2 Oct 2010

A Volney and a Max–same thing

I don’t know how many remembered Max’s apology over the Integrity Commission affair.
Apparently he set a standard then for waffling*. So along comes Volney and voilà! We have a repeat of bullshit. Of course, as with any bullshit flung, some people were taken in.
"He could have made a more wholehearted apology and it would have been to his credit. What you have here is a half of a loaf, which is better than none in my view," Seetahal said.
Then again, Seetahal is to be taken with a whole lot of salt if you know what I mean. The other PNM beneficiary has, thankfully, refrained from commenting [on the issue] at the moment.
Senior Counsel Israel Khan withheld commenting since he wanted the opportunity to view the Hansard.
"Having regard to what the Minister said, I will have to get an extraction from the Hansard to see exactly what he (Volney) said and will have to look at the tapes to see how he said it," Khan said.
What Volney said on September 16 (an extract of the important part):
Jumbies_watch_2010-10-02_volney_apology_001Mr Speaker, I am here today for the reason that I grew to discover that speaking to the one in the exalted office was akin to speaking to John Jeremie; the then Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. Mr Speaker, it seemed to me as though the two were the same. During the period leading up to "Kamla day"—that day of redemption for the nation, May 24th, 2010—it became clear to me that the then Attorney General was involving himself more and more in the business of the Judiciary, in a way straddling the line of the Montesquieun concept of the separation of powers, and covertly undermining the independence of the Judiciary.
All I wish to add on this occasion of pleasantries is that the occupation of the mansion at Goodwood Park became the quiet subject within the Judiciary of discontent, given its cost to taxpayers, that the preceding Chief Justices had the great humility to live in their own residences, thereby saving taxpayers the cost of supporting opulence in hundreds of thousands of dollars each year at a time of thrift for the nation, and the rest of the pack grumbled at the housing pittance allowed them.
That was a sweetheart deal, Mr Speaker, between the then Attorney General—and do not tell me that Members opposite, including the Member for San Fernando East, was unaware of the sharing of opulent ways at a time of thrift in the nation.
I just want to point out that, if as Volney said, he was referring to the AG the words “the one in the exalted office was akin to speaking to John Jeremie” belies this. Or, he is then insulting Anand Ramlogan, present AG. ‘Akin’ means similar, not the same. So akin to John Jeremie cannot possibly be John Jeremie, which leaves Ramlogan.
One can then conclude, if not meaning Ramlogan, that the exalted office referred to the CJ. Also supporting this are the words “the preceding Chief Justices had the great humility to live in their own residences” which again point to the present CJ (preceding means coming before).
Yes, Volney may argue cream rises to the top – but so do turds.
I have an appointment now that is really urgent, but I hope to get back to this later on…
  • When someone talks about nothing in particular that ends up not making much sense.
  • Adding confusing/meaningless words into your speech to
    1) Inflate the show time, or
    2) Cover the fact that you don't have an idea.