So the People’s National Party had its annual conference last weekend and Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller gave an account of her stewardship so far. We have heard that the private sector is in partnership with the government to provide jobs, which is commendable as a short-term measure. I have suggested over the years that more co-operatives and friendly societies could be set up for employment. The members could link up with the credit unions to provide the funding to buy sufficient shares in companies on the stock market to control the jobs.

The co-operative movement should be in the hotel industry. Can you imagine a hotel which is owned by the management and the staff? There would be work for electricians, plumbers, ancillary workers, landscape workers, lifeguards, singers, caterers, waiters, sports coaches, nurses, teachers, bus and car drivers – you name it.

The usual argument against it is that the overhead profit for the owners of hotels is not great. Whatever happened to “not for charity, not for profit but for service”? The co-operative movement’s main interest would be the jobs. And there could be a requirement for compulsory savings in credit unions, which would mean more money for loans.

We cannot continue to borrow our way to prosperity. Opposition Leader Andrew Holness said this in his speech after being sworn in as prime minister on Sunday, October 23, 2011, the first day of his 74-day tenure in that office. Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips has been saying the same thing and they are both right.

I suggested before and do so again, that Jamaica should have a gigantic negotiations conference annually where tertiary students from all over the world would come. Why do I suggest negotiations? Jamaica has been developed on loans, which were done through negotiations. Why not show off our collective skills at negotiations to the world, and then use the landing and departure tax to help repay our international debts while boosting our tourism product?

So the controversial textbook on family life was pulled from the schools. Thank God for vigilant parents! I agree with the parent who is reported in the press as saying that when the book is re-introduced the parents should see it before it is released. I believe the parents need to go further than that and make checks while the book is being printed. I suspect that the book was interfered with after the signing off by the professionals.

It is one thing to be tolerant of adult homosexuals who live their lives in private, but to encourage the conditioning of young minds towards it is a totally different matter. Tolerance is understandable. Even former Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who made the famous statement, “Not in my cabinet” said in an interview that he was not going to break down any doors to see what adults were doing although he did not accept homosexuality as a lifestyle.

But conditioning young minds to homosexuality is totally unacceptable. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is sin: “Under no circumstances can it be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church number 2357). At the same time the said catechism states in number 2358 that homosexuals are to be treated as human beings and should not be unjustly discriminated against. But today many in the gay movement are really going too far. They want to be left alone but do not want to leave the straight people alone. And more so they are trying to force a homosexual orientation on innocent children. In some instances they have succeeded.

Truth be told, it is the same thing with women’s rights. While we should rejoice with the women who are today liberated, there are women who not only want to become men (which is their business) but they want to force the men to become women. And it appears to me this is a part of the plan by some organised group of people to “gayify” the world so that they can make money by selling the things homosexuals use.

The way in which the family life text book was clandestinely and silently put in front of the children is quite similar to the way that the cartoons are made to look normal, yet contain subtle homosexual messages. It is the same way that all sorts of weird styles in clothing and adornments are made. I believe that some entertainers are paid good money to advertise these so-called styles.

And further I theorise that the exposure of the tiny percentage of Roman Catholic priests who have been accused or found guilty has been done by the homosexuals who wish to intimidate the Roman Catholic Church from speaking out against homosexuality. Perhaps the aim was to hide the rest of the homosexuals and paedophiles by putting the spotlight on the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, it has advanced today to the point where it stares everyone in the face. A suggested debate could be, “Be it resolved that marriage provides a bigger cover for buggery than celibacy.”

ekrubm765@yahoo.com