Dense versus obtuse

The recent exchange between Christopher Ram and Ronald Bulkan served to crystallize ephemeral thoughts that have been nagging at the back of my mind for some years. Ram posits that Bulkan and his former cabinet colleagues may know they are being disingenuous with arguments about 34 votes and 90 days.

Editor, from the earliest days of the Granger Administration I have struggled with the very same dilemma, is this administration deliberately obtuse or simply dense? I have ruled out the first as none has so far revealed any level of sophistry to date, no clever analogies, nothing to make one stop and consider their arguments seriously, from the reasons proffered for their very first transgression against the people with the obscene salary raise to Trotman’s mango analogy which was asinine at best.

It is denseness that has caused Brigadier David Granger (Retired) to set us upon a path to dictatorship. The refusal to accept the ruling of the Chief Justice in all matters raised concerning the No-confidence Motion of 21st December 2018 has moved us past the parody of democracy that stultified resistance to the subversion of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Like Ram, I was willing to concede these may be political arguments made for sake of expediency and not an actual reflection of intellect or lack of thereof, no longer however, I cannot concede that any intelligent human would subject themselves to this level of ridicule of small children for the sake of any amount of power and perks. This group should be sitting at the back of the class with party hats on not in the halls of power. In the cased of Deliberately obtuse V Dense, the verdict is clear, only a dunce would appeal. I am all too willing to be proven wrong.

Yours faithfully, Robin Singh