LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Stewart challenged on sustainable developmentJanuary 24, 2006
Mr. Stewart’s ongoing inability to grasp the basic fundamentals of sustainable development, which he continues to liken to Soviet-style planning, despite the lack of any evidence to support his assertions, concerns me.
Mr. Stewart has at no point sought to contact the Government officers responsible for this work in order to gain a more accurate perspective, yet continues to offer his “insights” in public fora.
I do trust his books are better researched.
His earlier “critiques” of the project and repeated personal insults which were printed in your newspaper last year, coupled with his wilful misinterpretation of your recent interview with the new, highly capable Director of Sustainable Development, lead me to conclude that he is uninterested in engaging in intelligent, measured debate on the issues which Bermuda must address if it is to maintain a meaningful quality of life for all residents in the long-term.
If Mr. Stewart has any intention of submitting for publication further material on the subject, I would simply ask that you offer me the opportunity to submit a response.
This will enable your readership to compare the pieces side-by-side and draw their own conclusions as to the relative merits of Mr. Stewart’s ill-informed musings and the proposals for action developed since July by a team of dedicated and experienced professionals, following unprecedented public consultation and detailed review by the august members of the Sustainable Development Round Table.
Sustainable Development Project Coordinator.
Seeing through the tintJanuary 24, 2006
My friend’s green Opel Astra is unfortunately super tinted and a few others done up the same way and I often wonder if they can truly see out of those cars especially when they decide to talk on their cell phones?
Hmmm ... makes you wonder.
Course, why would a person need to wear shades if their car is super-tinted anyway? To grab attention?
Those other points Warren mentioned seemed insane (cars 45 mph etc.). Ha Ha!
MAN MAKES A POINT
Pembroke<$>
Regiment is a farceJanuary 18, 2006
Throughout the year, the overall impression I gathered — from the dirty and worn state of the kit assigned to him, to attending the “open house” and observing for myself the lack of organisation, the disregard shown for the timing of events, both starting and finishing, and innumerable other signs — is that discipline is hardly manifest — yet “discipline” is said to be the number one argument for continuing what I can only describe as a farce.
Perhaps those in the Regiment who like to shout and push people around without repercussion confuse discipline with punishment. Or control for leadership.
Nevertheless, we are forced to send our children to this ‘camp’ to become ‘better men’. But you can’t lead anyone higher than you are leading yourself, and if 0900 hours sharp is really somewhere between 9.30 and 10 a.m. — keeping all waiting and frustrated — where’s the discipline? Oh, sorry, it’s Bermuda Time. OK. No prob.
During the Open House that I attended, none of the visitors were allowed to visit any part of the camp itself, so I am not sure what was “open” about it.
My son joined the British Navy when he was 18 and did the basic eight-week training camp in the UK (and thereafter decided the military life was not for him.)
We attended that passing out parade at the end of the first eight weeks, and whether or not you like military showings, it was brilliant.
In addition, we were invited to look all around the camp, from the laundry to the bathrooms, to their sleeping quarters and beyond. Nothing was hidden.
The bar was open and food and drink supplied. It was a real open house.
If the Bermuda Regiment likes to say that it is a part of the British Services, why isn’t it imitating them in this respect?
If it was a properly organised camp, whether military or otherwise, perhaps the argument for keeping it might at least be truthful, even if not the point. As it is, it’s neither organised nor disciplined.
Whatever disorganisation or lack of discipline goes on inside the camp, and whatever good comes out of it — which by all accounts hardly justifies the aggravation that being compelled to serve also produces — the point is that it should not be compulsory. Conscription cannot and does not work, no matter the various arguments for what good the Regiment does.
It reminds me of Prisoner Rehabilitation programmes.
None of them work either, unless the prisoner wants it to. It is especially wrong in Bermuda, not only for its ties to Britain — who abolished it — but because Bermuda is hardly in danger of being invaded, and even if it were, do we really want a bunch of untrained, reluctant “soldiers” running around with guns trying to shoot at ‘enemies’?
I have no problem with Bermuda having a Regiment, whether one designed for its own peculiar requirements, or based on British, Canadian or American lines. But it would be better served and more efficient if it were voluntary. If — as the argument goes — no-one would volunteer, then it seems to me that eligible Bermudians have democratically stated that they do not want a Regiment.
You can conscript these young men (and why not women as well?) and make them do what most of them consider to be foolish — march about, wear peculiar clothes, be shouted at and shout back — but you cannot make them like it, nor get the best out of the best (or even the worst) of them. You end up with a bunch of people going through the motions.
Humour is used as a way of forgetting the humiliations and stupidity of it all, passing it all off lightly with ‘ah, well, wasn’t that bad’ type attitude. But conscription in any form is not funny. It’s a sign of weakness on the part of the community that allows it, and is in direct contradiction to being Independent — whether as a country or as an individual.
How any Premier can argue for an independent nation and at the same time have conscription is an oxymoron. An independent nation is one that relies on its people and the spirit of those people to be free to think and put those thoughts into action with their own free will.
I suspect that the lack of order and systems within the camp partly stems from having reluctant recruits and lazy officers. To make it an efficient, competent and worthy body, would require a huge investment of time and effort (not to mention money) which I presume they are not willing to make.
So they do what they can, which amounts to not much, keep a low profile so as not to have anyone looking too closely.
And after the New Recruit camp, it’s all forgotten and brushed under the carpet — until the next year. None of this makes it right. Demanding that certain members of a community serve that community at the point of a gun (if not actual, then metaphorically or psychologically) is against the nature of man. When all’s said and done, there can be no right to infringe on the rights of others.
TRICIA THOMPSON-BROWNE
Member of B.A.D.
Pembroke
Stop animal abusers before it is too lateJanuary 25, 2006
Research shows that people who are violent to animals often move on to abuse humans, including their children and spouses. A study conducted by Northeastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA found that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against humans.
The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals regularly appears in its records of serial rapists and murderers. Most notorious killers, including Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Albert DeSalvo, and Jeffrey Dahmer, started out killing animals.
Cruelty to any living being endangers us all. For more information, please visit www.HelpingAnimals.com.
ALISA MULLINS
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Norfolk, Virginia
