24 Sep 2010

Time to take the blinkers off

Whilst racking my brain this morning for a topic to blog about, I was rescued by the dunceys. As always.

I was of a mind to blog about the blindness or tunnel vision of party supporters as evidenced over the past 2 or 3 days on the forums of both Express and Guardian. If you look at the comments, you can see where persons support, donkey-styled blinker fashion, either the PP or the PNM. Hardly are we seeing where someone recognises that just because the PNM was corrupt and wasted money through corruption and cronyism/nepotism that this is no reason for the PP to do the same.

Instead, what I am seeing are excuses for allowing the PP to get away with similar tactics, as long as the corruption/cronyism/nepotism is less. Again I say, 2 wrongs cannot make a right.

Like I pointed out once:

If one person breaks the law, does this mean that he or she should not be prosecuted because 199 others did it and have not been? No, it means that steps should be taken to pursue the other 199, even though one may argue that pursuing the one is victimising him.

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

…but when one is in public office, one must be careful as to what gifts one can or cannot receive.

Read also that last line as “… what gifts one can or cannot present”  and you will have an idea as to the current situation of Anand Ramlogan handing out largesse to friends and/or family. One person even went so far to mention:

I would think that in the absence of any specific law, or a fixed schedule of fees, retaining briefs from "friends" and "family" may not be illegal, unless some kind of fraud was perpetrated, or there are grossly inflated fees in excess of stipulated guidelines.

To this I respond as follows:

The law is not infallible. There are case law and statute and more specifically the latter attempts to correct 'loopholes' in the law by amendments to legislation. Just because something is legally correct does not mean it is right. Case in point: do you remember P**rick changing the law to facilitate the $110M transfer of shares to Andre Monteil? Legally - correct; morally and ethically - wrong. He even promised the money will be repaid... was it ever?

Just because the PNM did it (any particular action), is not reason for Ramlogan or the PP to do it. Just because they spend less on cronyism and nepotism than the PNM is no reason to sanction it.

Somehow, when I read these views I remember my neighbour’s donkey and the blinkers he wore when taken out. The donkey therefore could only see one direction when he turned his head. By the way, the comments on that last link are also applicable to my point on why 2 wrongs don’t make a right… and on tunnel vision too… be sure and read the relevance in the comments rather than the situation please, before making claims that the 2 subject matters are different.

I turn now to the preposterous idea that Kamla is only firing Afro-Trinis from high positions. First was the guy from ODPM, then Philbert, and now the Joseph from SAUTT. Have we forgotten the Goan is gone? By the way, does anyone know if this Joseph is related to Martin Joseph?

Reason enough for the firing below:

However, commenting on the wire-tapping claims, a SAUTT source confirmed calls were monitored but said this was done to protect Persad-Bissessar.

Her conversations were monitored for threats and key words such as “kill”, “kidnap”, “murder”, “assault”, would have triggered a response from SAUTT, said the source.

The source admitted Persad-Bissessar was never told her phones were monitored.

The alternative to the PP firing the top persons who are only of one race is that… perhaps the PNM hired persons of only one race to top positions. Seems to me that this is where the source of the controversy comes from, not the actual firing itself. Still, one waits for the fanatics to argue.

Comments