[dropcap]A[/dropcap] lawyer’s adage advises: “If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither, then pound the table.” There was a whole lotta table pounding going on over the weekend (apologies to perennial rocker Jerry Lee Lewis), much of it conceivably by under-employed Looshan Johnny Cockrans marooned on the Rock of Sages and other native philosophers at large.
I formed the impression from monitoring their exhaust that given the opportunity they’d already have sentenced recently resigned senator Jimmy Henry to unending STEP labor at Bordelais. But please permit me a small digression, before I proffer a sampling of last week’s not so diplomatic intercourse via Fakebook, which I have again renamed; this time, Fessbook. Why Fessbook? Not for the reason you’re thinking, dear lover of langue mama nous. (I am presuming that since the last general elections everyone has taken the time to learn and appreciate the value of kwéyòl!)
In the case of Fessbook the prefix “fess” is English; short for confess; as in “fess up, man. Do we have to beat the truth out of you?” And what is Fessbook if not the safest place to deposit whatever burdens may be pressing heavily on what’s left of our consciences.
It is by now common knowledge that often the accusations we level at others are actually unwitting confessions. This sobering fact was unforgettably underscored by none other than Jesus when he invited a bunch of whitened sepulchers to cast their holier than thou stones at a cowered and defenseless accused adulteress. Besides, how positively we see others has scientifically been linked to how happy, kind-hearted and emotionally stable we are.
“Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality,” says assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest University, Dustin Wood. By asking study participants each to rate positive and negative characteristics of just three people, Wood and his fellow researchers were able to uncover important information about the raters’ well-being, mental health, social attitudes and how they were judged by others.
“Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits,” Wood points out. Also, that how positively you see other people is an indicator of how satisfied we are with our own lives and how much we are liked by others. In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and anti-social behavior.
Wood adds: “A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively. The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders. The Wood study (which appears in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, co-authored by Peter Harms at the University of Nebraska and Simine Vazaire of Washington University in St. Louis), also revealed that “the level of negativity the rater uses in describing the other person may indeed indicate that the other person has negative characteristics but may also be a tip-off that the rater is unhappy, disagreeable, neurotic—or has other negative personality traits.”
Never mind that our legal system operates on the presumption of innocence principle, with the burden of proof on the one who declares, not on the one who denies, still some continue to spew their venom at Jimmy Henry—whom the authorities have not once charged with wrong-doing. Indeed, last week the police went out of their way publicly to dismiss allegations, subtle and otherwise, against Jimmy Henry. No matter, certain axe grinders insist “the police never said he was not under surveillance by agents outside of Saint Lucia!” As if to suggest Henry may have drawn, unknown to anyone here, the attention of such as Interpol, the State Department, the FBI and so on. Some went so far as to suggest our police are untrustworthy, that they may be covering up for the former senator. But covering up what? Momentarily, the venomous speculators apparently forgot the Henry story had started with a so-called “random search” at George F.L. Charles in Vigie upon his return from a two-day stay in Barbados—whose officials had subjected Henry to no unusual treatment, coming or going. If the local police failed to arrest and charge Henry because they are part of a cover-up, as so many on Facebook are self-convinced, without a shred of evidence, then are the airport authorities in Barbados also Henry’s partners in crime?
The fact that the STAR had published some of Henry’s “personal reasons” for his apparently abrupt resignation was to some insignificant; unworthy of discussion. Not in a positive light, anyway. Ditto his assertion that he’d been considering resignation since mid-February. Those who bothered to go there dismissed what he told this reporter as more fake news, maybe because it did not help their cause, whatever it may be. They could not fathom why anyone would give up any job just because it placed too much pressure on his family life. Others suggested the sitting MP for Dennery North had been the snitch behind the Vigie search, again without the smallest corroboration. That I had interviewed Jimmy Henry’s friend and campaign manager on TALK only further strengthened the conviction of a particular set of full-time stone throwers that something in the alleged most rotten of states was, well, rotten!
Time to hear directly from the Cockrans, whose real names are more than likely known only to themselves. Warning: I have chosen not to edit the contributions.
Cecilia Allain: Rick Wayne, trying to obfuscate the scenario with bullshit talk. Let’s talk about lament’s situation. That’s the real issue here. I would be more concern about that interview given by his Campaign Manager. Looks like he increminate both himself and the Minister. BTW it is no longer FAKEBOOK but FESSBOOK. Then get your FESS off it. You are doing yourself and the government in which you have a “vested interest” no favors at all. If Jimmy is prosecuted in connection with this matter, it will be your softball interview that nails his coffin shut. Enjoy the funeral, I hear they can be quite entertaining.
Leo Fields: Once a particular TALKshow host realizes that there are lucians with better investigative skills than him he start to act paranoid.
Sylvester Desir: One of the most shocking aspects of this drama is that the man actually informed the officers the amount of money he had in his possession after he was free to leave. And he was willing to be searched in the public area. It appears the guy was quite confident and comfortable. Was the fox outfoxed? I hope I have not unintentionally attempted to manufacture any kind of execuses for the man.
Louisy Dee: We knew that. RF said he declared it. I think in true fashion we are trying to make excuses. The gentleman was being surveilled for a reason. They said he was not under surveillance by the local authorities.
John Alvin: Rick clear something for me. Are you saying that we should only be concerned if Jimmy breaks local laws but if it is the laws of another country that is their business, not ours?[I was tempted to ask Alvin whether we should be concerned with fornication in certain Middle East countries, even though in our own country it’s de kolcha!—Rick Wayne]
Ethelbert James: Jimmy ain tell rick the whole story.
Leo Fields: Rick is just looking for a few dollars to say the story is from a reliable source.
Sylvester: Here are some more questions: why was the man searched? What did they hope to find in the man’s possession? Who gave the orders to do so? Not a word, not a word, not a word. Facts are fact but such an incident will inevitably generate speculation. Humans sometimes exhibit cannibalistic characteristics. By the way, was officer Desir speaking the truth? If it was not the truth, then why would he be lying? [Talk about building your own strawman so you can burn it down!–RW] To borrow from The Terminator: Ah’ll be back!”
Comments are closed.