October 8, 2005

Dear Sir,

I wish to respond to Mr. Starling?s recent remarks about systems of government.

I believe his letter stated ?a cooperative, democratic, ecological and egalitarian social order is not only possible, it is an absolute necessity?. The statement is inherently flawed. Certainly cooperation is desirable, as is democracy, but these components are incompatible with egalitarianism and ecological concerns. A democracy involves the election of chosen representatives; it therefore presupposes or implies that certain men or women are more able in certain capacities than others. Equality is therefore impossible when the system of government itself demands plains of differentiation. An ecological society is a somewhat troublesome concept; society is a human invention that encourages civil cultivation and a mode of human existence whereby institutions are formulated and associations nurtured. Since biblical times this has meant the construction of an urban setting, a necessary restraint of nature to facilitate the prosperity of mankind. Perhaps Mr. Starling meant a society which was sympathetic to ecological concerns; this is a somewhat different entity.

In any event, the main point I wish to bring to bear is that Mr. Starling?s remarks trouble me because they are nothing more than quixotic idealism. Indeed, he paints a picture of a ?Utopia?. Following, Mr. Starling?s own literary precedent (he quoted Macbeth), I think it important to introduce Mr. Thomas Moore, who first coined the word in his treatise on the fictional land of ?Utopia?. In doing so, he highlighted the irony around the concept: is Greek; it means ?no place?.

Certainly we would all applaud Mr. Starling?s vision for society. Yet we must realise this same vision is elusive and, ultimately impossible, for it requires the fundamental suppression of all individual freedoms for the betterment of the state; a precept worrying similar to the very social vision propounded in Marxist doctrine, an ideology that has already been proven unsuccessful. It is impossible to suppress the individual: ideological corruption is inseparable (unfortunately) from human nature: just look at the history of the 20th Century.

Socialism is unobtainable: the human element, whether it be in the form of Stalin, Lenin, Mao or whoever, will interfere. The paradisiacal theory always succumbs to the practical hell. This is why capitalism works; it is a compromise whereby we must hope that the good intentions of individuals surpass the bad.

EDWARD RANCE

Cambridge, UK

October 13, 2005

Dear Sir

There is a very serious drawback to bringing in ?experts? from overseas to comment on our society?s behaviour, in that their expertise has been gained in societies very different from our own.

Those who have, in fact, spent a reasonable period of time studying our influences and attitudes, our priorities and preferences, have earned the right to draw conclusions. However, in the case of Mr Tim Wise, as reported in the October 12th edition of Bermuda Times, we have no grounds to believe that he has yet experienced enough of Bermuda to expound on our situation.

I take serious issue with his view that if a white Premier had made the now notorious ?look and sound like? comment about a black member of the public ?there would not have been this level of outrage?.

Sir, I can say categorically, without any fear of contradiction, that the outrage would have been immense, with an outcry so deafening that there is no way that white Premier could have stayed in office. There would be talk of tarring and feathering at the least! Heading this outcry would be the white population of Bermuda ? believe me, there would be racial divide in the condemnation of that person?s offence.

Justifying along racial lines behaviour which is simply just not acceptable is na?ve and non-productive, and an insult to intelligent people of all races.

HELLE PATTERSON

Hamilton Parish

October 9, 2005

Dear Sir,

The Premier and his Government are operating within a culture of cronyism, corruption, deceit and racism. It is either blind or utterly incapable of dealing with the real issues which plague the people of this Island. Their record to date has been nothing short of abysmal.

The people of this Island are acutely aware of our deplorable situation which is deteriorating now at an every-increasing pace. Unfortunately, most of us have become remarkably apathetic, and reluctant, for whatever reason, to express our views concerning our Government, which, with its performance after seven long years, would, in most jurisdictions, have received its walking papers long ago.

When the Premier created the Bermuda Independence Commission, he promised it would be ?a comprehensive, fact-finding, analytical and reasoned approach? to the question of sovereignity. What we got was, without doubt, the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the People of Bermuda and the offshore business community as well. And, it is now absolutely clear, for all who would see, that this Government, under Alex Scott, will do anything, by whatever means, to force the issue of Independence against the clear will of the majority. It is the number one priority on its apparently endless stream of agendas and initiatives which are, really, of little or no consequence.

The BIC report tells us it is myth that the exempt companies would desert Bermuda in the event of Independence. (The only ?myth? here is one of many contained in the report). These companies have expressed their many and serious concerns over the manner in which Government is proceeding, and have expressed these concerns in clear and unambiguous language.

The International Business Sector is the single pillar which now supports our robust but potentially fragile economy. Take this pillar away and our economy will collapse. Our dollar will be next to worthless and Bermuda will free fall to the level of an impoverished third world community. We will then rue the day we requested assistance from the UN, and any further appeals we may make to this organisation will more likely be for food and medicine.

The latest fiasco ?The Man?, ?P?, our Premier, the one with the ?blackberry? in which he has become embroiled in is, of course, the Brannon affair. In his open letter to the public he whines about the disrespect and divisive language used by the media and others, and has announced there will be (yet another) initiative which will be presented in the Throne Speech to address ?the elements which seek to divide us?. This appears to be a threat to stifle our fundamental right to freedom of speech; whether it be in the form of press censorship or Government action against individuals who don?t think like them remains to be seen.

The Premier is sounding more and more like Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro every day. Bermudians should not forget that our Government has signed a memorandum of understanding with Cuba, but nobody, except those in Cabinet and a few others, know the extent of our commitment under this agreement.

Mr. Scott likes to quote William Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde. It would, perhaps, be more to the point if he pondered the words of a fellow politician, Harry S. Truman, who said: ?If you can?t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!?

DAVID M. SKINNER

Smith?s Parish

October 7, 2005

Dear Sir,

I am responding to the front page of your today?s paper concerning Mrs. Samuels complaining that the Premier?s wife let an elderly woman live in squalor.

In most landlord/tenant contracts the interior of the house is the responsibility of the tenant. I am sure Mrs. Samuels? mother did not move into the house in that condition. I assume the filth and deterioration has occurred over the 40 years of living there. If the house was so deplorable why are they living there? Oh! I can tell you! The rent is only $300. They should all leave the residence and pay rent somewhere else.

I am not personally involved with either party, but when you start complaining about your rights in the paper, you leave yourself open to public scrutiny. In your attempt to use to make the Premier look bad, you made you and your family look foolish.

Golly, at less than $300 a month for about 20 years then at $300 for the next 20 years, you should have had two homes to call your own. Instead you move into your mother?s rental apartment and then complain to the Press. You get no brownie cookies from me!

GIVE ME A BREAK

Hamilton Parish

October 10, 2005

Dear Sir,

Isn?t it interesting? The war weary citizens of Iraq are being encouraged to go en masse to decide their country?s future via a referendum. Yet, our Bermudian Government deems us so unsophisticated and naive to trust us to decide our future in the same manner.

AN ANGRY VOTER

Devonshire