<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">So we can all continue with our comments about whats going on, we can continue to believe the illusions presented by these thieving scumbags. Or we can acknowledge its a scam, acknowledge that your only chance for success comes from within yourself and family unit. And lastly, we can all acknowledge how little government actually accomplishes, and how we should strive to get them out of our lives. </p></li>
</ul>

I agree with your sentiments here. In retrospect, the tribune comments are in essence - useless, but I suspect that all who comment have some underlying hope that in some way they could effect change.

In a country with conditions such as ours, it is wiser to forget what the government is doing and chart your own course. The greater population doesn't care anyway.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">“And I believe that I can also decimate love...</p></li>
</ul>

Ha! I caught that too! But the tourism minister is talking too much for his own good. He probably meant to say disseminate, or whoever typed up this article really oopsed a word.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray"> So whatever statistical decline there may be in crime it is not enough to reduce the fear of crime and the concerns for crime among the average citizen.</p></li>
</ul>

Statistical information is highly interpretive, and it is always nice to see the numbers upfront and in full, but guess what, you would have a hard time finding any public statistical crime information pass 2013. There is practically nothing on the internet. To quote the [OSAC](https://www.osac.gov/pages/Conten… crime and safety report;

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">The Bahamian government has not made public comprehensive, updated national crime statistics since July 2013.</p></li>
</ul>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">“Sixty-one in 2007, 73 in 2008, 85 in 2009, 94 in 2010 and 127 in 2011. It is important that we ask our colleagues to acknowledge their government’s role in implementing and overseeing the policies that put us in this position in the first place. It is hard to imagine the former government to now critique the cleanup job our government must now take.”</p></li>
</ul>

It always disturbs me when they play around with numbers like this. Unless the printed article made a mistake, doesn't the attorney general mean to say **78** in 2007 not 61? But watch how they subtly play politics, she continues to insinuate that the crime problem is a result of the previous government, when it has nothing to do with government at all. I guess they've made their political beds, have to lie on it, and carry it the next day.

---
[](http://www.royalbahamaspolice.org/aboutus/rmib.php?file=rmib.pdf)

---

Source: [The Royal Bahamas Police Force](http://www.royalbahamaspolice.or…

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Are there not some matters that transcend partisan politics?</p></li>
</ul>

Even if there are matters that transcend partisan politics, out of stubbornness and a reluctance for compromise, we ultimately devolve into partisan politics. This makes a lot of sense when you consider Bahamian history. We as Bahamians are conditioned to view issues through an “us vs them” mentality. This forms a larger part of the Bahamian identity and we identify our position and ideology through political party rather than through nationalistic issues. Every election proves this over and over again. The media also reflects this truth.

Politicians know that one of the simplest ways to unify a group is to utilize the psychological effect of “us vs them”. If there is a common enemy, then all differences within their unified group cease and everyone works toward a common goal. This does not bode well for the long term development of a country, and it takes a different type of politician who possesses nuance and skill to unite a country through nationalistic issues. This distinction is also the reason why countries such as Singapore are so successful.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Does anyone really disagree that we are all equal under the law?</p></li>
</ul>

If you were to go through town and ask everyone you meet this exact question you would soon realize that the perceived sense of equality varies from person to person, but this is not the biggest problem. The real crux of the matter is how a person perceives the law. For example, when some hear “equal under the law” what they really see is “some people are more equal than others”.

Laws are passed but not all laws are truly capable of full enforcement. Democracy looks nice on paper but ultimately depends on the responsibility of leaders and the society. Equality looks nice on paper but again depends on societal responsibilities and mutual respect.

In the end, and as bizarre as this sounds, you’ll find that a significant amount of people do not want equal rights because they know how the government and/or society functions. They are free to exploit the current system the way they want to, it's as simple as that.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Then why in God’s name do we need a referendum to give all our citizens the same rights?</p></li>
</ul>

Because constitution.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Imagine running scared from a thirty something rookie politician to the extent that they would abort their most important parliamentary contribution of the year just to try and stifle him.
</p></li>
</ul>

You’re right. That’s exactly what it looked like to a lot of us. This government is destroying themselves. I sometimes wonder if they truly realize there are many people watching everything they do and say in parliament.

The speaker definitely made an excellent decision under the pressure of the situation he was in, and quickly realized that the spirit and intent of the house rules were not being kept.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">However, Mr Davis said he was not going to speak and that it was within his right to move for the vote to close the debate because “all of the minority members of the House of Assembly have spoken” and Dr Rollins had intentionally missed his opportunity to speak.
</p></li>
</ul>

Sad. There were people who really wanted to hear what he had to say.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">It is disgustingly inadequate and those who spread the lie that 300 would cause unemployment are uneducated buffoons who know nothing about economics in the Bahamian context.
</p></li>
</ul>

I disagree. It is a general rule that increases in minimum wage result in less people being employed. This is especially true for business that make heavy use of the minimum wage along its employee base. They will compensate for the wage increases by having less people to pay, in light of the demand and supply needs between the employer and employee in a certain market. The argument should not be whether the minimum wage should increase or decrease but whether the minimum wage should even exist.

The numbers prove this notion. Look at countries where there is no minimum wage and you will notice that they all have low unemployment rates. Why is this? Market forces and factors determine the real wage of the workers - efficiency, productivity, profitability. Minimum wage almost always tends to be a faux control of the wages, and indirectly, the employment numbers.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Private sector executives have told Tribune Business that the minimum wage increase will not impact the economy or employment levels, given that most businesses pay salaries well in excess of both $210 and the previous $150 benchmark.</p></li>
</ul>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Mr Ferguson, too, agreed that the minimum wage increase would not impact the 15,000 workers covered by the TUC’s bargaining units and industrial agreements, as they all enjoyed higher salaries.
</p></li>
</ul>

So who are they really fighting for? They claim the wage is designed for those who are not a part of trade unions, but that is not specific enough to be convincing.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">When is ninety-three percent a failing grade editor? The answer is NEVER!</p></li>
</ul>

Wow, so pompous! Obviously this writer has never heard about grading on a curve. A ninety-three percent can be a failing grade in many instances.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">...I keep repeating the position that opinions must be supported by objective and unassailable empirical data if those opinions are to retain a shred of credibility.</p></li>
</ul>

How is what you present objective and unassailable empirical data? Those are some strong words. What a funny letter to the editor, it gave me a good laugh.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p style="color:gray">Too many of our people have adopted the inner city mentality of the American ghettos. The country cannot afford for this cultural mindset of rampant and profligate sexuality with multiple partners and multiple offspring from those multiple partners. The accompanying materialism, prostitution and criminality continue to spread as a result. Religion is failing the people and real ethics and morals are being forgotten in the process. </p></li>
</ul>

Well said, but it may very well be too late and the resulting consequences may have to run their course.

<iframe width="600" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HUiC3n1uju…" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>