Tweet
Reckless 'driver' crashes bus
Reckless 'driver' crashes bus
Published: Sunday | May 16, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Cooper
Carolyn Cooper, Contributor
Plato's famous image of governance as the honourable command of the ship of state has absolutely no currency in [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Jamaica[/COLOR][/COLOR] today. Thanks to the self-styled 'driver', Bruce Golding, the Jamaican state is now a crashed minibus. And all of us are accident victims.
Still desperately holding on to the steering wheel is a rogue driver who has violated every single rule of the road. Rumour has it that it's not even the PM who is in the driver's seat. It appears as if Golding is masquerading as the driver. He is being driven by a much more powerful force.
Jokes circulating on the Internet mockingly track the PM's demotion from driver to ductor and, finally, loader. How did the suave Mr Golding find himself at the wheel of a wreck? Was he on coke? Or did he get too high on ganja? Metaphorically speaking, of course. Whatever the stimulus, there seems to be consensus that the PM has taken leave of his senses.
There are calls for his driver's licence to be suspended indefinitely. There is even speculation that he may have bought the licence. The clamouring for his resignation is getting more and more strident.
Golding's futile attempt in Parliament last Tuesday to distinguish between his roles as (a) Prime Minister of Jamaica and (b) Leader of the Jamaica Labour Party in the contentious matter of the hiring of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is a classic case of doublespeak. Attempting to split himself in two, Mr Golding is deceiving only his double personality. No sane person buys the story. In their heart of hearts, not even die-hard JLP party supporters would really accept the distinction, in this instance, between a contract given to a law firm by the Government of Jamaica and by the Jamaica Labour Party.
Total lack of logic
Close reading of some of the sentences in Mr Golding's incredulous 'confession' to Parliament is revealing. Mr Golding states: "I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]governments[/COLOR][/COLOR] of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party, not by or on behalf of the Government."
Mr Golding explicitly states that the basis on which the "initiative" was sanctioned was that past interventions were negotiated between "governments of both countries." But Mr Golding also insists that the present initiative was not between governments. It was "undertaken by the party". The precedent of negotiations between governments cannot be used to justify the lobbying of US government officials by a non-government agent, the Jamaica Labour Party. Mr Golding simply cannot have it both ways. He is free to have his party engage lobbyists. But he cannot do so on the basis of irrelevant authority.
The total lack of logic in the following sentence is truly astounding: "Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false, as the party is fully aware of the source of these funds." The fact that the party knows the source of the funding is not a logical refutation of the claim that the source is, in fact, Christopher Coke. After all, the party may be 'fully aware' that the source is, indeed, Coke. To actually refute the claim, Mr Golding would have to be prepared to declare the alternative source of the funding and not just say that he knows the source.
Schoolboy debating
I think our prime minister is a victim of the duplicitous debating tactics he learned in high school. Conventional debates are based on the principle that you can manufacture an argument to support the most foolish claim. In the case of the internal debate between Mr Golding, prime minister, and Mr Golding, leader of the Jamaica Labour Party, the two Goldings are fighting a losing battle. Let's suppose that the moot is 'Be it resolved that in the matter of engaging Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Mr Golding, PM, is one and the same as Mr Golding, leader of the Jamaica Labour Party'.
Remember, it doesn't matter if the statement is true or not; it's just a debate.
Golding gone clear
If Mr Golding, as either PM or JLP leader, proposes the moot, 'him gone clear.' He will say something like this: "But of course I and I is one and the same. Jah Rastafari! Is because I and I is leader of the JLP that I and I is prime minister. My party, supported by wealthy patrons to whom I and I is obligated, won the elections and I and I automatically became PM. How do you expect I and I to distinguish between these roles? I and I cannot split I and I self in two and say, this minute I one is PM, next minute I two is leader of the JLP! I and I is just like the I-Three, except that is only two of I and I. In all my decisions, I and I is a rational man, acting coherently and unambiguously. Selassie I (and I)."
On the other hand, if Mr Golding, as either PM or JLP leader, is forced to oppose the moot, this is when the trouble starts. He has to maintain that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. He did not authorise the hiring of the law firm. In fact, he knew nothing at all about the affair. He will have to maintain the fiction that he is schizophrenic.
Whichever Mr Golding wins the debate, we, the helpless passengers on the minibus, are all the losers. We will be lucky to get out of the wreck with only broken bones. I certainly don't want to know that the driver of the minibus I'm on is in a permanent state of confusion about his identity.
I think it's time for Mr Golding to resolve the crisis that his split personality has precipitated.
He really should just voluntarily give up his licence and park himself far from the bus terminus. One thing he can be sure about is that he is definitely not qualified to function even as a loader.
Carolyn Cooper is professor ofliterary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Sunday | May 16, 2010 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Cooper
Carolyn Cooper, Contributor
Plato's famous image of governance as the honourable command of the ship of state has absolutely no currency in [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Jamaica[/COLOR][/COLOR] today. Thanks to the self-styled 'driver', Bruce Golding, the Jamaican state is now a crashed minibus. And all of us are accident victims.
Still desperately holding on to the steering wheel is a rogue driver who has violated every single rule of the road. Rumour has it that it's not even the PM who is in the driver's seat. It appears as if Golding is masquerading as the driver. He is being driven by a much more powerful force.
Jokes circulating on the Internet mockingly track the PM's demotion from driver to ductor and, finally, loader. How did the suave Mr Golding find himself at the wheel of a wreck? Was he on coke? Or did he get too high on ganja? Metaphorically speaking, of course. Whatever the stimulus, there seems to be consensus that the PM has taken leave of his senses.
There are calls for his driver's licence to be suspended indefinitely. There is even speculation that he may have bought the licence. The clamouring for his resignation is getting more and more strident.
Golding's futile attempt in Parliament last Tuesday to distinguish between his roles as (a) Prime Minister of Jamaica and (b) Leader of the Jamaica Labour Party in the contentious matter of the hiring of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is a classic case of doublespeak. Attempting to split himself in two, Mr Golding is deceiving only his double personality. No sane person buys the story. In their heart of hearts, not even die-hard JLP party supporters would really accept the distinction, in this instance, between a contract given to a law firm by the Government of Jamaica and by the Jamaica Labour Party.
Total lack of logic
Close reading of some of the sentences in Mr Golding's incredulous 'confession' to Parliament is revealing. Mr Golding states: "I sanctioned the initiative, knowing that such interventions have in the past proven to be of considerable value in dealing with issues involving the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]governments[/COLOR][/COLOR] of both countries. I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the party, not by or on behalf of the Government."
Mr Golding explicitly states that the basis on which the "initiative" was sanctioned was that past interventions were negotiated between "governments of both countries." But Mr Golding also insists that the present initiative was not between governments. It was "undertaken by the party". The precedent of negotiations between governments cannot be used to justify the lobbying of US government officials by a non-government agent, the Jamaica Labour Party. Mr Golding simply cannot have it both ways. He is free to have his party engage lobbyists. But he cannot do so on the basis of irrelevant authority.
The total lack of logic in the following sentence is truly astounding: "Rumours and speculation carried in the media that these funds were provided by Christopher Coke are completely false, as the party is fully aware of the source of these funds." The fact that the party knows the source of the funding is not a logical refutation of the claim that the source is, in fact, Christopher Coke. After all, the party may be 'fully aware' that the source is, indeed, Coke. To actually refute the claim, Mr Golding would have to be prepared to declare the alternative source of the funding and not just say that he knows the source.
Schoolboy debating
I think our prime minister is a victim of the duplicitous debating tactics he learned in high school. Conventional debates are based on the principle that you can manufacture an argument to support the most foolish claim. In the case of the internal debate between Mr Golding, prime minister, and Mr Golding, leader of the Jamaica Labour Party, the two Goldings are fighting a losing battle. Let's suppose that the moot is 'Be it resolved that in the matter of engaging Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Mr Golding, PM, is one and the same as Mr Golding, leader of the Jamaica Labour Party'.
Remember, it doesn't matter if the statement is true or not; it's just a debate.
Golding gone clear
If Mr Golding, as either PM or JLP leader, proposes the moot, 'him gone clear.' He will say something like this: "But of course I and I is one and the same. Jah Rastafari! Is because I and I is leader of the JLP that I and I is prime minister. My party, supported by wealthy patrons to whom I and I is obligated, won the elections and I and I automatically became PM. How do you expect I and I to distinguish between these roles? I and I cannot split I and I self in two and say, this minute I one is PM, next minute I two is leader of the JLP! I and I is just like the I-Three, except that is only two of I and I. In all my decisions, I and I is a rational man, acting coherently and unambiguously. Selassie I (and I)."
On the other hand, if Mr Golding, as either PM or JLP leader, is forced to oppose the moot, this is when the trouble starts. He has to maintain that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. He did not authorise the hiring of the law firm. In fact, he knew nothing at all about the affair. He will have to maintain the fiction that he is schizophrenic.
Whichever Mr Golding wins the debate, we, the helpless passengers on the minibus, are all the losers. We will be lucky to get out of the wreck with only broken bones. I certainly don't want to know that the driver of the minibus I'm on is in a permanent state of confusion about his identity.
I think it's time for Mr Golding to resolve the crisis that his split personality has precipitated.
He really should just voluntarily give up his licence and park himself far from the bus terminus. One thing he can be sure about is that he is definitely not qualified to function even as a loader.
Carolyn Cooper is professor ofliterary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment