Too smart died at one smart door

Dear Editor,

  I ended my last letter to you stating that somebody had alerted me that the police should concentrate on the gypsy drivers because they are the ones who help to move criminals and their loot all around the island. So, I told that person that the police have special tip-lines in order that the public who do want to remain incognito can be able to call without saying who they are.

  Some of them would tell you that the police don’t do anything when you tell them anyhow. This I know is not true. Because of experience I know that the police rely on those tips.

  What I also know is that the people who call are sometimes frustrated when they believe that the police are not doing anything about the tip that they gave. That is also not true, because it always takes research and the police also have to compare the tips and see where they fit in with those that they already have. When they have it served then they usually go out and get the person they need.

  It takes patience but the public should continue using the tip line.

  By the way, someone called me and asked me why I let Peterson off the hook so easily? Peterson is still a novice where politics is concerned. and will have to bump his head a few times along the way.

  What I never and will not agree with is the way politicians address each other publicly. I have used strong words off and on but I know my bounds. It has become so that our politicians believe that the way Donald Trump behaves and expresses himself is the way it should be, but they are gravely mistaken. Life is a reflection of nature and that saying about honey and vinegar is true and one must be aware that at the end of every dispute between couples, honey wins.

  From a child my father used to tell me that “too smart died at one smart door” I was under the impression that he meant “two” smart died at one smart door until when I was 16 years old and I said to him, “Daddy, explain me the meaning of that two smart and one smart thing that you always tell me about.” After giving me one of his famous talks he said to me too much of anything is not good. When you think that you are too smart, there is always someone out there who is smarter than you are.

  For the young politicians’ sake let me repeat this. The obscene words and foul language is the easiest part of any conversation or discussion that people remember. And so are words like disgraceful and reprehensible, etc. For instance, could not this be said differently: “It is reprehensible to me that the Prime Minister would have the audacity to stand in a press briefing and attack the freedom of the press and the rights of the public to have an informed debate.”

  Does the MP really want the Prime Minister censored and condemned for taking that bold risk? Should I believe that is the relationship these two members of government have with each other? If this is the case and this being the atmosphere in our legislative hall, then what kind of a representation should we expect? How does this sound? “I believe that Madame Prime Minister has misinterpreted the law on leaking and freedom of the press and the right of the public to have an informed debate.”

  I am aware that this kind of rhetoric and underhandedness has been going on for years, That does not mean that they have to continue forever. Those who are still around should remember the case about the then-Minister of Justice’s blue car.

  Let me say this. I read “Ministry of Justice fails to implement major advice”. I believe that when someone goes into a house for the first time and meets pots and pans in the bathroom, beds in the living room, sofa in the kitchen and the repairman and maintenance man breathing down your back for their money, should it not take a little time to try to clean up the mess and get the house straightened out to be able to accommodate anyone? Is that not a good comparison of what the present Minister of Justice was confronted with when she took office?

Russell A. Simmons