Inexcusable puerility and sleaze pass for commentary.
For what else could account for a man said to be learned in many things including the law taking aim at me in his in attempt to attack a view I share on the senatorial prenups.
My stated repugnance at the removal of senate with the use of undated letters signed and initialed by Opposition Leader, Andrew Holness is now being described by this commentator like this
“One radio talk show star seemingly unable to get over her political disappointment or herself went on a rant about The Gleaner mixing up cabinets with senators and about writers wrongly using ordinary statutes to interpret the Constitution…Sounding to me like some frothing at the mouth, she bemoaned the damage done to independence of the Senate and accused the Opposition Leader of trampling on the Constitution…”
I am later identified in the savagery by this “The good news is the Talk-show Star’s co-host used her head, refused to be bullied and expressed a contrary view and eminently sensible view more reflective of real-life eventualities than did more famous and allegedly more educated ‘leader’. It’s elementary. Once you have the power to remove a senator, the issue of methodology is for Emily Post (not Emily host) to analyse”
The commentary repeated the stance of last week for ‘those with learning difficulties’.
Had I been one to stoop, I would engage in raw tit for tat with this most learned gentleman. But as I have called for magnanimity on the part of our leaders, I remind myself that I call for nothing by which I do not live. I often encourage others to do the same. One day we might wake up and realise how far we have sunk.
It is not for all of us that ‘the ends justify the means’.