Stillwaters, exactly. And this is why politicians should not listen to Bahamians at all. All we do is complain and then complain, oh, and then jump on message boards to complain. The Director was absolutely right in this situation. Any objective, right thinking Bahamian should understand that.

Economist, so he is ignorant for denying a foreigner's application when there is a qualified Bahamian (he claims) that can perform the job? You must have sat next to the Director in the "D-" group in school. Such a silly statement.

Islandgal1, that is the single most vacuous statement ever asserted on this comment board, and that is really saying something.

Porcupine, you do realize we can only elect who is presented to us, right? It's not as though we can "write in" votes for a leader. So, if we are choosing the worse of two evils, how is this situation the people's fault?

Hyperbole much, sealice?

Does anyone speak or write English anymore? I have no idea what you are trying to say...

So, you are implying that only FNMs (John Delaney/Brian Simms) have the "distinguished legal mind with impeccable back ground in private practice" to become Chief Justice? Nonsense!
Though, I do agree with your comment about CJ Stephen Isaacs.

licks2, what you have asserted is not true at all. Firstly, you don't "act for one year". Some civil servants have served in an "acting" capacity for years. Secondly, one is not "automatically confirmed to that position" if "ya any good at that job" (sic). There is no provision anywhere in General Orders that states this. The acting capacity is used by politicians either to engender loyalty to the government of the day, or to cause the employee to "sing for his supper" and, thereby do any and everything that the government of the day requests.
You are right, however, that this nonsensical and, yes, insidious practice is as old as time. It has to stop. The government should appoint whomever is deemed the most qualified person for the job (I disagree that it is Justice Isaacs, but...).

Sheeprunner12, you are very accurate. However, the issue is that this same government indicated, in no uncertain terms, that they would not follow the precedent of "whacking" Bahamians solely due to political affiliation. But, if we are objective, they have in fact done this very thing. The duplicity is what should be criticized (along with the act itself...).

licks2, whether you care or not does not change the fact that a large part of the reason why the economy is turning around is due to the efforts of the last administration. In short, birdie is (partly) right. We can be mature enough to have an intelligent discussion even if the facts don't necessarily suit our narrative.