Latest update April 5th, 2025 5:50 AM
Jul 23, 2008 Features / Columnists
The Parrot was repacking his bookshelf a few days ago and in doing so stumbled on an old Physics text book. In perusing it, I refreshed myself on Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion.
The first law is that a body will remain in a state of inertia unless acted upon by an external force; the second is that F=MA (Force=Mass x Acceleration) and the third is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This immediately directed my thought process to the banning of the Main City News reporter, GO-MO, from the New Garden Arena and the House of State. This ban can be seen from a scientific perspective.
When considering the third law, the action taken by Uncle Bharrat seems natural. GO-MO’s action through his letter, like any other action, will have a reaction.
In this case, the reaction is the ban; a reaction that has not found favour with GO-MO and his team.
Should I believe that they, GO-MO and team, having acted, expected no reaction? If this is the case, then it would be in defiance of one of the Laws of Motion and by extension, nature.
Is it that their expected reaction to GO-MO’s action should have been no reaction from Uncle B? Is it that only GO-MO and team are entitled to perform an action?
In applying the first law to the same issue, it can be deduced that prior to GO-MO’s letter, Uncle B was in a state of inertia in relation to him even contemplating any such action that led to the eventual ban.
In other words, he, Uncle B, would have never moved to implement a ban had it not been for GO-MO’s letter; a letter which was the external force.
In Physics, it is known that when an object or body is subjected to force, a possible outcome is movement if the force is enough to overcome friction.
Again, using this law, Uncle B had to “move”. GO-MO and team are dissatisfied with the position taken by Uncle B following his movement.
Is it that GO-MO and team having known that “movement” was inevitable, wanted to determine the final position? Again, if Uncle B had not moved after being forced, the Laws of Motion, and by extension nature, would have been contravened.
In other words, the first law makes it impossible for him, Uncle B, not to move. Is it that GO-MO and team having applied the “force” expected no “movement”? They would be naïve to think so.
The second law explains the intensity of the force (F) that led to Uncle B’s eventual “movement”. That force, F, is a product of Mostly Antagonism (MA) which emanated from GO-MO’s letter. Given that F=MA, it is clear that an increase in antagonism would result in an increase in intensity of force.
Further, it is pellucid, that Uncle B, like any other person, has the right to react in ways he seems appropriate to any action. Any expectation contrary to this is similar in action to that of the proverbial Ostrich.
How then can GO-MO’s ban in his personal capacity and in the context of Newton’s Laws, be seen as oppressing freedom of the press when his media outfit is not prevented from providing coverage?
Is it that because he, GO-MO, is not allowed at the two places mentioned, that there is no freedom of the press?
Given that all the media houses can freely operate, despite GO-MO’s ban, how can this be interpreted as stifling freedom of expression?
Is it that GO-MO and team expect to be treated differently? Maybe Newton’s laws should be revised to facilitate them. Don’t they wish?
Squawk! Squawk!
Apr 05, 2025
…19 teams to vie for top honours Kaieteur Sports- Basketball teams from around the world will be in action this weekend, when the ‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest gets underway. Competing for a...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There exists, tucked away on the margin of maps and minds, a country that has perfected... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]