EDITOR, The Tribune.
The headline in The Tribune on Thursday, 21st August 2014 read “PLP MELTDOWN” in bright yellow…or was it gold?
In the mind of The Tribune’s News Editor (or Managing Editor or Editor or owner), a difference of opinion between Dr Andre Rollins, a PLP backbencher, and the senior leadership of the PLP constitutes a “meltdown” in the PLP. Let’s take the view of The Tribune at face value and apply logic to it.
The leader of the FNM, Dr Hubert Minnis opposed Stem Cell research and therapy, but the deputy leader of the FNM opening supported it.
Dr Minnis opposed the legalisation of webshop gaming, but the chairman of the FNM, Darren Cash, believed that webshop gaming should be legalised.
The deputy leader of the FNM felt that Bahamian home owners whose mortgages were in distress should demonstrate and protest against the PLP government (even though 4,000 of them were left distressed under the watch of the FNM, but never mind the facts). Dr Minnis disagreed with the demonstration.
And then the 4 constitutional Bills. Dr Minnis agreed first, saying that the FNM should speak with one voice. A few weeks later, he changed his mind and preached a parliamentary sermon of fear, concern, gloom and doom and disaster.
He also told some tale about some quagmire that the government had gotten itself into that as leader he was not going to let the FNM get dragged into.
Meanwhile, the deputy leader of the FNM remained supportive of the Bills that will afford both men and women equal rights under the law. It was just your simple run of the mill, garden variety difference of opinion among the FNM leadership that literally threatened the whole constitutional referendum based purely on misinformation.
Now here comes the application of The Tribune’s logic: If a disagreement between a backbencher and the leader amounts to a meltdown, then what do frequent disagreements between the FNM leader, the deputy leader of the FNM and the FNM chairman constitute? It certainly cannot be just a mere meltdown. Based on The Tribune’s logic, the FNM crashed and burned long ago, reduced to rubble – to ash and cinder.
This has to be the only logical conclusion because it is inconceivable that The Tribune would not be fair and balanced, with a blatant, jaundiced and biased political view and agenda. Why that’s simply impossible because they swear to the dogma of no master.
ALEXANDER LARODA
Nassau,
August 24, 2014.
Comments
birdiestrachan 9 years, 8 months ago
Mr. Laroda I could not say it better myself. It is important to speak Truth, The Bahamian people are not as dumb as some may think,.
asiseeit 9 years, 8 months ago
Birdie, come now, you are a bright one with your fanatical support for the PLP. All or nothing right?
kikiknowles 9 years, 8 months ago
PLP apologist, Mr. Alexander Laroda’s attempt to equate the current ambiguities in the Opposition to the mentioned “PLP Melt Down” is a *FALSE EQUIVALENCE.*
For the benefit of Mr. Laroda and others, wherever they reside, who are unfamiliar with the term false equivalence, I submit the following from Wikipedia for their edification:
“False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence.
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. In other words, correlation does not mean causation. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. D is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
The following statements are examples of false equivalence: • "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
• "Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs. An ounce is about the same as three bottles. If you think one should be (ill) legal, you should think the same of the other."
• "We're all born naked. We're all no different from each other." False equivalence is occasionally claimed in politics, where one political party will accuse their opponents of having performed equally wrong actions. [1] Commentators may also accuse journalists of false equivalence in their reporting of political controversies if the stories are perceived to assign equal blame to multiple parties. [2] It should not be confused with false balance – the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation).”
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID