2 April 1999, 840 words
Let me start with a disclaimer: I don't actually know who the biggest fool in Trinidad and Tobago is. In order for me to possess such knowledge, I would need to be intimately acquainted with every man, woman and other in the country and, to be quite honest, I'm not attractive enough. In any case, even if I were so acquainted, my judgment would still be quite subjective for, no matter how well you know someone, you can never truly plunge the depths of their dotishness. As Albert Einstein put it, "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former."
I want to emphasize these points because I am conducting this survey in as scientific a spirit as possible. This is in no way an attempt to emulate the Corbeau Awards conducted annually by Ramjohn Ali of the TNT Mirror. Ali chooses his nominees solely on the basis of his pet dislikes, although I am sure he would never buy Sat Maharaj even a cheap flea collar. My rationale for deciding upon The Biggest Fool in T&T is entirely more objective.
All my candidates have been chosen on solid inductive, epistemological, ontological and other impressive-sounding grounds. Every candidate has been chosen from public life, since this not only makes analysis easier but ensures a certain modicum of foolishness. I have divided the criteria for stupidity into two main categories and then sub-divided for precision. I then chose those persons whom I think best represents stupidity in that particular category. Each category was given a degree of difficulty calculated by tested Olympic methods, but factoring out drug-taking and bribery. The nominees were then tested across the different categories, using the formula C [l, e, t] = F (with, naturally, an inverse proportionality if they were instead breast-fed). Their total score was then tabulated. What follows is a broad outline of the final results.
<B>Logic<B>: A lack of logic is the most accurate indicator of stupidity scientists have yet discovered. Logic itself is sub-divided into two categories: formal and applied. It is easy to identify a person who is bad at formal logic: at cocktail parties, they are always the ones without a tie. (However, they may also be artists, Nigerians or Indians - this, however, is a detail and need not distract us.) I have given least weight to this sub-division because I myself never go to cocktail parties. Both Devant Maharaj and Selwyn Cudjoe have scored equally here.
Applied logic refers to the ability to draw correct conclusions from real phenomena. For example, if a woman applies a hard slap to your face after you make a pass at her, you may safely assume that she does not return your attraction. Many men are therefore congenitally stupid, since they view a woman's lack of attraction towards them as a sign of interest. However, when men's sexual stupidity is controlled by a strict moral code their innate dotisness must find other outlets. His complete inability to comprehend Denis Solomon's fart jokes has resulted in M.F. Rahman scoring highest in this category.
Empiricism: An inability to weigh evidence indicates either a significant lack of intelligence or a scale. However, it is often difficult to determine if the habitual distortion of facts arises from hypocrisy or blatant stupidity. My assumption - for assumptions must perforce intrude on even the most rigorous scientific endeavours, like hoping the woman you're chatting up isn't wearing a push-up bra - my assumption is that people who ignore inconvenient facts are blatantly stupid, since I prefer to believe human beings are honourable creatures. (Because of this preference, I have included myself among the nominees, because to cling to such a belief in a country where Ramesh L. Maharaj is the Attorney General shows that I am clearly a damn fool. )
I have further sub-divided the incapacity for empirical analysis into two categories: superstitious and intellectual. The former refers to people with the ability to ignore the most obvious evidence, like a rotting corpse. The relatives of dead teenager Candace Quan Chan have scored quite well in this category. So has everyone who believes every illness from the common cold to schizophrenia is caused by demons. Leaders of every Christian denomination except the Presbyterian (who have wisely kept their mouths shut) and every African one have received points for insisting that demons are real.
In the intellectual category we have people who, while just as good at pretending their rotten ideas have life, hide it better. They will quote philosophy, history, sociology and science to "prove" whatever bigoted views they hold. But their beliefs are no better founded than the belief in demons. Bukka Rennie, Rajnie Ramlakhan and Devant Maharaj have all scored well in this division. However, Thusian leader Nyron Medina got extra points by straddling both categories.
<B>Realpolitik<B>: Finally, nominees were judged by a third category: real logic and real empiricism. These refer to the actual influence these persons wield, in terms of how accurately they reflect general sentiments and therefore the degree of social support they have. After all, it is the foolish person who adheres to beliefs, no matter how logical or well-founded, which ensures that they will remain without power or status. With one exception, all the nominees belong to organizations with money and sociopolitical clout, which means that their apparent dotishness has a deeper rationality. Bearing this in mind, the modification of scores tabulated by insertion of this final factor has thrown up a clear winner: the biggest fool in T&T is, it seems, me.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh