June 18, 2005

Dear Sir,

Tourism needs to be re-invigorated. Our Government?s income comes from a local source that is foreign owned. We are subjected therefore to an external influence in such a way that is critical to our functioning as an independent country. Developmentally, Independence is a final step in a nation?s evolution. But Independence cannot be achieved when a society is subjected to a dominant influence which is in large measure external to that country. Bermuda?s dominant industry is international business. It has supplanted the tourism industry as Bermuda?s number one income earner. It may be argued that under tourism we had to appease the ?demon? of transient people who came from all over. Now we have people who come from all over who now reside here and exert enormous influence because they reside here.

Bermudians, within the context of the tourism industry, could fill jobs at most levels. Furthermore, these jobs could provide increased access to incomes for those who were frugal and industrious. One could improve his or her status as a result of working two jobs.

The international business sector requires in large measure, highly competent professionals. The industry is internationally driven by international competition and buttressed by networking with international players. This sort of professionalism requires professional designation or qualification. It is very unlikely that one can enter at the bottom to rise to the head of the company. Very few members of our society (locals) will manage to enter or make significant impact in this industry. Why? Bermuda, by its very demographic minuteness cannot qualify many for roles in this industry. Those qualified will be limited in number.

Conversely, the tourist industry did and can manage to accommodate all levels of people. Tourism allows participation from all segments of our society. So ... let?s get back on track Bermuda.

ANTHONY CRICHLOW

Devonshire

Reinstate Dr. O?Connell

June 23, 2005

Dear Sir,

I am writing in support of Dr. Sean O?Connell?s reinstatement as Professor of Mathematics at the Bermuda College. In my opinion his termination was totally unwarranted. A more shameful act is the fact that the Board of Governors have refused to allow an independent and impartial review on their termination decision.

As one of his earliest students back in 1975, I was impressed with Dr. O?Connell?s dedication and commitment to excellence. He cared about my progress in the difficult subject of mathematics and did all he could to explain complicated concepts in a way I could understand. His enthusiasm and discipline encouraged me to achieve a higher standard and to exploit my talents in this field to the fullest. Several years later, he approached me to serve as the first President of the Bermuda College Alumni Association which he spearheaded. He drafted out the first constitution for the alumni and recruited several other local black Bermudians, like myself, to be on the executive. Based on my experience of Dr. O?Connell, the charge that he is a man that is somehow or other a ?closet racist? is absolutely absurd and preposterous. His determination and caring attitude towards his students is also reflected towards the future of the College, which he cares about passionately.

I am well aware of his contributions to local bodies, particularly the Handicapped Association and the Public Service Union. I feel that such an individual is the last person deserving of the type of treatment that is being inflicted upon him, but should have instead been honoured for his contributions and accomplishments.

As a former chief executive of the Alumni Association, I feel no pride, only shame, at his professional assassination. I am making this call upon those responsible to rectify this gross injustice towards Dr. O?Connell.

Do it for the sake of justice. Do it for the sake of former students like myself. Do it for the sake of current and upcoming students.

RICHARD A. SMITH

Pembroke

Second-hand smoke

June 20, 2005

Dear Sir,

Let me begin this missive by saying that I am not trying to dispute the fact that smoking is bad for you, nor am I saying that cigarette smoke is neither foul-smelling nor unpleasant to be around, especially when you are eating.

If the members of BANS and others were trying to make it illegal to smoke in restaurants for that reason, I would probably be much more supportive of them. However, they are using scare tactics and statistics without supporting evidence. I, for one, would love to see the study that states that, as has been said, if you smoke outside, then go inside, the particles stay in your clothes and can give your kids cancer. I?m paraphrasing, and I apologise for that, but I don?t have the article at hand at the moment. According to a paper from the Cato Institute, a 1998 Press release from the World Health Organisation, misleadingly titled ?Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You?, ?...they again trumpeted relative risks of 1.16 and 1.17, corresponding to 16 and 17 percent increases, as if those ratios were meaningful.

Somehow lost in WHO?s media blitz was the National Cancer Institute?s own guideline: ?Relative risks of less than 2 [that is, a 100 percent increase] are considered small. ... Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.?

To put the WHO results in their proper perspective, note that the relative risk of lung cancer for persons who drink whole milk is 2.4. That is, the increased risk of contracting lung cancer from whole milk is 140 percent ? more than eight times the 17 percent increase from second-hand smoke.? It also says, ?Another example of anti-tobacco misinformation is the landmark 1993 report in which the Environmental Protection Agency declared that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a dangerous carcinogen that kills 3,000 Americans yearly.

Five years later, in July, 1998, federal judge William L. Osteen lambasted the EPA for ?cherry picking? the data, excluding studies that ?demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer,? and withholding ?significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis.? Both ?the record and EPA?s explanation,? concluded the court, ?make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results?.

This paper is very worthwhile reading for anyone interested in being objective and hearing both sides of the story and is but one example of numerous papers, all footnoted and annotates, debunking many of the ?studies? linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer. As I said previously, I am not disputing that smoking is bad for you, the smoker, but, if at all possible, could we, the people that should get to make the choice whether the ban becomes law ? a law which in New York City alone caused the closure of a large number of bars and clubs, as well as disgusting sidewalks and alleyways, the ground covered in old butts and ash ? have all of the information at hand, and not just hearsay and opinions?

If there are studies proving significant danger of lung cancer from second-hand smoke, and I?m not saying there aren?t, then please let us see them, or at least point us in the right direction. I would then be far more supportive of some action being taken. However, I do not think that the answer is a full ban. Until smoking tobacco is made illegal (which may or may not be a bad idea, but that?s a debate for another time), society should not make sweeping laws which restrict people?s choices.

If people want to have restaurants and bars that are non-smoking, then pressure the Government to give them duty relief, or even just a bonus, for being a non-smoking restaurant. Make it worth their while to do so. Don?t just take away people?s choices. It?s not fair and it?s not right.

UNCLE ELVIS

City of Hamilton

Ignoring common sense

June 24, 2005

Dear Sir,

I find it appalling to think that a Minister of any government would disregard the voices of the people he has been elected to serve, particularly when those voices are giving a lesson in common sense every good parent has taught their children for generations. While the Ministry of Tourism?s ?Pop By? flag scheme certainly has honourable intentions ? and I applaud Dr. Brown for his efforts ? the idea of encouraging young children to talk to strangers is, at the least, misguided. According to The Royal Gazette?s article published on June 23: ?A large number of concerned parents have also been in contact with their Parent Teacher Associations and The Royal Gazette to urge that the scheme be dropped. But Dr. Brown is standing his ground, stressing that while he regretted the stance of certain schools, the Department would now be pushing even harder to ensure the programme?s success.?

It would seem that these schools are not arbitrarily committing to a ?campaign of destruction?, but simply voicing the concerns of their charges? parents, as well as their own concerns as educators of our children. How can Dr. Brown justify continuing, indeed putting more Government time, effort and resources, into a programme that the public he has been elected to represent is opposed to?

Dr. Brown needs to get past his own perception of how the Bermudian public perceives him, and realise that not every outspoken voice is an attack on him or his Ministry?s programmes. In addition he would do well to remember that, as important as it is to rejuvenate the Island?s tourism industry, nothing should supersede the voices of the citizens he was elected to represent, and who are obviously not happy.

GEOFFREY FAIELLA

Southampton