Eight hours of noise

May 28, 2009

Dear Sir,

If anyone wants to hear the definition of noise pollution all they have to do is go along Serpentine road and hear the great banging into rock that's been going on for about eight months now. I thought after all that time, they make have drilled their way to China. Now it is a bit of an industrial area so building and everyday noise is to be expected and tolerated but I do feel sorry for the elderly, shut-ins and sick who are home all day in surrounding areas like Fairylands, hearing that noise like someone pounding a metal spike into solid rock from 7 a.m. onwards of eight hours a day. There has been a lot of construction going on for years but nothing like that noise. They cushioned the vibrations into rock for the dolphins at the new cruise ship terminal so couldn't something be done for people to be cushioned from some of those vibrations in this spot? Well here's hoping one day that peaceful sounds of birds chirping, wind whistling will someday fill the air and the banging will retire once and for all!

A LITLE PEACE AND QUIET

Pembroke

Can we get our money back?

May 15, 2009

Dear Sir,

Allow me to comment on the "Bogus Bond" fiasco. Bravo Mr. Premier! Another superb example of the art of spin. It never ceases to amaze me how this man can stand in front of the cameras and earnestly make pronouncements that sound like he is doing the taxpayers of this Island an enormous favour when in fact they are being ripped off — yet again.

Talking about spin — Mr. Furbert of the BIU could profit from a few lessons on the art of spin from Dr. Brown. When asked by reporters to comment on the fact that he himself assured the public, a few years ago that the BIU bond was bona fide, what did he say? I don't know as I couldn't begin to comprehend the unintelligible gibberish that was spewed forth — however what did come across was the fact that the BIU did have the funds! So if the bogus bond is no more, can the taxpayers at least get back the hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums paid? Don't hold your breath on that one. This is a classic example of what happens with incestuous relationships; the Government, the PLP the BIU, all one and the same.

And do we really think the BIU will abide by the agreement to give proper notice before taking strike action? Hah — give me a break! This is the only place on the planet where public services regularly grind to a halt because of the union calling a meeting; and the BIU have just demonstrated what their word and "bond" is worth. So now that this astonishing precedent has been set — what next? Forgive ProActive? No surely not. Hey, wait a minute — who is Government's pet lawyer? Who was the legal advisor to ProActive?

A. SUMMERS

Warwick

Health mecca for tourism

May 10, 2009

Dear Sir,

To Mr. Gerald Simons CEO of Argus Insurance: I thought of a way the insurance company (Argus) could avoid paying out dollars and cents for health insurance recipients — who would stay healthy and live longer by having a healthy diet. Mr. Simons you would do well to invite Dr. Oz to Bermuda on a three-day visit talk and explain how to remain and stay healthy, give demonstrations what to eat and what not to eat. People will come out in full force to hear Dr. Oz. Your company can choose the venue.

Bermuda could become the health mecca for tourism. We can all age gracefully. Your company Argus Insurance would greatly benefit from such a visit from Dr. Oz. Try to arrange for this visit before Dr. Oz has his own TV show on September 14, 2009. Mr. Simons you would also see numbers of people coming here because of the news of Dr. Oz. Give it some thought!

GEORGE BURCHER

Hamilton Parish

Discouraged dads

May 28, 2009

Dear Sir,

Many thanks to Dr. Linda Nielsen of North Carolina, a professor of women's studies and adolescent psychology, who just visited Bermuda on May 8 and May 9 to assist ChildWatch and The Counseling Centre and the many professionals who deal with children and their families through separation and divorce.

According to Dr. Nielsen, those children who receive too little fathering are more likely to have problems throughout their lives than children whose dads remain actively involved in their day-to-day lives after the divorce.

"Under-fathered" children are more likely to end up pregnant as teenagers, have babies out of wedlock, be sexually promiscuous and contract sexual diseases, abuse drugs or alcohol, become delinquent and end up in jail as adults, be sexually or physically abused by family members or by their mother's boyfriend or husband, become depressed or suicidal, develop eating disorders, underachieve or drop out of school, be unemployed or have trouble holding a job as adults, have troubled relationships with the opposite sex, express anger inappropriately, be aggressive, physically abuse their future spouses and children, be in worse physical health, have more stress-related health problems, and be enmeshed or overly involved with their mothers in ways that hurt their relationships with others.

Most daughters' relationships with their dads are more badly damaged and more likely to end altogether than sons' ...

The overwhelming majority of children say they want – or wanted – more time with their dads after their parents' divorce. They don't like the every-other-weekend plan.

There is growing agreement that children need to live with their dads at least 30 percent of the year to reap the lifelong benefits – benefits that are even greater when they live with him 50 percent of the time. Young adults who lived with each parent after the divorce say this was the best plan because they were able to have a close, loving relationship with both parents.

Dads voluntarily spend more money on "kid stuff" (camps, computers, toys, clothes, sports equipment, enrichment activities) and on college educations when they have their children living with them more of the time.

The written tests and in-home observations used by child custody experts are not the most reliable, objective ways to determine an adult's skills as a parent. Infants and preschool children need to be and are securely attached to both parents. They form strong emotional and psychological attachments to both parents regardless of which parent does most of the childcare. The strength and quality of the attachment formed with each parent in the first few years of a child's life are extremely hard to change later in childhood. Parents can't make up for lost time if they haven't established a strong bond with their children in the preschool years.

Children have fewer behaviour problems and achieve more at school when they feel close to their dads even if they have a good relationship with their moms. A number of divorced moms say they don't want to share the parenting or allow the children to live part time with their dad. Other moms say they have denied visitation or made it difficult for the father to see the children out of anger or revenge. Further, some moms alienate the children from their dad, sometimes entirely destroying the relationship.

Spending plenty of time with Dad and knowing that he loves them counteracts the impact of the parents' conflicts. In fact, when there's a lot of conflict, it's especially beneficial for kids to spend plenty of time with dad so they feel loved and cared for. The general public now appears to believe that equal parenting time is best for children but also believes that the family courts are biased against shared parenting.

Although, moms and dads have different parenting styles whether they're married or divorced. Children not only adapt to these differences, they appreciate and benefit from them. Too many mothers gain custody and prevent the father from seeing their children by falsely accusing him of physically abusing her or abusing the children. Many family court workers, judges and lawyers make decisions and give advice to divorcing parents based on their personal belief that children should live primarily with the mom and the belief that most judges will give preference to moms anyway. Most divorced dads get very little encouragement, or help from therapists, social workers, or their Children's teachers and counsellors. Dads feel sad, discouraged, disheartened and grief stricken, because they wanted more time with their children.

Presently, Bermuda is constructing a new court building costing $78 million. Who will be paying the price? Would it be our children paying for that, at all costs? Would there be more families damaged by this adversarial system? With the recent gang shootings and activities, we feel that there is a correlation between Dr. Nielsen's and other Professional's research, as being the major factor of these individuals coming from broken homes and not having both parents in their lives? We could implement a system like Sweden, Italy, Denmark, France, Australia, and others that would deal these family dynamics, by going to a Family Centre, which provides counselling, to achieve the best outcome for children.

To contact ChildWatch, e-mail: childwatch.bermuda@yahoo.com">childwatch.bermuda@yahoo.com or call 292-3529.

EDDIE TAVARES

Childwatch

Editor's note: Mr. Tavares provided references for the statements in the above letter, but these have been excised for reasons of space.

No to gambling

May 28, 2009

Dear Sir,

I write to express my concern and objection to the legalising of any form of gambling in Bermuda. My concern stems from the knowledge that gambling can be addictive and is linked with many social ills. Gambling is known to divide families. It is known to rob families. It is known to destroy families. We need not to add another dimension to our existing social ills. Go to www.gamblersanonymous.com to see the damage that gambling has done. Let our Island be known as the family vacation destination. Do you object to the legalising of gambling in Bermuda? Join in by voicing your objection. One voice,

CAROL N. BEAN

Devonshire