Who is in charge? No, I mean, who really is in charge?
Her Majesty the Queen, God bless her, is head of the Commonwealth, of which we are a part,
as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. So maybe she is in charge.
But last week we held a very nice island-style ceremony to celebrate her 90th birthday, and I did begin to wonder.
The event went off pretty well. Fortunately there was no sun and no rain — which was just as well, because the parade was out in the open for some three hours — and nobody fainted.
The announced 21-gun salute, however, seemed to be only three.
The Queen sent a messenger from God (she is also the head of the Church of England) in the form of a Methodist reverend. So that’s maybe why he made the most Freudian of Freudian slips, almost asking God to bless the leader of the opposition: “The Honourable Julian Duncan.” So that promoted him and downgraded the governor. Earlier, the governor had arrived in his Range Rover, and the premier arrived in his $90,000 Cadillac Escalade, so who is top dog there? One imagines the opposition leader cock-a-hoop, and the governor gnashing his teeth at the size of the premier’s ride!
Accusations
Poor old governor. First he is accused of being a racist, and then asked if he is corrupt and if he has bought any land here.
If you were asked if you were corrupt, and you were, would you admit it? Of course not!
The only way would be accusation with evidence in a court of law.
As for the question “Are you a racist?” — what a preposterous question for a news outlet to ask! And what a difficult question to answer.
First, define racism. Is it black/white, Jew/Arab, Serb/Croat/Muslim, tribe/tribe, nation/nation,
indigenous/coloniser, Hindu/Muslim, Muslim/Muslim, Virgin Islanders/other Caribbean people, crabs/crabs in a barrel?
Oh, you mean white expatriates versus black Virgin Islanders? If you actually mean that, just remember that not one of us came from here originally, so does anyone have more right to be here? It should be, like in most countries, that anyone born here, wherever their family came from, should belong or be called VIslanders. But we know that our complicated constitution denies that right to anyone whose parents came from elsewhere.
Who, then, is asking the question and what is their stance? Why do you ask? The question implies that the questioner is not a racist and loves everybody. Thus, if the answer is yes will the questioner be satisfied with that, or will he then hate the responder, which in turn makes him a racist.
If the answer is no, will the questioner go away, or persist in getting the answer he wants? Do you see how ridiculous the whole idea is?
I suppose the only truly easily defined racists are those determined, and with the means, to eliminate another group of humans, such as Hitler, Pol Pot and so on. If you came up against one of those you wouldn’t get a chance to ask the question!
So let’s please have less of this racism business from talk show hosts, reporters and bloggers.
Where was I going with this?
Financial services
If the government has a cash flow problem — which it seems it does after hours of debate, when it finally came out — and it’s because they only get money from the Financial Services Commission twice a year, then the solution is very simple. Change the law so that financial institutions pay the FSC monthly, and the FSC pays government monthly! Too simple! Why?
{fcomment}