No dreams of dictatorship

January 18, 2004

Dear Sir,

I really liked Mr. Cracknell's letter because it reaches out and shakes the issue of political ambition. He clearly lays out the issue in terms I have heard many people bandying without expressing it as concisely.

But in all fairness to Alex Scott, I would like to point something out. Mr. Cracknell says that dictatorships, in their formation, have specific strategic aims that enable their rise to power. He says: “The key objectives are: a) control of the armed forces: b) control of the police forces; c) control of the legal system; d) control of the media; e) corrupting the electoral process.” That is a credible summation, I think, of ambitious would-be dictators. Certainly to one degree or another, and depending on interpretation, Alex Scott can be accused of all of them. But so can every politician who ever lived. We hope that our politicians are compassionate and are looking out for out interests. But the political system doesn't run on compassion. It runs on ambition for power. And power does not care about the niceties of procedure. Ambition will always seek ways to subvert the system to its advantage. Politicians are not puppies, they are humans, a very dangerous species. The democratic system tends to weed out the very worst and the very best and we get something in between.

As long as the public is vigilant, as Mr. Cracknell is, a dictator (the worst) never has the chance to develop. I don't agree with Mr. Scott on much. But I do not think he dreams of dictatorship.

The democratic system, in Bermuda and particularly in the PLP, has developed him in an arena of harsh consensus and compromise and it will be difficult for him to abandon that and become the top of a centralised hierarchy. Mr. Scott is a politician; a fine example of one.

Strange days on roads

January 15, 2004

Dear Sir,

Today marked a day of unusual events that is most likely to continue as the year continues.

1. A taxi and a Police car in a collision on North Shore Road. How the Police car ends up on the opposite side of the road is unknown, plus, the way the taxi looked, I only hope that guy's OK.

2. Why a woman would drive her car over a low embankment is unknown, plus, I didn't see it happen. However on Market Lane, I saw a car in an unusual predicament. The left wheel was over a low part located in a parking bay (considering she had a cell phone, I almost wonder if that woman, was talking before she made that mistake. Probably). Yesterday, around No.1 Shed a woman took awhile to drive her car out of an area you can drive a taxi through (and TCD gave her a driver's licence? Oooookay).

3. Speaking of cell phones, why is it that a young woman driving a nice car (in most cases, a nice dark-tinted car with shiny rims) would even need to be talking on a cell phone while they're driving? I mean, when you were first taught how to drive, you didn't get taught with it so, why would you feel it's OK to use one while driving? Pretty stupid if you ask me.

I look at it more that the Government is looking for a death to occur before they step in and say that driving with a cell phone, is illegal. By then, it'll be on your heads because you guys allowed it to happen and you won't know how to answer. Basically, do the police even care? How about the Government themselves, what do they make on this? Remember if someone does die because of some guy or gal's reason to drive while on a cell phone the results,will not end up pretty.

The unanswered question

January 14, 2005

Dear Sir,

Independence: Most of us accept that in the early days of the PLP when they refused Queen's Honours, or the opportunity to sit on Government Boards, they desired Independence.

But they know that they had ideas not shared by the black population in general, hence they promised to carry on “political education” while gradually putting the concept of Independence on the back burner. At the same time deciding that the question of Independence would be determined by the party itself rather than the politically uneducated, naive and conservative black population. Thus it must be by election and not a referendum.

Of course the PLP as Government has done a 180 degree turn on many of the basis of holding on to a tiny bit of consistency, there is justification in the Premier raising the issue of Independence. Of course the black population has also changed politically. It has grown to accept the PLP in a way that it did not in those early years.

Everyone, or most people, assume (for very good reasons) that most in the black population will follow wherever the PLP leads. Certainly they will not follow the UBP. The unanswered question is whether the apparent resistance to the very emotional issue of Independence is strong enough to keep these people at home if the PLP insists on having an election based on Independence.

It is fairly clear that both those who want Independence and those who do not are governed by very strong emotions, totally uninfluenced by any logical reasoning.

So what will the PLP's black constituency do if they feel that they are being pushed towards Independence without their having a voice in the decision because they are considered too politically naive? The PLP (and probably many others) are assuming that they will simply follow. But will they?

The recent PLP victory was not overwhelming. So there may be some PLP supporters who are more supportive of the idea of not going Independent than they are of the PLP!

Certainly the PLP's black constituency is not as politically naive as they were when the PLP came to the decision of Independence by election, and many of them seem not to be moved by the contempt expressed towards them by those who for equally emotional reasons, do want Independence!

Babies aren't Barbie dolls

January 17, 2005

Dear Sir,

According to the news on Monday morning (17 Jan), Regiment OIC Eddie Lamb is “concerned” (to put it mildly!) about the lack of basic life skills in many of the Regiment's current crop of new recruits, and (probably correctly) puts it down to far too many youngsters being brought up in a single-parent home, usually by the mother without a father figure's influence. It's a sobering thought that one needs a licence, or a certificate of competence, to do virtually anything these days except to be a parent, and parenting is one of the most difficult things to do successfully.

This brings me to this question: why, in this day and age when sex ed is common in schools and contraception is so readily available, are so many females still getting pregnant by males who don't really give a damn about helping to raise the resulting offspring? I wish that these young women who insist on getting pregnant at an early age would consider this: a baby isn't like a Barbie doll, that you play with for a couple of hours and then chuck into a closet for six months.

Whether you like it or whether you don't, that baby is your responsibility, 24-7, for the next eighteen years. Think about that before you decide to spread your legs for some bloke because he's got a nice line of BS!