How to separate the truth

April 27, 2007

Dear Sir,

“There are three species of mendacity, each worse than the one before — lies, damned lies, and statistics.” — Disraeli. In the days of phrenology, (male) scientists used skull measurements to prove that men were superior to women. No one ever thought the day would come when there would be a female scientist. But when she came along what did she do? She used the very same data her latter-day male counterparts had and proved that it was the women who were “in fact” superior. “We’re talking from a position of fact rather than perception...” says Craig Christensen, implying that the Government Statistics graphs speak for themselves. They don’t; they actually speak for whoever would care to use them. Statistics, like reason, panders the will, as Shakespeare said (my grandmother used the somewhat more graphic expression: “Reason is a whore”).

I could take the simple graph published in your paper (April 25th) depicting the decline in hotel properties since 1986 and make it mean anything I wanted e.g., that fewer hotels is the cause of lower tourist numbers; or just the opposite — fewer hotels is the result of lower tourist numbers. Or the graph suggests a correlation between the decline in tourist numbers and the decline in large tracts of open space in Bermuda; or is in inverse proportion to the rise in high school drop-outs; or to the growth of violent crime here, or the increasing number of cars or of noise and exhaust pollution, or the influx of tax exempt companies. I could even say it is tied directly to my sense of hope about this country.

So the question is, whom do we trust? If developers and environmentalists can use the same statistics and the same reasons for their respective arguments (developing green space vs. not developing it — is essential for tourism (and therefore of national importance) how can we separate the speaker of truth from the speaker of damn lies? The secret is to look not at the arguments but at the people putting them forward. Ask yourself one major question: what does this person have to gain? If the answer is: “Huge financial benefits as well as special privileges from the government including exemptions from the law,” then turn your back. If the answer is, “Nothing but the sacrifice of time, money and hard work, the goal being to benefit on every level all citizens for all time,” then you would be wise to listen. The benefits for you will be beyond measure...

WARY

Sandys

‘Disgusted’ was right

May 2, 2007

Dear Sir,

As a white born Bermudian I would like to shake the hand of “Disgusted Truly” whose letter appeared in today’s Letters to the Editor titled “Evil Undertone Detected”. This cites examples of how our “New” Bermuda is truly shaping up. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I just wish I could have said it as well as you have. Like you, I do not care about the colour of anyone’s skin be they black, white, pink, green or purple with polka dots! What is do care about is lifting up my voice and my pen, as requested, to aid Disgusted Truly’s call for all right thinking Bermudians, no matter the colour of our skin, and say enough is enough and freedom on speech is one of life’s most basic human right.

Enough of this anti-expat climate and enough with Government officials demanding respect because of their position in Government instead of who they are as human beings. Enough of people losing their jobs for simply speaking out. For anyone who thinks this is the “new” Bermuda you are fooling yourself and you need only to look at the world’s history books. This is not “new” — this is very old — and there is enough evidence in the world’s history to prove it. Stalin and Hitler come readily to mind. By the way — lest certain folk in Government are in any doubt, respect can always be earned but it is never demanded.

A SUPPORTER OF DISGUSTED TRULY

Warwick

We’re British

May 3, 2007

Dear Sir,

Further to the excellent and timely letter in Wednesday’s Royal Gazette signed “Phil Mickelson Fan Club”, I would like to add my own comment on ZBM’s shortcomings. We are a British island, therefore why does their station ID read “News Center” instead of “News Centre”? Why the American spelling? I shall await this small correction with bated breath.

JEAN HANNANT

Pembroke

MP is misguided

May 7, 2007

Dear Sir,

MP Maxwell Burgess’s support of the proposed Southlands project (Royal Gazette, May 7, 2007) is, like the proposed project itself, misguided. However and by whatever means Bermuda improves the quality of its tourist industry, Southlands is not the place to do it. There is no particular logic in Mr. Burgess’s argument, which is: Jumeirah and the Southlands developers are proposing a big fancy resort which will ipso facto upgrade Bermuda’s tourism “product” with “a first class plant”, as if the Jumeirah-Southlands proposed project were essential to improving Bermuda’s tourist industry.

In the first place, there are other places in Bermuda to locate a big new fancy resort (if, in fact, one were needed, which is arguable) that are not as environmentally sensitive as the Southlands location. Secondly, as has been noted many times by the massive opposition to the proposed Southlands project, there are existing inactive hotel properties that could be renovated to be “first class plant”. Thirdly, tourism depends as much (and possibly even more) on the service component as the infrastructure (or “plant”) of a resort complex; a big fancy resort can be a lemon, and detrimental to the industry, if the people behind it do not offer the same quality of service as the quality of the “plant”. The quality of the plant is no guarantee that the “product” overall will be improved.

Fourthly, and most important of all, Bermuda’s natural environment is an integral and essential part of the attraction of Bermuda as a tourist destination. By destroying, or even disturbing, the natural environment of the Southlands property (or any natural habitat in Bermuda), one of the main reasons why people want to visit Bermuda is destroyed. It is probably true, as Mr. Burgess says, that Bermuda must upgrade its tourism “product”.

But, in doing so, it is equally and at the same time essential not to degrade that integral asset of the tourism “product” upon which its long-term viability depends, namely, the beauty of Bermuda’s natural environment. By all means, build a better tourism “product” for Bermuda, but the environment around Southlands is already an irreplaceable and unique asset for the industry; it should never be pillaged, plundered and bulldozed over to make way for new “plant”. Mr. Burgess also notes that he doesn’t see people “marching up and down Front Street” to oppose the “four or five cranes (in Hamilton) ... building office blocks as we speak”, presumably in reference to the massive public outcry of opposition to the proposed Southlands project.

The reason people aren’t marching along Front Street is that Hamilton is a city where office blocks, and cranes used in building new ones, are standard components of cityscapes. Southlands is a natural part of Bermuda’s uniquely beautiful landscape where a big fancy new resort simply does not belong.

GRAHAM FAIELLA

London, UK

Where is the justice?

May 6, 2007

Dear Sir,

I have followed the Rebecca Middleton case from the beginning and over the years I have frequently searched Bermudan news for updates on this story. As a Globe and Mail reader I was heartened by the appeal to the Supreme Court and I am now dismayed at the result. When victims cry out for justice it is the duty of all good citizens to see that it happens. What is the problem with your justice system? You have a crime and you cannot see your way clear to justice. An understatement would be that Canada is appalled with your apparent cavalier attitude toward young lives.

MICHAEL GRIER

Calgary, Alberta

Stop the personal attacks

May 4, 2007

Dear Sir,

Southlands — Poached Egg or Toast? Whenever an individual in a debate makes personal remarks about another, one can only assume that the aggressor is losing ground. The article on page 2 in The Royal Gazette on Friday April 27, 2007 certainly indicated that Mr. Christensen is losing face including the part with egg on it. He has committed two unforgivable faux pas:

1) He has made unsubstantiated and unnecessary remarks about an honest and generally respected member of the community and

2) He used a remark about a “political poached egg” as if it were his own when he should have attributed it to Harry Viera (then MP) about Julian Hall. Seriously poor form, Mr. Christensen.

It seems that Mr. C. is trying to become a latter day political firebrand. If that is so, he could well take lessons from Mr. Viera or he could well end up a poached egg with nowhere to sit — or simply toast! What a pity this whole issue is to be decided by the Minister and an SDO rather than following rational and open debate without resorting to personal vilification.

COPPERKNICKERS

Paget