Support Mirrors

March 18, 2008

Dear Sir,

It is my hope that this letter will be printed in your paper as soon as possible so that the content can be viewed by your readers while the question and comments posed by UBP Senator Gina Spence-Farmer pertaining to the Mirrors Programme are fresh in their minds as it is meant to shed some light on the topic.

While I understand that it is the job of the opposition to call the government out on their short commings, I find it hard to understand why they often do this with out first doing their homework on the topic at hand. Had Sen. Spence Farmer first researched the Mirrors programme her question as to "Why there was such a large amount of participants who did not graduate from the Mirrors Programme" would have been answered for her as well as her question as to if the programme would tackle gang-related issues for participants and volunteers.

As I was a volunteer for both the recruitment process as well as the residential portion of the programme, I will share some basic information that will hopefully answer those questions and clear up any other concerns.

First off you should note that the Mirrors Programme is 100 percent volunteer-based when it comes to participants, meaning no one could force the young people to go through it. Now that you know that put yourself in the shoes of those young people. Someone comes up to you and for whatever reason ask you to check out a programme that you never heard of. You take the first step and show up to the orientation and from what you hear and see you immediately jump to the conclusion that they want to put you into a boot camp because you are a bad person, and no matter how much the admins try to convince you otherwise you won't know for sure unless you go through with it. So now you have to decide if you will trust what your mind is telling you or believe what someone whom you have no reason to trust is telling you. What would you do?

Think long and hard about it because that decision along with others played a part in the difference between the 99 young people that went to the orientation and the 36 that got on the bus much later to go on to the residential part of the programme. During the recruitment process I approached a number of young people with different issues (emotional, gang related, drug and alcohol etc.) and asked them to check out the orientation. Some did some did not. Out of the ones that did some walked away that day, some stuck in a little longer and some went the whole way. There are many different reasons why some chose not to get on that bus, but all the reasons break down to one; they were not ready!

In order for one to be successful in the Mirrors Programme they have to be ready to commit to change. Change in the way they think, act and speak. You have to want it and be willing to work for it. This is as much true for the volunteers as it is for the participants. All those that wanted it and were ready for it got on the bus. Out of the 36 that got on the bus 33 made it to the end. That is success!

As a volunteer I had to go through just a portion of what the participants had to during my training and I can tell you it was not easy I felt like walking away. That's why I give respect to the three that did not make it to the end. It is a very challenging programme you have to be strong minded to stick in and the fact is you are only as strong as you allow yourself to be at the moment you are challenged the hardest.

It is not the end for those three nor is it the end for those that never got on the bus. They chose to leave no one forced them in fact the Mirrors staff and volunteers worked hard to try and convince them to stick with it. It just was not their time they were not ready. But they can take comfort in knowing that the Mirrors Programme is here for them, that the Mirrors staff and volunteers will continue to keep in contact with them and when they are ready the doors will be open for them to walk through.

Those 33 that made it through changed for the better. Not because I think they have or because they have a certificate saying that they completed the programme, but because THEY believe they have, and they are committed to moving forward in a positive direction. You should have seen that for yourself on CITV.

My respect goes out to those young people, the volunteers from enrolment to residential to the committed partners that are working with the young people through their last phase of the program and to the Mirrors staff, for all taking part in a programme that will benefit Bermuda and the people. I encourage everyone to at one point sign up as a volunteer or as a participant. Believe me once you complete your journey you will be a better person then you were when you started.

So that this letter is not taken out of context I feel it important to let people like Stuart Hayward and Allan Marshall know that this letter and the ones before it reflect my views. Although I do stand by the PLP Government, I stand by my words. Not because I stand by the PLP Government but because my name is Makai Dickerson and I said/wrote them.

MAKAI DICKERSON

Sandys

Examine the disease first

March 14, 2008

Dear Sir,

It is all too evident that most Bermudians, black or white do not know why we are where we are. If they did they would be working on their own solutions.

If we do not examine the disease and the damage it has inflicted, we certainly cannot discover or implement the CURE. For reasons that are hard to understand many blacks (as well as whites) prefer not to discuss the cause of so much black social dysfunctional and pathology while claiming to want a CURE. That is one aspect of our dysfunction and pathology. In any case if "the Panel" should see its role as identifying the cause, I am never certain that the same sponsor (BRRI) would welcome a discussion proposals with a win/win perspective. No one should make demands on a panel that may see what it does as its role, while making no obvious contribution to the issues apart from being critical of those who are doing what they believe to be their responsibility.

It is almost criminal for anyone who has read Stephen Covey and believes he has a solution, or even a partial solution, to do nothing more than write one letter to the Editor which, under the best of circumstances, reaches a very limited audience.

I expect that event he Premier would welcome as a part of his Advisory Committee to his Consultant, or some other role, someone who is very certain that they have a win/win solution to the obviously destructive impact which racism has had on the black community.

EVA N. HODGSON

Crawl

We won't disband

Dear Sir,

In The Royal Gazette of 18 March a letter from Clean Slate said the United Bermuda Party should disband to give blacks and whites the chance to come together in a new political alliance for a better Bermuda. In arguing the case, the writer put forward a view of the two parties: The PLP "mired in a sewer of self-dealing and corruption" and the UBP as a "white" party.

Implicit in Clean Slate's analysis is that the PLP leadership, endorsed by the electorate on December 18th, will not change and, so the argument goes, it is up to the UBP to change for the sake of the country.

I don't have a problem with that last conclusion. The UBP is committed to change; and change it must to win the confidence of the majority of Bermudians. So changes will be made — are being made — but Clean Slate goes too far in saying the UBP should disband. To insist that a party that won nearly one out of every two votes in the election disband would be farcical in any other jurisdiction, but I recognise that the writer is expressing a view in the community that the UBP simply cannot win 50-plus one per cent of the vote, ever again.

Such a roundly pessimistic judgment ignores the possibility that a party can evolve and change in fundamental ways that can garner greater support across the community. It is interesting to note that Clean Slate's hard judgment could have been made about the PLP in 1976 — its third straight election defeat — or in 1980, or 1983 or 1985, when an internal split saw just seven of its candidates returned to the 40-seat House of Assembly. Perhaps the question of disbanding was asked at some point during the PLP's history, I don't know, but history does give us an answer: The PLP soldiered on and won in 1998, when it finally won more than 50 per cent of the vote. In getting there, it made changes, shifted policies and introduced new candidates and new leaders. It is sad that one of the main architects of the PLP's eventual electoral success, Mr. L. Frederick Wade, did not live to see this success.

The UBP now finds itself facing a similar challenge. Can it win again? Yes. Does it need to change to win? Absolutely. Can it effect the changes to help it win? Yes, absolutely. The crux of Clean Slate's argument is that the UBP is seen as the creature of powerful white families "that had promoted or condoned segregation and a racial glass ceiling", earning it the permanent "disdain" of the black community.

There are a couple of major problems with this argument. First, it is hugely insulting to black Bermudians, suggesting as it does a monolithic, impervious mindset that ignores thousands of blacks who supported the UBP in the last election and the strong black UBP leaders of the past, from Dr. Stanley Ratteray, to Sir Edward Trenton Richards, to Dr. Clarence James, to Sir John Swan, to Dame Pamela Gordon.

Second, it swallows whole the PLP's propaganda that the years before 1998 were the Dark Days of Bermuda while ignoring the reality that the UBP was the change agent in Bermuda — breaking from an unjust system to move the island in a direction that desegregated schools, safeguarded rights, expanded opportunities and raised standards of living for more people than ever before.

These are facts. This is not to claim sole credit for all success before 1998. Certainly the PLP pushed the UBP to evolve and indeed the Black Caucus pushed the party to be ever more progressive. But the bottom line is that the UBP achieved some amazing things and created the solid platform, including an incredibly strong economy, which the PLP worked from when it was first elected in 1998.

I suspect the one criticism that can be levelled at the party during its years in power is that it did not move quickly enough on any given issue. However, cannot the same finger be pointed at the PLP since taking the reins of power? In its ten years, have they moved fast enough to meet people's needs? I have no doubt that some UBP Government members pushed for policies that would benefit their self-interests and those of their friends. Unfortunately self-dealings have not just continued but thrived under the PLP — surely not what Dame Lois or indeed Mr. Wade envisioned.

The United Bermuda Party today represents a broad coalition of people who reflect the diversity of Bermuda in terms of race, sex and economic power. It is a party whose philosophy is anchored in a vision of a united Bermuda — one Bermuda — of free and equal people working together effectively for a future that enables all Bermudians to lead fulfilling lives.

Party platforms in recent years reflect our commitment to bridging historic gaps that remain with us today. Much of our focus has been to enlarge the economic pie. It's why we came forward with the North Hamilton Economic Empowerment legislation that prompted the PLP Government to action. It's why we're for committing 20 percent of all government contracts — about $70 million a year — to small businesses.

We also recognise that tremendous economic pressures in our high-priced economy are squeezing more and more people, not just lower-income earners but the middle class too. So we've called for a tax cut and pushed measures forward to help young families, students and seniors.

There is no stronger, more passionate advocate for those who are suffering today than our leader Kim Swan. We are a party devoted to making Bermuda work better for its people. We are committed to policies that meet their needs.

We are also very mindful of the serious political challenge before us: It takes much more than good intentions to win the Government. The challenge is to prove to the people of Bermuda that we have their backs and that we can be trusted.

It will take time, but we are totally committed. We have a strong team that will get stronger, and we will be 'out there' proving it every day. We'll work the telephones and the town halls. We'll be on the doorstep and the soapbox, in the mailbox and the inbox. There will be familiar faces and new faces, and we will speak with confidence and optimism that together as Bermudians, we can build a better more unified Bermuda.

We have no intention of disbanding and every intention of succeeding. It won't be easy, but earning one's trust never should be. We wouldn't have it any other way.

MICHAEL FAHY

Chairman of the United Bermuda Party

Saddened by loss of life

March 25, 2008

Dear Sir,

My mother (Stef) and I are considered onions, having travelled to Bermuda each year since the early 70s and having resided at one property during all of these years.

We have, similarly, been riding mopeds for all of these years and are truly saddened by the recent tragedy and loss of life on the island at the back of our hotel on Middle Road.

We also understand how this could have happened because of the difficulty of the intersection to those who are not familiar with Bermuda's traffic directions.

We pray that this does not deter persons from visiting this beautiful island.

We have always enjoyed our stay in Bermuda (having just recently visited in February 2008) and look forward to our next trip to this very picturesque paradise.

Ms Hoopes' family continues to be in our uttermost prayers and we strongly pray that her daughter survives this unforeseen horrific experience. Keep your head up and know that we will continue to promote Bermuda and its beauty as we always have.

JUANITA SHARPER

Pennsylvania/North Carolina

Deeply saddened

March 26, 2008

Dear Sir,

As someone who grew up in Bermuda, and one who has visited Bermuda four times during the last six months, I am saddened by the recent news of yet another "death by moped." I learned to drive in Bermuda and have an International Driver's Licence, yet I did not dare to rent a moped.

Sadly, given the irresponsible behaviour of many local riders, I am surprised that there are not more deaths. Motorbike riders seem to believe that Bermudian roads have three or four lanes, not just two.

Fortunately, because of the excellence of the bus and ferry system, for which the Department of Public Transportation is to be commended, I had no need to drive a car or moped. The bus service was frequent and reliable, the drivers were uniformly expert drivers and courteous individuals, and the view of the surroundings provided the equivalent of a free tour every time I took the bus (or ferry).

On those occasions for which it was not feasible to take a bus, such as taking clothes to a laundromat not located near a bus route, I found the taxi services to be just as courteous and reliable as the public transportation services. Bermudians should be proud of, and thankful for, the high quality of both the public transportation system and the taxi services.

ROBERT DALE

Indianapolis, Indiana