CLIMATE CHANGE

 After seeing the devastation caused by two hurricanes, one after the other, in Florida, it is only a completely unread person or one who willfully buries his head in the sand in the hope of getting some personal gain (like former President Trump) who will not confess that he/she is (or ought to be) concerned about climate change. 

All the experts are saying that a major contributor of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. And those experts are also saying that while the United States is a big contributor to this, every little contribution to prevent climate change helps.

Which comes to T&T and our contributions to this problem - which I understand to be a big fat zero! I say this because I haven't seen one locally written article about the danger that we are facing in the world about climate change. I say this because I haven't heard one politician of any party raise this issue . I say this because there seems to be a total unawareness of the problem in this country. I say this because all of our electricity is generated by the burning of fossil fuels. The attitude seems to be "we are too small to make any meaningful difference", which, of course, is nonsense. Every little bit helps but most people in this country are blissfully unaware of the problem facing the world as a whole , and T&T in particular.

Leadership is not always about taking popular positions on any particular matter, but also about trying to influence thought. Climate change is going to affect us soon - probably sooner rather than later. It will affect amongst other things, global food production, and temperatures that will be most unpleasant to put up with. It will affect rainfall -either too much or too little - and it will affect our children's ability to have a good life. Heck! It might even affect whether we or our children are able to stay alive!

No. the sooner that we start to make our own little contributions and sacrifices, the better. Climate change is a whole world problem, and the last time that I looked we were part of this world and not only affected by the problem, but have been actively contributing to it. The worst part is that not only do we seem to be doing nothing about it, but we seem to be totally and completely unaware of it.

IS T&T IN THE THROES OF A BRAIN DRAIN?

 My 22 year old son recently returned from Canada and asked me why there were so few young people his age in T&T. He said that he had noticed that there were very few young people his age in the country while there were a lot of kids aged zero to about 18. After he had told me this I decided to conduct my usual very unscientific survey and discovered that he was right; there is a dearth of young people here in T&T from about 18 to about 35.

While it is probably true that a lot of them have gone away to study, it is also probably true that a lot of these young people are simply not returning home preferring to take the cold and living far away from their families because they believe that they will be better off in, say Canada, then here at home in T&T. Put another way, it is likely that they believe that they will have more opportunities with a higher standard of living throughout, than here at home.

Now, if my analysis is correct then the logical conclusion is that we are in the throes of a devastating brain drain that will adversely affect the country because the best and the brightest of our young people are simply not coming back. We can't afford to keep losing our young people like this.

SHOULD WE GIVE MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE?

 In 1919 a Supreme Court Justice in the United States called Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the well known phrase about shouting  'fire' in a crowded cinema or theatre. He was basically arguing that there has to be a limit to free speech and despite the fact that most democracies (like T&T) have a constitutional provision that guarantees free speech, this provision ought to have (and often does have) limitations. For example the law of defamation ensures that you cannot say something that isn't true (such as 'X killed Y') unless you can prove it even though you might believe it to be true.

But in the American State of Ohio they have a most interesting twist on this. In Ohio any citizen who feels aggrieved  about something (such as the lies that Trump -or Drumpf as his grandfather was called  before he 'Amercanised' his name- and his running mate J.D. Vance, have propagated against the Haitian community) that somebody has said can file a criminal complaint against that person asking a judge to hold them criminally liable. The complaint must show evidence of the untruths.

In case you might have missed it both Drumpf (I refuse to call him 'Trump') and Vance have said that legal Haitian immigrants are stealing people's pets and eating them! As ridiculous as this sounds both of these guys have repeated this outrageous claim. Putting it simply, this rhetoric is racist and ought to be condemned for reasons that (hopefully) are clear and obvious.

So? The question arises: do we have politicians (from both sides of the political divide) who use coded (and sometimes not so coded) rhetoric to fan the flames of racism?  Do we need a law, such as in Ohio, which would allow an aggrieved citizen to bring criminal charges against  a politician when the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions neglects and/or refuses to take action against persons who may be making dangerous comments? There have been quite a few complaints over the years about the DPP letting offensive and racist statements go by the board. Are these complaints with or without foundation?

Maybe it's time that we gave a little more power to the people.  Perhaps we should look at what Ohio has done. A lot of our laws were written by our former colonial masters. That doesn't make them right.

THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS FOR A CASHLESS SOCIETY

 The TT Government has proposed through its Minister of Finance that the country should go cashless. At first without thinking I thought that this might be a good idea. But then I started thinking, who exactly will benefit from the country going cashless? Answer: the banks. Let me give you an example: let's say that I go now to get my haircut and I pay the barber with a $100 bill. He puts it in his pocket and then uses it to pay, say, his grocery bill. The grocery store owner then uses it to pay a supplier - and so on, My original $1oo bill is used umpteen times.

So? What happens every time my original debt of $100 is paid via, say, Linx? Somebody (usually the payee - the person receiving the money) is charged 1.5% by his/her bank. If you multiply this out you will see that my original $100 has been consumed by the bank (or banks).

So again I ask: who benefits? Probably the question should be: who benefits besides the banks? And yet the very powerful Minister of Finance thinks that going cashless is the way to go! Why?

Makes you think, doesn't it? Why does he think that this is a good idea? Indeed, all sorts of questions and suspicions arise - some of them invite downright defamatory answers and some of the suspicions are (beside being defamatory) downright unreasonable. Yet the basic question "why'" remains unanswered.

If politics and government is about making life better for the people, in one sentence (because if you can't say it in one sentence you can't say it at all) why do you think that you will be better off by the country going cashless?

THAT PARIA "INVESTIGATION" - A QUESTION OF RACE?

 Tucked in a corner on page 15 of the Express of Tuesday 10yh September, 2024 was a story about the 3 divers who had lost their lives some 4 years ago while doing a job for Paria Fuel Trading Co. Ltd. in Pointe-a-Pierre. What struck me about this story is that the so-called "investigation" into the men's deaths is still going on! I mean, how long does it take to do such an investigation? From all the newspaper reports at the time it seemed that the facts were fairly straight forward:

Four men were on a job working for Paria under the sea. 

There war an accident and the men were trapped. One managed to escape.

No rescue mission was mounted or allowed to be mounted. According to newspaper reports authorities actually intervened to prevent a rescue.

The men died when their oxygen ran out some 4 days after the accident.

Now, all of this is from the newspaper reports at the time. So? It seems a fairly simple  matter. And yet, there has been no conclusion to the alleged "investigation" some 4 years after the accident and absolutely no compensation has been paid to the families of the men who died.

By the way, all the men who were killed as well as the one who escaped were of Indian extraction. All of the people who make  or are supposed to make  or authorize the "investigation" are black (or  of African extraction). Is that a coincidence? If it was the other way around would it still be okay that the "investigation" has taken this long and no compensation whatsoever has even been offered to be paid to the families of the victims? Putting it bluntly, is race behind what is clearly an unacceptable situation? If you think that this is a stretch, then can you offer a different and logical explanation? Is anybody responsible for this accident? Is it unreasonable for persons to conclude that race has played a part in the delay? 

Who exactly is responsible for the delay for concluding the "investigation"? Because, at the end of the day, it will be one person. What is his/her race? We are always hesitant as a society to cry "race", but sometimes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then its kind of obvious that it is a duck. 

"DON'T BLAME ME"

 The Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley, is reported in today's Trinidad Guardian as saying that he is not to blame for the high (and still rising) crime rate. Instead he says in essence that the ones to blame are the criminals who are committing the crimes. Anybody reading this is bound to say 'duh'. Of course the criminals are the ones committing the crimes and are the ones to blame. and in the end, whoever is doing the crime  (whatever it might be) is responsible for doing it.

BUT (and it is a big "but")  who is responsible for enforcing the laws against murder, rape, robbery etc. Isn't it the person who is ultimately in charge of everything? And under our system of government, isn't that person the head of the Government? Isn't Doctor Rowley the head of the Government? So, if he is not responsible then who is? Nobody?

Who appoints the sergeants, the captains the assistant commissioners of police, the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of National Security? and so on? Do you get the point? and if the chain of authority goes all the way up, where is it supposed to end? Isn't it supposed to end with the guy (or gal) in charge of the whole 'kit and kaboodle? And who is that supposed to be?

Instead of saying 'don't blame me' the Prime minister could and should be reporting on how many criminals are being caught and punished for their crimes. After all, isn't the absolute best deterrent against crime is the fear of getting caught? If not, what is?

HOW WILL AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR AFFECT US? WILL THERE BE A CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES??

 Believe it or not, the answer to these questions will affect not only citizens of the United States , but Canada, Mexico AND Trinidad and Tobago. As things stand at the moment , my bet is that Kamala Harris will beat Donald Trump in the Presidential election coming on 5th November - and that is where the trouble will start. You see, Trump (or Drumpf which was his family's name before his father changed it to sound more 'American') has indicated quite clearly that the only way he could lose the coming election will be if the authorities in the States all conspire to cheat him out of the Presidency.

And this is despite there being not one iota of evidence produced either by him or his supporters over his identical allegations over his loss in 2020. But the lack of any kind of evidence never stopped Mr. Trump (or Drumpf)  from making the allegations any way. And this time around he has a lot of people who are lining up to say he can't' lose! 

Normally, this type of stupidity wouldn't matter. Most people would dismiss the allegations for the nonsense and lies that they are and go about their daily business. But the polls in the U.S. are showing that a lot of people - too many, in fact - are buying into these totally unfounded allegations and are willing to believe them. 

So? How does this affect us down here in T&T? Well, if Harris wins and Drumpf -sorry, I meant Trump - loses, there could easily be civil war in the United States. This would result in everybody - Democrats as well as Republicans - being caught up in the ensuing confusion. This confusion in our country's largest (by far) trading partner will result in untold damage being done to us. For example, US dollars could lose much of their value overnight. And our dollar is fixed in value to the US dollar. If the US dollar loses value, so will ours. Both our imports as well as our exports will be affected.

War is never a healthy option and an American civil war could affect us adversely in all kinds of ways. The awful thing is that we can't do a damned thing about it.

FIXING CRIME (Part Two)

 In my last post I attempted to show as dramatically as possible the basic unfairness of our society and hoe an accident of birth could affect one's life. How to fix this and make life a little fairer is the major question facing us now. Perhaps one way of fixing our terrible crime problem and making life a little fairer would be to revise our education system completely.

In order to do this I would start by revising teacher's salaries completely. I think that a starting salary for a teacher is around TT$6,000. (I don't know this but believe it to be more or less accurate.) I would start by trebling all teacher's salaries, so that if you are making, say, $25,000 per month, your new salary would be now $75,000 per month.

But (and here is the 'kicker') this new salary would come with conditions. If you wanted the new salary you would have to sign a new contract that eliminated completely any of your old rights and benefits. Also, at the end of every school year you would have to undergo an assessment test which, if you failed, would result in your immediate dismissal with absolutely no benefits whatsoever. No extra monies for dismissal. Nothing. You either perform or you get thrown out - full stop!

Then, all teachers would get the same salary regardless of the schools that they were assigned to. In other words, no more 'prestige schools'. (Have you noticed, by the way, that the same teachers that are complained about now are the same ones who parents employ for private lessons?)

The whole idea is to create  a fairer system - one that gives everybody an equal chance.

I can hear you say that the union would never accept this and would 'kick brass'. My answer to the union would be that if anybody wanted the new pay then he/she would have to accept the new terms, The old terms would still apply and there would be no changes. But if you wanted the new salary, then you would have to guarantee your performance as a teacher. No guarantee, then no new salary. 

Well, that's my idea. What do you think?

FIXING THE CRIME PROBLEM ( Part 1)

It's kind of a 'non sequiter',to say that there is a link between (a lack of) education and crime. Let's take an example: there are two boys both born on the same day at the same time. They are both highly intelligent. But (and it is a big "but") one is born to a poor unwed mother who already has 4 children which she cannot support and the other is born to a relatively wealthy woman who is happily married to a man who loves her and takes care of her. The first woman is barely able to teach her child how to read or write. the second woman's child is blessed with all the accoutrements of wealth and receives a good education. The first woman's child is basically left to fend for himself.

So? What do you think happens next? The first woman's child (who you will remember is highly intelligent) grows up resentful of the basic unfairness of life and decides for himself that if life won't give him what he wants, he will simply take it. But he has no way of taking it other than through stealing and murder. So? What does he do? Answer: he steals and murders. The second child grows up blissfully unaware of the difficulties encountered daily by the first boy and joins with his parents in lamenting the fact that the country is daily becoming more violent.

The point here is that T&T's crime problem simply can't fix unless something is done now (and "now" must mean now). But that would mean overhauling the education system completely so that people like our first boy is given a chance to 'get his foot on the ladder'. But that will take at least 20 years to fix - and most governments think only in 5 year terms! So what do you think will happen? Answer: sweet nothing! Everybody will cry long tears and say how wicked and evil the first boy is and will completely ignore the fact that the system that we have put in place for decades suits only a small section of the population. The second boy will be held up as an example of how you can make it if you try while completely ignoring the basic injustices that are proliferating out of control.

I have an idea of how to fix this, but it will take at least 20 years. And we've already run out of time. 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 I happen to agree with just about everything that the opponents of the death penalty say about it: that it is a cruel punishment, that it is harsh, that mistakes can be made, and once made can never be undone, and so on.

I have often wondered whether or not it might be "fairer" to let the loved ones of the victim actually 'pull the trigger'. Certainly, I would find it impossible to pull the trigger' on someone that I didn't know. But then I thought of my dead cousin who was cruelly murdered almost 28 years ago and who I loved like a brother. The thing is, I know who killed him and why. I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but I really do know who killed him. (For the record, it was a drug lord aided and abetted by a policeman.)

So? What can I do about it? Not a damn thing! The killers have got away with it. Which brings me back to the death penalty. You see, there is (and can be) only one good and sufficient reason for it - the death penalty: REVENGE! There is no other reason. I could cheerfully 'pull the trigger' on my cousin's murderers and go home and eat a nice, big juicy steak afterwards. But I would find it impossible to 'pull the trigger' on somebody that I didn't know.

So? Do I support the abolition of the death penalty? If the choice is black or white then I would have to say 'yes'. But life is never black or white and is often simply a shade of grey. And therein lies my hypocrisy, because I could easily and cheerfully kill the two men who murdered my cousin if I thought that I could get away with it. As it is, I know I can't, so I shan't. Their deaths are not worth me giving up my life for.

TIME TO ABOLISH SILK

 One of the more prestigious prizes in the legal profession is the award of 'silk' or 'senior counsel'. It used to be reserved for those lawyers who had distinguished themselves at the Bar and whose opinions on legal matters carried real weight both inside and outside the courtroom. ( I remember a story about a well known and very able silk (who is dead now, poor fellow) Tajmool Hosein, who was asked by a client to write a letter on the client's behalf to someone who owed him money. Taj (as he was affectionally known) wrote the letter. The client then approached Taj a few weeks later to say that he had received full satisfation from the debtor. Taj then presented the client with a bill for his services which came to $10,000 (and this was at a time when $10,000 was like a $100,000 today). 

The clint complained. '$10,000 for a letter that took you only 5 minutes to write?'

Taj had two questions for him :'Did you get your money?' and 'Would you have got it if my name was not on the letter?'

The client then promptly paid the bill.

And that is my whole point. Tajmool was an excellent lawyer with a well deserved reputation. How many of these newly created silks have any kind of reputation?

The truth is that for the longest while the award is not based on merit but on "who you know". The award is based solely on the Prime Minister of the day wishing to reward whoever he/she wants, whether that person is a good, bad or indifferent lawyer. Also, we have tended to place this award 'before-behind' in that in the old days a good lawyer was invited to take silk. Now, if you want silk you have to apply, and provided that you are not on bad terms with the Prime Minister of the day you will probably get it. I know a number of lawyers who deserve the award but who will never apply. As a result, they'll never get it.

Perhaps it is time that we took a leaf out of the Americans' anti Imperialist playbook and abolished this award. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned to let a lawyer's reputation stand or fall on its own merits rather than a politician's opinion?

TIME FOR HONEST ANSWERS

 I consider myself an independent ... neither PNM nor UNC ... only wherever I think it is best for the country to go. In previous posts I had postulated that given the very dismal record of the Rowley Government's time in office that it would be surprising indeed if they (the PNM) managed to win the looming general elections. But from all accounts it appears that despite the Government's many failures both the UNC and the PNM are running neck and neck in the polls. So, if this is correct, then surely my thinking has to be wrong.

But then I read something that made sense ... at least to me: "If elections were decided by simple factual measures of whether the public is better off due to an incumbent's policies {Kamla} would easily be sailing into a landslide. But that's not the case." Why? 

I'm serious; why isn't the UNC not way ahead of the PNM right now? The only answer that springs to mind is that the UNC leadership has failed to connect with the voters of this country. I can see that those who are stanch supporters of the present UNC leadership disagreeing vehemently with me. That's okay. I've never pretended that I have any sort of hotline to God and we will all know soon enough what will happen at the coming polls. But what will they say if events prove me to be right, i.e. that Kamla can't win and that it is clear that her leadership style just doesn't work?

 The stakes are getting higher and higher and the future welfare of the country and of our children is now at stake. And deciding on who you should support or vote for  is now critical. There is no room anymore for wishful thinking ... or even racial thinking.  It's time for some very honest, personal answers. And holding your nose and voting for "your party" (whichever one it might be) just isn't good enough anymore.

DETERMINING WHERE OUR BEST INTERESTS LIE

 There is a choice coming up soon within the next year or so ... do we go with the devil we know, or do we go with the other devil that we also know? I guess the answer is that we should go with the devil under whose rule we were better off ... even if we have serious doubts and have to hold our noses while voting.

It is unfortunate that our system of government only throws up two choices. Sometimes, these choices can be very stark and sometimes (like right now) the choices can be so mixed that it becomes very difficult to decide where your best interests might lie. I say this because, quite frankly, there is little or no differences in policy between the two major parties. Both sides effectively go to the electorate with the same message: "vote for us because we can do it better". I challenge you to tell me where the real differences are between the UNC and the PNM - where exactly are the differences in say, health care, education, crime, the economy? List them. Clearly, your best interests lie with whoever might make things better for you personally. But how do you determine that?

All politics is personal and it all boils down to the question of where you think that you will be better off. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about which side "t'iefs" more, so long as the person voting is able to live his/her life in relative comfort and at an acceptable standard of living. Sometimes (as happened in 2010) all those opposed to the Government in power come together and the combined force prevails. At other times (like now) personal ambitions get in the way and the natural opposition to a Government is fractured thus making it easier for those in power to remain despite massive 'screw ups'.

While it is a given that racial voting plays a part in our politics, it is a great simplification to postulate this as the reason why the PNM has managed to position itself as the "default" party. Self interest is the biggest motivator of everything. When we recognize this simple fact, we can then determine what our next steps should be.

So, if you think that you will be better off under the PNM then stay with them. And if you think that you will be better off under the UNC, then vote for them. At the end of the day, it all boils down to where YOU think that YOU will be better off.

A STARK CHOICE IS FACING US

 I have to tell you folks: Kamla ain't leaving. I know that I am often wrong and don't have a hotline to God, but here are some hard facts;

First of all, she said so. Even Rowley gets that. And in the confidential PNM and UNC polls, nobody is polling better in the UNC than she is.

Secondly, she will have the same chance and use the same arguments in this coming election as she did before, hoping that Rowley's screw ups will push her over into the winner's circle. In other words, the message is simply "vote for me".

I can see you shaking your heads and calling me an idiot. While that may be correct, let me ask you this: if the election was today, who would you be voting for: Kamla or Rowley?

 And there you will have your answer! The truth is that PNM has become the "default" party. In other words, people vote for it because, for whatever reason, they are not certain that their lives will improve under the alternative. The UNC has to show and (more importantly) convince the country that it can and will do better. This is not as easy as it sounds or as it should be.

FAKE NEWS IS KING

 Although the foreign press makes a big deal out of fake news and regularly calls out politicians (and others) for spreading lies and false information, that 'habit' has not yet shown itself to be very prevalent down here in T&T. Whether that is through sheer incompetence of our local media, or it is caused by political bias is impossible to say. ( Frankly, I believe that it is a combination of both, but that will have to be a subject of another post).

But what is crystal clear is that we are very often not given the facts of a particular situation and are forced to make our own opinions which are often based not only on incomplete information, but also on our own personal biases. Take for example. the whole matter of the closure of Petrotrin; first question: was this closure really necessary or did it have something to do with the disastrous multi million dollar loss that was created by a certain PNM 'jefe'  who was sued by the PP Government under Kamla but  whose case was withdrawn by Dr. Rowley's people when they came into power? According to Prime Minister Rowley and his boys , this accusation is not true. They say that Petrotrin was shut down because it was losing money and was a drain on the Treasury. But published figures from just before the debacle hit showed that Petrotrin had several million dollars in the bank. What is true? 

Next question: does Mrs. Persad-Bissessar really have the majority support of her party, or did her team cheat at the internal election? Were any steps taken to prevent any cheating? If so, what steps exactly?

Next question again: is it true that Dr. Rowley's Government had no idea that the Indian billionaire talking about buying Petrotrin was out on bail and is facing corruption charges? Is it true that there is/was some kind of deal going on with this billionaire and the Venezuelan Government that is/was designed to circumvent American sanctions?

You see, both sides have some rather big possible skeletons in their respective closets. The above is just a small sample of questions that require answers and where there have been none, or at least, no proper answers to questions that, without full and clear explanations, give rise to unnecessary and unfortunate suspicions.

But we don't know. There is an illusory effect to believe false information when it is regularly repeated and that it is true when it is repeatedly presented. People tend to judge truth  based on familiarity with existing knowledge. So, the more a statement is repeated, the more accurate it seems.

We have a real problem. There is little or no factual reporting on important issues, and depending on which political side you happen to fall, will depend on what your opinions are - and not what they should be.  Fake news is king down here in T&T.