AND YOU WONDER WHY OUR CRIME RATE IS SO HIGH?

 It is undeniably true that the best deterrent for murder is the fear of getting caught. Put another way, most people would think twice before killing somebody, whether casually or not, if they thought that there was a good chance of getting caught. But if the chances of you getting caught are large then you would think twice before putting yourself in that kind of trouble. Perhaps that is why our crime rate is so high not only for murder, but everything else as well. I haven't seen the latest statistics but the last time I looked  something in the vicinity of LESS than 5% was applicable for solving crimes and arrests. And you wonder why the crime rate is so high?

Then after the police have done their job and actually caught somebody, there is the whole question of inefficiency in the legal system where cases can take years before coming to trial. By the time that they are heard before a judge and jury, many witnesses are dead, or gone abroad, or simply can't be found, or can't remember accurately what happened. In other countries cases take less than a year to be dealt with by both the police as well as the courts. And you wonder why the crime rate is so high?

I have been on the receiving end of two matters : the first is the murder of my cousin who I loved like a brother. His case has never been officially "solved" and nobody has ever been charged with the crime , although everybody knows who did it. The second matter is rather small as compared to the first, but it involves a client of mine being defrauded of the (admittedly small) amount of $600. The problem here is that the police officer who had promised to follow up is never available and no report on the matter has ever been made. Telephone calls to his superior officer have also produced nothing. It is clear that this is considered to be too small to deal with. But then, isn't fraud of any kind a crime? And you wonder why the crime rate is so high?

I could go on with other stories, but you've got the point: those in authority tasked with doing their jobs and keeping the rest of us safe are simply not performing - whether through incompetence, corruption or a mixture of both is irrelevant; they are simply not performing. And you wonder why the crime rate is so high?

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PANAMA - MIGHT IS RIGHT

 I was intrigued by the American President's seemingly unprovoked attack on Panama. Why would Drumpf (his real family name) just threaten to attack Panama  seemingly out of the blue by saying that "the Panama Canal is American, we built it and we gave it to them?"? This didn't really make a lot of sense, especially when you realize that Panama took over control of the Canal AFTER protracted negotiations with ... you guessed it ... the Americans! What this means in effect that is that you can't really trust the Americans when they make a deal ... especially when they perceive that they aren't in complete agreement and didn't argue or quibble with it ... and even then?

In other words, might is right!

But why would President Drumpf make this pronouncement?  The real answer is that Mr. Drumpf was in partnership with a Panamanian and together they built a hotel. They fell out (why? I don't know) and ended up in Court. the case worked its way up to the Panamanian Supreme Court and was decided in favour of the Panamanian partner. Of course, Drumpf was mad but he couldn't do anything about it.

Now he can. 

Are there any lessons for us here?

CRYING "KORBAN"

 While it is true that democracy has always been both a moral and an instrumental project, it really only works when voters trust and respect the persons who are promoting the particular policies. For example, 100 years ago there was a big issue on whether or not women could/should or even have the right to vote. This was obviously a moral issue, but it was an instrumental one as well  as the protests of the suffragettes  were also done with an aim to achieve a certain objective (the right to vote) and which was ultimately successful.

However, these days these two cornerstones of democracy seem more and more to be in conflict with each other. In my lifetime the two main races in this country have been driven apart by leaders on both sides who have used racist statements  to further their (or their Party's) particular cause. For example, who has forgotten the racist statement by Fitzgerald Hinds just before the second to last election that Keith Rowley could never be Prime Minister because he was "too black"? If ever there was a not so subtle racist statement that basically was saying that all black people should vote for the black leader of the black party, this was it.

In recognizing this particular faux pas Dr. Rowley (who very interestingly  didn't condemn the statement immediately it was made) is now trying to say "hey! We are not racist. Look, we even have a non-black person who will be Prime Minister soon." Of course Dr. Rowley is completely ignoring the fact that in the country, and even in his own Party, Stuart Young has little or no support. Mr. Young has very cleverly furthered his ambition to be Prime Minister by catering to a constituency of one and ignoring everybody else - which means, of course, that he will be completely dependent on Dr. Rowley and his only question to Dr. Rowley when he is told to "jump" is "how high". But that is another story.

Put another way, the PNM will go into the coming general election waving the nationalistic flag as opposed to the racial one, and trying to paint the UNC Leader as incompetent and racist. It is not yet clear how the UNC will respond to this. Certainly, as things now stand both Parties appear to be running neck and neck and  because "a week is a long time in politics" only an idiot will venture to suggest what the outcome will be. And while there is a good argument that the PNM has really messed things up by all that is normal the UNC should be way ahead in the polls - and they are not! There is an equally valid perception that the UNC team appears to be almost completely emasculated by its Leader.

So? The question will be who do you think will better be able to steer us away from the jagged reefs and rocks that we are about to flounder on? Should we be swayed by the two very populist leaders from both sides? Do we honestly believe anything that they say? Or are we going to be like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins at the gates of the temple by crying "Korban"?