Tweet
It's time for 'CAPS'
published: Sunday | September 23, 2007
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
I'm thinking of forming a new society. The one in 1999, 'Citizens for Civil Society' did not work out. I failed to realise then that it was inherently redundant. A new one, less politically correct, might perhaps have some chance of survival especially if it's against something, instead of being for something.
A couple of acronyms for internal political party dynamics have floated to the surface recently. One is CAP: Comrades Against Portia, and the other is LAB: Labourites Against Bruce. One seems to be an item of wear, and the other a place of experimentation.
My approach is intended to replace these counterproductive trends with a new society. It is known as 'CAPS', or 'Citizens Against Public Stupidity'. The first thing I'm going to do is ask big bbusinesses to get on board. Nothing can be achieved without vast amounts of money. Next will come the media critics and the intelligentsia, because nothing can be done without their approval and willing popularisations. The public is by now too accustomed to being told what to think. They will not take a single step until they've been told it's safe, in fashion, and that they're going along with the flow. Pretty soon after that we can have a national movement.
The goals of 'CAPS' are wide-ranging and sure to turn off scores of people with the sheer length and breadth of its demands. I've decided, therefore, that in order to be as inclusive as possible, people should choose for themselves. This will dramatically reduce the time spent in useless cogitation, social interventions and intellectual digressions. Indeed, if people could choose for themselves, this society could be set up in a matter of minutes. But personal choice is fraught with danger, and even coerced choice like freemasonry is no less so. But at least the latter is thought to have some guarantee of personal advancement.
lethal combination
'CAPS' is, therefore, up against the natural timidity of people. I'm likely to draw every insomniac in the country and every do-gooder. That's a lethal combination.
A close election outcome could only have been the result of men voting who usually cut themselves while shaving in the morning. Nervous hands have resulted in electoral parsimony. A razor-thin margin has damped the spirits of everyone it seems, except Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller. Bruce Golding, while acknowledging her presence at his swearing-in as Prime Minister, felt forced to snicker. That was greeted by guilty giggles from his thousands of assembled partisans. This seems to be the three-piece suit way of doing things.
Having promised a small government, the new Prime Minister has had the audacity to appoint one of the biggest Cabinets in history. The promise of free education has been scaled down to free tuition. The Ministry of Local Government has been abolished, only to be resurrected, and so have the post-Cabinet press briefings. And, despite his promise from the days of the National Democratic Movement onwards, to exemplify probity and honesty, he has done so by appointing a minister in charge of finance who was the CEO of a financial conglomerate would still be paid by his employer. These are five flip-flops, and counting. Yet Golding's 'Golden era' administration is but a pup.
So far, he's made of the art of governance a ball of twine; nevertheless, he invites the Opposition Leader's participation.
She has already said they're going to be his worst nightmare. In another paper Golding replied, saying that only the trillion-dollar debt is a nightmare to him. He knows he has the "capacity", he says, to handle the other - ostensibly the political threat posed by the People's National Party.
legacy
If he, at any point, even now, doubted his capacity to handle the national debt, then why did he seek the office? This debt is not a new thing. It is the legacy of the Patterson administration, about which every commentator in this country has written volubly for a decade. The thing that puzzles me is why he thought the cupboards were full in the first place. The irony is that even in 1980, they were empty, so it's hardly a surprise.
Golding ought to attack the thing with manliness, bravery and gusto. Not whine about the size of the debt and call it a nightmare. Hopefully, he will reduce it, and not use political power merely as an excuse to provide jobs for the boys and his supporters. But Golding is clearly frightened as he has shouted for all hands on deck.
When the new Prime Minister calms down, he will, I expect, let go of some of the many hands he's been clutching and the groups he's representing. At that time, the size of the Cabinet may be reduced. What we're now watching is Golding trying to get a grip on the Jamaica Labour Party itself, rather than the Government. On the other hand, Simpson Miller seems to have a grip on the People's National Party already.
They keep saying they're not bending over backwards, but that's all I see out there. The demands of party unity are, therefore, here displayed as even more burdensome than those of freedom of speech. It seems that the herd instinct can take over even at the highest levels. They pile on top of each other without let or hindrance, and without a single change of course, except in Simpson Miller's administration where her Cabinet was fourteen. She handled it quietly and well, and was closer to the constitutional minimum of eleven.
What this suggests is that she was interested in the minimum of state interference in the public and private lives of private citizens, while Golding is interested in the maximum. We can, therefore, look forward to much more poking and prodding, unless the new Prime Minister finds his sea legs soon.
For someone who was billed by others as a "safe pair of hands", Golding's turn at the tiller has been most unsteady indeed. The matter of his changing course, therefore, does not arise, since we really don't know what course he's on. I've never seen any man get so vexed because a woman says she'll be watching him.
published: Sunday | September 23, 2007
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
I'm thinking of forming a new society. The one in 1999, 'Citizens for Civil Society' did not work out. I failed to realise then that it was inherently redundant. A new one, less politically correct, might perhaps have some chance of survival especially if it's against something, instead of being for something.
A couple of acronyms for internal political party dynamics have floated to the surface recently. One is CAP: Comrades Against Portia, and the other is LAB: Labourites Against Bruce. One seems to be an item of wear, and the other a place of experimentation.
My approach is intended to replace these counterproductive trends with a new society. It is known as 'CAPS', or 'Citizens Against Public Stupidity'. The first thing I'm going to do is ask big bbusinesses to get on board. Nothing can be achieved without vast amounts of money. Next will come the media critics and the intelligentsia, because nothing can be done without their approval and willing popularisations. The public is by now too accustomed to being told what to think. They will not take a single step until they've been told it's safe, in fashion, and that they're going along with the flow. Pretty soon after that we can have a national movement.
The goals of 'CAPS' are wide-ranging and sure to turn off scores of people with the sheer length and breadth of its demands. I've decided, therefore, that in order to be as inclusive as possible, people should choose for themselves. This will dramatically reduce the time spent in useless cogitation, social interventions and intellectual digressions. Indeed, if people could choose for themselves, this society could be set up in a matter of minutes. But personal choice is fraught with danger, and even coerced choice like freemasonry is no less so. But at least the latter is thought to have some guarantee of personal advancement.
lethal combination
'CAPS' is, therefore, up against the natural timidity of people. I'm likely to draw every insomniac in the country and every do-gooder. That's a lethal combination.
A close election outcome could only have been the result of men voting who usually cut themselves while shaving in the morning. Nervous hands have resulted in electoral parsimony. A razor-thin margin has damped the spirits of everyone it seems, except Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller. Bruce Golding, while acknowledging her presence at his swearing-in as Prime Minister, felt forced to snicker. That was greeted by guilty giggles from his thousands of assembled partisans. This seems to be the three-piece suit way of doing things.
Having promised a small government, the new Prime Minister has had the audacity to appoint one of the biggest Cabinets in history. The promise of free education has been scaled down to free tuition. The Ministry of Local Government has been abolished, only to be resurrected, and so have the post-Cabinet press briefings. And, despite his promise from the days of the National Democratic Movement onwards, to exemplify probity and honesty, he has done so by appointing a minister in charge of finance who was the CEO of a financial conglomerate would still be paid by his employer. These are five flip-flops, and counting. Yet Golding's 'Golden era' administration is but a pup.
So far, he's made of the art of governance a ball of twine; nevertheless, he invites the Opposition Leader's participation.
She has already said they're going to be his worst nightmare. In another paper Golding replied, saying that only the trillion-dollar debt is a nightmare to him. He knows he has the "capacity", he says, to handle the other - ostensibly the political threat posed by the People's National Party.
legacy
If he, at any point, even now, doubted his capacity to handle the national debt, then why did he seek the office? This debt is not a new thing. It is the legacy of the Patterson administration, about which every commentator in this country has written volubly for a decade. The thing that puzzles me is why he thought the cupboards were full in the first place. The irony is that even in 1980, they were empty, so it's hardly a surprise.
Golding ought to attack the thing with manliness, bravery and gusto. Not whine about the size of the debt and call it a nightmare. Hopefully, he will reduce it, and not use political power merely as an excuse to provide jobs for the boys and his supporters. But Golding is clearly frightened as he has shouted for all hands on deck.
When the new Prime Minister calms down, he will, I expect, let go of some of the many hands he's been clutching and the groups he's representing. At that time, the size of the Cabinet may be reduced. What we're now watching is Golding trying to get a grip on the Jamaica Labour Party itself, rather than the Government. On the other hand, Simpson Miller seems to have a grip on the People's National Party already.
They keep saying they're not bending over backwards, but that's all I see out there. The demands of party unity are, therefore, here displayed as even more burdensome than those of freedom of speech. It seems that the herd instinct can take over even at the highest levels. They pile on top of each other without let or hindrance, and without a single change of course, except in Simpson Miller's administration where her Cabinet was fourteen. She handled it quietly and well, and was closer to the constitutional minimum of eleven.
What this suggests is that she was interested in the minimum of state interference in the public and private lives of private citizens, while Golding is interested in the maximum. We can, therefore, look forward to much more poking and prodding, unless the new Prime Minister finds his sea legs soon.
For someone who was billed by others as a "safe pair of hands", Golding's turn at the tiller has been most unsteady indeed. The matter of his changing course, therefore, does not arise, since we really don't know what course he's on. I've never seen any man get so vexed because a woman says she'll be watching him.