The candidate you vote for says who you are, and the candidate who wins in your division says what the people in your division are like. Confining ourselves to candidates, even if they are brand new to the political arena, they’ll have a track record you can readily investigate, so you usually have more to go on than gut feelings and prayers. Of course, where the finances are concerned, we never know people until we give them power, but their general character usually doesn’t bring surprises.

Of course, all of us have sinned, but most people prefer a candidate who has dignity, tries to be honest, and is sincere. Of course, there are other attributes that are good for a leader to have, but dignity is very high on the list. If the candidate is a man, you shouldn’t mind if your sons grow up to be like them, and if the candidate is a woman, you shouldn’t mind if your daughters grow up to be like them. It’s called emulation, and everyone needs a good role model to follow.

Patrick Faber’s big legacy

Patrick Faber consistently defeats candidates that in my estimation are more talented than he is, candidates that possess more of the not-so-common cutting edge tools essential for developing Belize than he has. Twice Patrick beat Ms. Carolyn Trench Sandiford, an awesome Belizean talent, and if you believe the pundits in Belize, he will probably get over Oscar Arnold too, a man who is a rare combination, a banker with the common touch.

Patrick also defeated another outstanding talent, Patrick Rogers, but Rogers ran as an independent (or a third party candidate) and we all know in this electoral system they usually only get a bite out of the protest vote.

I’m not questioning Collet for its decisions, because there are a number of factors in this process. One factor is that in our Parliamentary Democracy system a good candidate sometimes runs into a roadblock because it’s a group thing, more than a one-person show. That is why they say that if the people like a party (at a given time) and you are a mule or a broomstick that gets on the ballot because of intra-party machinations, sanavahookotyuhayr luk hoo da mista/miss minista!

I expect Mr. Faber must have some likeability and leadership qualities, maybe a lot, to help him get by, and he does have other talent, but if I am building a country I don’t think he has the substance to compare with those he conquered, and might conquer. It’s the economy, colegas, it’s about jobs creation, and you first have to know how an economy works to get that done.

Probably the great legacy of Patrick Faber is his crass act of stringing a banner across the Central American Boulevard in 2003 (or is it Aught 8) that said: Tek dehn money an vote dem out. He was just a boy then, and the PUP that we booted out of office in 2008, were believed to be in the habit of spreading money around. Patrick, understanding the needs of many of our people….well, sometimes you have to fight fire wid fire.

There are some who put country before their individual interests, but for the majority of persons, their individual and their families’ financial growth and security are a major concern. People want things, and naturally those who aren’t well off are satisfied with less. So, I agree, tek dehn money an all dehn have to give, an vote em out.

I am aware of the physical tearing of notes and the picture-taking of ballots to give the advantage back to the politicians, so in the end the philistines won the battle. But it was necessary to call them out.

Church leaders getting aggressive

Brother Patrick Menzies, the gentleman who did such fine work setting up the Jasmine Alert to protect young girls from predatory and murderous males, I get the sense that he was militantly against the control the authorities have exerted on the churches to keep their flocks from congregating. Everyone has baggage; the “good “ones just leave theirs at home.

Mr. Menzies was trying to get into the race in Belmopan, but someone dusted off some law and denied him on Nomination Day. Good thing. Can you believe Mr. Menzies was talking about fighting communists in Belize? Guy, there are no communists in our part of the world. All we have are a few socialists who are tired of the relentless abuses by the enemies of equal rights and justice.

Well, Mr. Menzies was challenging the church flock to be brave, but he didn’t get a following to break the law. It’s a different story coming out of Blue Creek where one, or two, or three hundred people gathered last weekend to make a joyful sound onto the Lord. The extent of the crowd depends on your source, but it is a fact that there was defiance, because one of the shepherds went on air to justify their congregating.

According to this shepherd, they were responding to a higher calling. It seems to me that there is as much zeal in some religious crowds to get inside a church as there is in some people when they want to get into a closet.

When people are so antsy to disobey, you have to bring out your next best, because if you don’t, they’ll overturn your laws, just as the other rebellious crowd I mentioned has done to a section of our Constitution. No, next best doesn’t include being in the churchyard with guns.

Did the Mennonite pastor say that science hasn’t shown that masks help to prevent the spread of corona and flus? Please give that misguided gentleman a plane ticket to Japan or Taiwan.

Resist the temptation to papishoa anyone’s religion

I’ve never read The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, but I’m well acquainted with the furor after the book was published, and that Mr. Rushdie had to go into hiding because a contract was put on his life.

Instead of joggling my mind for the little evidence I have to explain why the Muslims shouted “Death to Rushdie”, I’ll take a few snippets from this September 2019 piece, “Thirty years on, why ‘The Satanic Verses’ remains so controversial”, that was written by Myriam Renaud and published in The Conversation (theconversation.com).

Renaud said the book challenges and sometimes seems to mock some of the Muslim faith’s most sensitive tenets. In the Rushdie book, the Prophet “is called Mahound – an alternative name for Muhammad sometimes used during the Middle Ages by Christians who considered him a devil”.

Rushdie said, “Why can’t we debate Islam? It is possible to respect individuals, to protect them from intolerance, while being skeptical about their ideas, even criticising them ferociously.”

I think you will agree that sneakily calling the Prophet a devil was very criminal. The recent furor in France, where a man killed a teacher because he showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his class, is unfortunate, but I don’t support playing around with other people’s faith, especially if they are tochiz about it. There are many fragile people in this world who are held together by their religion. It looks like fun to some, and democracy, but it is cruelty to others.

Lampooning politicians is far different from making fun of people’s religion. For starters, politicians are mere human beings and it is wise to nip at their heels so they don’t forget they are mortals who were hired to do a good job for the people.

Some of these minds we hire are too small to have so much power. I like how the British and the Americans handle them. No British or American politicians ever become a lee god, because they are constantly reminded that their contract is short-term.