Dear Editor,
It is clear that Mr Isaacs and Mr John play on different fields – two separate newspapers – a curious but not insignificant indicator of character (with an assassination component). (‘There is no declared mechanism for healing the facture in the PNCR’ SN, August 30; ‘The slightly late start may have blurred Mr John’s sense of appreciation’ KN, September 3.)
It is also discernible that standards of social ethics differ considerably. It would be unusual (and even impertinent) for a host to be late for his own dinner party.
The third departure is in applauding mediocrity – an element (it can hardly be described as an attribute) which, contrary to contributing to development, merely deceives the actors.
On reflection, however, Mr John, a Capricorn, would plead guilty to over-reacting negatively to the simplistic example highlighted of reconciliation and inclusivity within the party. It begged intelligent logic.
The perspective to which no concession could possibly be made, however, is the pervasive proclivity to rationalise weaknesses in ourselves, while challenging others of being similarly defective.
When such rationalisation is institutionalized particularly in organisations which impact on the national well-being, then the argument for being a viable alternative constitutes a fundamental self-deception.
Yours faithfully,
E. B. John
