side of the law, then the only option available is to take political power and remove the mechanisms of oppression through working class parties and lobby for the working class or change it outright if we get enough seats. Some unions in the UK (and recently in the US) draw clear political lines for their members. workers must be actively encouraged to vote as a block. 4) ^building off the last point, unions must work at dismantling the separation in workers minds between their union and political action. There is already a party created by a former union leader on the local landscape, the MSJ. They are already building coalitions and grass roots connections. This is a terrific start and we must advocate for people to move in this direction. 5) Unions and working class political parties must advocate for campaign finance reform and changes in the electoral system that would be more democratic and make it easier for independents + grass roots politicians

6) unions and working class political parties must develop and engage in mutual aid schemes for workers and communities. They should develop "funds for struggle", to minimize effects of labor struggle against capitalist overlords and also assist the most vulnerable.

In conclusion, now is the time for solidarity, reflection and intensive action from the working class lead by unions and working class political parties that have the organizational and mobilizational structure built in. If we keep on losing, we may run out of chances to lose, completely dead in the water forever.

[trininoob]

First Post, All Systems Go! Let's see how this goes...