The new agenda

October 24, 2002

Dear Sir,

During the just concluded "Women's Conference" held at the Hamilton Princess, Dame Lois Browne Evans made the statement that women need to stop cultivating chauvinistic behaviour in their boys and or men.

Frankly, in light of current realities and trends, I am of the opinion that black women who may hold a similar philosophy to the Dame need to examine how their behavior is actually emasculating our boys and/or men.

As to the "chauvinistic" comment, the term is gender neutral. In effect, while commonly referring to male behaviour, the term can also be applied to women who exhibit the same traits. It is my opinion, that the rise of female chauvinism , particularly among those black women who hold the Dame in such high esteem as a feminist icon, is quite evident throughout this society.

I would hope that most right thinking African-Bermudian women would reject this very extreme notion of feminism that clearly has been heavily influenced by gay and or lesbian intellectuals, most often found in North America.

Moreover, the question that I pose is as follows: Has this extreme feminist agenda one that traces its origins to a movement largely spawned by white middle class women, now taken precedence within the Progressive Labour Party over the progressive and African Bermudian agenda?

And lastly, if African Bermudian women need a female icon, a "womanist" of great stature, they need look no further than that provided by Mrs. Christie, the wife of the current Prime Minister of the independent nation of the Bahamas.

ROLFE PATTON COMMISSIONG

City of Hamilton

What's Bush really up to?

October 22, 2002

Dear Sir,

Current events in American foreign politics have me at a loss.

One of the campaign promises made by the Bush team was they would not involve the US in any more nation building. The US has already toppled one government in Afghanistan and built a new, US-friendly government in Kabul. Obviously the Kabul scenario was one that was brought to the US and the US had to respond. Indeed when you attack the US, you should expect to pay a heavy price. Yet, despite still being in his first term, we are now looking at the possibility of seeing a new regime in Iraq into power.

I do not recall there being one single Iraqi on any of the four planes hijacked on September 11, 2001. In fact the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals yet the US continues to enjoy "good" relations with Saudi Arabia.

Conclusive evidence reveals al-Qaeda involvement in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks, yet the media seem to have forgotten about the hunt for Osama bin Laden - when was the last time any of us saw a leading story relating to his whereabouts in the news? Attacking Iraq seems to be the lead story every day. In fact NBC has devoted a special series to the subject in its nightly newscast.

We know Osama bin Laden has attacked US interests at home and abroad in the past yet the US does not seem to be able to locate him in the short term so it would appear the decision was to go after an enemy to the US whose address was known.

Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all members of Bush's "Axis of Evil' Club. I am not sure what it takes to be a member but it has something to do with weapons of mass destruction. Bush and his team seem hell bent on attacking Iraq and using the fact that Iraq might be attempting to develop such weapons in direct contravention of UN resolutions as a reason for doing so.

Recently North Korea revealed that they, in direct contravention of a 1994 non-nuclear proliferation treaty they signed with the US, possessed nuclear weapons. Yet Bush and his team do not appear to be interested in attacking North Korea.

Bush has committed his administration to regime change in Iraq. Now, Secretary of State Colin Powell is making the rounds on political talk shows saying that regime change in Iraq may not necessarily mean removing Saddam Hussein from power. Not only is it not clear why we are looking to attack Iraq, we still haven't determined the goal, if we do, and, the Bush team do not all appear to be on the same page.

It is a fact that the US in the 1980s had a dialogue with the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein since Iraq was at war with Iran and Iran was an enemy to the US. Around this same time, Hussein gassed his own people, the Kurds in northern Iraq and despite killing around 5,000 civilians, the US did not seem interested in taking issue with this barbarous act. The US helped keep the matter quiet.

History has proven that despite being a proponent of democratic principles, the US would prefer to have a friendly dictator in place rather than an unfriendly democracy when it comes to serving US interests abroad.

One could be accused of thinking that this War on Iraq suggestion proposed by the Bush team was designed to divert public attention away from more pressing local issues like the American economy and the fact that corporate misconduct at the highest levels have bilked John Q. Citizen out of billions of dollars in 401(k) savings leaving those about the retire penniless and therefore heavily dependent on a weak social security system.

With the US economy having been hammered on the back of these high profile corporate scandals and despite a few arrests being made of executives on the take, this remains a serious situation and also a source of embarrassment to Bush himself who is the "business friendly President" who was expected to turn the US economy around.

Like Bill Clinton and his cruise missile bombings of alleged Sudanese chemical weapons facilities at the time when the Monica Lewinsky affair broke in the news media in 1998, is George W. Bush attempting to distract the public eye from the real problems facing the US? I for one am growing tired of these Bush-league politics.

GREG BROWN

City of Hamilton