Just this in response to Pierre Dupuch’s logic – suggesting that Hubert Ingraham’s return to head the FMN indicates a lack of integrity.
Were a man to promise to give me two blows and he gave me three, I’d be as mad as hell. Were a man to promise to give me two hundred dollars and he gave me three, I’d not hold it against him. I’d be overjoyed.
Hubert Ingraham’s return to lead the FNM, it seems, is troublesome to those who oppose him. It certainly is not a problem for those who believe in him – for those who wish him to lead them – who think they can rely upon him to lead them to victory.
His being able to lead, it seems, has not been exhausted. His returning to lead violates no law – no officially established policy. His suggestion that he’d serve two terms was his personal whim and did not involve law or policy.
What if the captain of a ship we’re on – in this case, the ship of state – decided to take us to Acklins but not to bring us back? What if he decided to drink Guinness and eat boil fish until he burped goat pepper once he got us to Acklins? What if on the way back with one less experienced at the helm, the ship began to sink? Were he to be persuaded to take the helm again to save the day – to save us all, would he be lacking in integrity or full of magnanimity?
What of Perry Christy’s deciding figuratively, to return to his vomit? Now I find that reprehensible.
What we’re confronting, to my mind, in both cases, is individual whim and will when what matters ultimately is what is divinely ordained – what is God’s will. The Perry Christy who, to the minds of many, despicably returned, even figurative, to his vomit, is certainly not the gentleman – certainly not the giant who has lead out Bahamas especially since recovering from his frightening illness. We see someone no less than anointed to lead while he has.
Many of us in careers: policing, teaching, etc., decide initially to serve for a time and then move on only to decide later to prolong that service. Would such persons have robbed us or rewarded us? Should they be considered patriotic or unpatriotic?
On Immediate Response with Ace Newbold on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, Pierre Dupuch, reasoning, stated, “…therefore in law, it is a contract.” Mr. Ingraham’s words though were never embraced by law, entertained by law – were never entered into law. His idea is yet to be considered officially – has yet to be enshrined in law as is a similar rule in the United States’ constitution.
His return seems to be a problem for those whom he opposes – for those who oppose him – for his adversaries – for whom he might defeat. His opponents seem to fear his formidable oppositional force. For those whom he’d lead courageously into battle and possibly into victory, they are grateful to him, thankful that he capitulated. A lack of integrity seems to be the cry of his opponents, not at all the cry of those who welcome him.
Those who seem not to want him back, want Tommy Turnquest, whom they’ve defeated once and imagine they can effortlessly overrun again. Tommy’s moment, it seems, has not yet come. Is the P.L.P. giving over leadership to the next generation of politician? Is Perry Christy stepping down to let Fred Mitchell head the party?
I view it as unfair to put Tommy Turnquest in the ring with Perry Christy – a middle weight up against a heavy weight. I am neither P.L.P. nor F.N.M. but with Hubert Ingrahan in the ring with Perry Christy – experience-wise and otherwise – we have fair-play – heavyweight against heavyweight. Though I am not a big boxing fan, I’d more readily pay money to go to sit at ringside to see such a match – such a fight.
The suggestion that Hubert Ingraham lacks integrity, for the reason stated, is baseless and is not an issue.
In conclusion, Pierre Dupuch’s debate of this issue is not entirely logical and is not objective though he suggests it is. One can hear clearly that something subjective – something personal colors his reasoning. I find it misleading, his suggestion that Ingraham’s integrity is at the heart of the matter – at the heart of his argument.
As nice as he is, his logic is flawed and insults the thinking person’s intelligence and the nation’s. It is in defense of reason and intelligence that I have here raised my pen not in defense of either party or either leader.
By Obediah Michael Smith
1:54 a.m. March 7, 2007
Were a man to promise to give me two blows and he gave me three, I’d be as mad as hell. Were a man to promise to give me two hundred dollars and he gave me three, I’d not hold it against him. I’d be overjoyed.
Hubert Ingraham’s return to lead the FNM, it seems, is troublesome to those who oppose him. It certainly is not a problem for those who believe in him – for those who wish him to lead them – who think they can rely upon him to lead them to victory.
His being able to lead, it seems, has not been exhausted. His returning to lead violates no law – no officially established policy. His suggestion that he’d serve two terms was his personal whim and did not involve law or policy.
What if the captain of a ship we’re on – in this case, the ship of state – decided to take us to Acklins but not to bring us back? What if he decided to drink Guinness and eat boil fish until he burped goat pepper once he got us to Acklins? What if on the way back with one less experienced at the helm, the ship began to sink? Were he to be persuaded to take the helm again to save the day – to save us all, would he be lacking in integrity or full of magnanimity?
What of Perry Christy’s deciding figuratively, to return to his vomit? Now I find that reprehensible.
What we’re confronting, to my mind, in both cases, is individual whim and will when what matters ultimately is what is divinely ordained – what is God’s will. The Perry Christy who, to the minds of many, despicably returned, even figurative, to his vomit, is certainly not the gentleman – certainly not the giant who has lead out Bahamas especially since recovering from his frightening illness. We see someone no less than anointed to lead while he has.
Many of us in careers: policing, teaching, etc., decide initially to serve for a time and then move on only to decide later to prolong that service. Would such persons have robbed us or rewarded us? Should they be considered patriotic or unpatriotic?
On Immediate Response with Ace Newbold on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, Pierre Dupuch, reasoning, stated, “…therefore in law, it is a contract.” Mr. Ingraham’s words though were never embraced by law, entertained by law – were never entered into law. His idea is yet to be considered officially – has yet to be enshrined in law as is a similar rule in the United States’ constitution.
His return seems to be a problem for those whom he opposes – for those who oppose him – for his adversaries – for whom he might defeat. His opponents seem to fear his formidable oppositional force. For those whom he’d lead courageously into battle and possibly into victory, they are grateful to him, thankful that he capitulated. A lack of integrity seems to be the cry of his opponents, not at all the cry of those who welcome him.
Those who seem not to want him back, want Tommy Turnquest, whom they’ve defeated once and imagine they can effortlessly overrun again. Tommy’s moment, it seems, has not yet come. Is the P.L.P. giving over leadership to the next generation of politician? Is Perry Christy stepping down to let Fred Mitchell head the party?
I view it as unfair to put Tommy Turnquest in the ring with Perry Christy – a middle weight up against a heavy weight. I am neither P.L.P. nor F.N.M. but with Hubert Ingrahan in the ring with Perry Christy – experience-wise and otherwise – we have fair-play – heavyweight against heavyweight. Though I am not a big boxing fan, I’d more readily pay money to go to sit at ringside to see such a match – such a fight.
The suggestion that Hubert Ingraham lacks integrity, for the reason stated, is baseless and is not an issue.
In conclusion, Pierre Dupuch’s debate of this issue is not entirely logical and is not objective though he suggests it is. One can hear clearly that something subjective – something personal colors his reasoning. I find it misleading, his suggestion that Ingraham’s integrity is at the heart of the matter – at the heart of his argument.
As nice as he is, his logic is flawed and insults the thinking person’s intelligence and the nation’s. It is in defense of reason and intelligence that I have here raised my pen not in defense of either party or either leader.
By Obediah Michael Smith
1:54 a.m. March 7, 2007
posted by Obie Quiet at 6:16 AM
0 comments
