SOME DAYS trying to find the rationale behind certain writers' offerings is like attempting to locate a Kevin Baldeosingh novel. I had just returned from a seminar titled, The Relevance and Impact of B.C. Pires on Society, which took 10 minutes and typically began to plough through the Sunday papers when I spotted unexpected genius. It was a line that could have made both Hemmingway and his bartender drunk with envy, generated from the pen of a lately celebrated lawyer, no less. Writing beneath the headline, "Winston comes good", which is a hell of a revelation in itself, Anand Ramlogan, savouring the afterglow of COP's rally, enters the annals of literary luminaries with the following rich statement: "Dookeran was fiery and as close to passionate and charismatic as his easygoing, unassuming personality would allow." One learns that Dookie was fiery, an astonishing thing already. But he only got close to passionate. Because of his laid-back self. But he was fiery anyway, darn it. And this explains how someone can be fiery without being passionate. Thank you, Ram, we need you. We are told Dooks "… has finally found the right dose of fire for his speeches", but that now "… Winston must find the right formula that would allow him to fan the flames a little …" By the time "Winston" gets his fire going, we might be well into the next ice age! Here is another gem from Ramlogan about Dookie: "One thing for sure, he must be doing something right or else Manning would not have bothered to attack him on the issue of campaign finance. "No one pelts a tree until it is bearing fruits!" Such dazzling "logic" is shared by political scientist Dr. Hamid Ghany who agreed "… after all, if the COP is not a force to be reckoned with, why should either Panday or Manning bother to waste time of day to comment on its rally?" So criticising or commenting now constitutes irrefutable proof that Dookie is doing super, according to cloudy Anand and humid Ghany. Well, that exact reasoning must be applied for those that criticise Manning's Mansion, for example. So Patrick must be doing perfect, bearing great fruits -- judging by all this criticism. And he probably thanks the guys for this marvelous new pelt-tree logic. The fact is out of approximately fifteen Sunday writers, only four commented on Dookie's rally. A third is Senator Martin Daly who dryly and dismissedly noted, "Looking at the platform of the COP … on television last Sunday, that party urgently needs to broaden its leadership base." The other was David Abdulah who summarised, "… Dookeran's inability to inspire is surely a negative for the COP ... (he) had an opportunity to fire the imagination of the country and thus give his party great momentum, but failed on both counts. His performance -- or lack of it -- last Sunday is as much a talking point as the size of the crowd." There was absolutely no concern for this rally from Lennox Grant, Suzanne Mills, Selwyn Ryan, Peter O'Connor, Irene Medina, Dana Seetahal, Martin George, Dr. John La Guerre -- not even Ira Mathur. Shucks, didn't anybody at all know there was a "surge" going on? For others Christmas arrived early this year in the form of a Richard Charan blunder, which two of the brighter lights in our journalistic firmament fed ravenously on. This was considerate of Charan, as both B.C. and Kevin's columns had long ago taken on a lean and hungry look. Plus major issues like these must be dealt with expeditiously, I'm learning. Anyway, I always try to leave a couple of errors lying around just in case the guys are having a bad week. Charan had reported on the supposed Granville hauntings recently, his final line oddly querying the inner voices heard by a young mother prior to her unfortunate suicide. Baldeosingh however, picking his teeth after the feast on Friday, went on to share with unsupressed candour his feelings about the utter devastation superstition can spell for the media, observing that "… though many Trinidadians are superstitious, this does not mean they will trust a newspaper which treats superstition as though it is fact." Well, not only Trinis --that's a no brainer. The next sentence (or sentencing): " I find it telling that a 2005 MORI poll found the Mirror newspaper to be the second least-trusted-source to tell the truth about the Government (after Government ministers)." But did he find it digestable, we'll never know. Firstly, declaring a statement to be "telling" is to have much faith in its credibility. This was a dusty two-year- old poll, I have to tell you. But forget that. Baldeosingh writes, "From this finding, I infer that scandalous news stories only exacerbate the dubious image created by a slate of columnists who cater to superstitions such as Biblical literalism, Islamic fundamentalism, Afrocentrism, and socialism". Well, if this inference really had meat, the world and its media would have been flung totally back into darker ages after that juicy Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair, y'know? Hey, we are talking exacerbation and scandal-reporting unparalleled here, by the world Press no less. Baldeosingh shouldn't be too shaken by his poll. Besides, the weekly Press has more positive history than his little columns of contained "controversy", I'll wager. The Friday Mirror of September 7, 2007 (a couple weeks ago) ran an article headlined, "First with the news" reprinting the Mirror's Front Page of September 24, 2006 -- a full year ago -- which screamed, "8 PNM MPs to get the axe!". The story went on to name Achong, Hinds, Bereaux, Seukeran, Hart, Williams, Eulalie and Franklin. Furthermore, Rahael and Jarrette were also doubtful to return, the report stated. Did Mirror happen to tell the truth about the Government? Was it a whole year in advance? Any other newspapers doing this lately? Does MORI conduct polls on mythical novels? Stay tuned … Lastly, a pro-UNC Alliance letter finally appeared in the press the other day, would you believe. It complained of all those anti-UNC, anti-Panday letters. The editor favoured a literal headline, "Just leave UNC alone", it shouted. Which might also be telling, if one realises what the editor is saying.