Don't use us as scapegoat

August 21, 2006

Dear Sir,

As an owner, operator and a subscriber to the Co-op Taxi Service, I feel the suspension of the Co-op Taxi Services licence on August 15, 2006 is counter-productive and unfair. Why is our service being used as the scapegoat with issues regarding non-compliance to the Motor Car Amendment Act, 2005, when other services are not fully compliant either?

This suspension has already affected the travelling public who depend on us for transportation. It is also a matter of grave concern with other owner/operators who are paying for the dispatching service, which they rely on for work. Let's not forget the people, who over the past 20 years have worked very hard to make the Co-op taxi service one of the most friendly, dependable and sought after taxi services on the island, and their livelihood.

I can recall that THE BERMUDA INDUSTRIAL UNION TAXI CO-OP SERVICE, with it's fifty plus cabs, was the only taxi service to come to the rescue of hotels, guest houses, the Bermuda International Airport, exempted companies (too many to mention) and the regular travelling public, when all the other taxi services went out on strike.

It is my hope that government will take another look at the laws pertaining to the Motor Car Amendment Act, 2005 and make it more adaptable to small companies like the Bermuda Industrial Union Taxi Cooperative Society Service.

Let me also remind you that although there is a concerted effort by others within the taxi industry instrumental on working against us to see us dead and buried, the Co-op Taxi Service is voraciously working towards meeting the timetable given to the PSVLB for the installation of Mobile Knowledge Computerised Taxi Dispatch System.

Common sense needed

August 12, 2006

Dear Sir,

I would like to comment on the review of the activities to commemorate Emancipation which appeared in the MON yesterday, in particular the theatrical presentation about Sally Bassett. This consisted of two distinct sections, first the spoken drama by Dr. Kim Dismont Robinson, where the role of Sally was performed by Leyoni Junos (not Leyoni Jones as stated in your article) and second a dance drama choreographed by Conchita Ming extracted from the longer dance work "Bermuda Tapestry" in which Shomeiko Ingham, my daughter, portrayed Sally.

Several details of the performance struck me as belittling to dancers, some of whom were also in the spoken part of the piece. I have no desire to slight the performance of Miss Junos, which was excellent, but I note that the MON review, does not mention Shomeiko, whose danced rendition of Sally Bassett was also excellent. That is not my opinion alone. None of the posters I saw advertising the performance mentioned my daughter's name either.

The actors had to perform in the rain which started after the play had begun, and they carried on valiantly until the end. Their conditions of performance might have been annoying, but did not create a probability of injury. The dancers had to perform on a stage which had been mopped, which presented them with a totally unnecessary risk of injury. Why didn't the organisers have the common sense to have a cover over the stage, since there was obviously a strong possibility of rain?

I would like the opportunity to ask Premier Scott why he thinks Bermuda should be independent if, literally and metaphorically speaking, we don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain?

KRISTINA INGHAM

City of Hamilton

Political sore pickers

August 28, 2006

Dear Sir,

While listening to some callers to the Everest DeCosta show this afternoon, a thought crossed my mind, and that thought was Bermuda seems to have become one, big, oozing, racially political, sore that cannot heal ? and the reason for this sore not healing is because there are some people in our community who are constantly picking at the scab that is trying to form, which enhances healing. These people are political sore pickers and if you are black and don't think like they do, you are catering to the white man's cause.

Whatever happened to Martin Luther King's dream? The dream that one day all of God's children, slave and slave owner, Jew and Gentile, black and white would one day sit together in harmony. I guess by the tirade coming out of the talk shows, shows that his dream died with him.

What a sad state of affairs we now have in this little island paradise. This is worse then when we had segregation ? and yes, there are some whites who will never get over losing some of their power and still want to be on top, and yes, there are some blacks who want that same power and will never get over the past, but we have to move on. You cannot stand still! So to the whites who still want it the way it used to be, and to the blacks who can't get over the way it used to be, step aside and let the forward thinking people who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity get on with the job of making Bermuda a liveable and affordable place for all Bermudians.

Also, I feel that when people spout off mouthfuls of anger and hate, it is because there is some lack of self-confidence and immaturity on their part. I recently mentioned in a previous letter to the Editor of one person who saw fit to profanely, verbally abuse myself and one other via a message left on a telephone, because we believe in true democracy and the fact that an important issue like independence should be decided by way of a referendum and not by a general election. The message left was disrespectful, disgusting and despicable, but because I am a mature, well-rounded, self-confident adult, I harbour no hate for this person, I just feel sorry for him (psst, I'll let you in on a secret! Now I know why he was so stiff at Cup Match, he thought I already knew about the call but I didn't know about it until the following Monday).

Mr. Editor, in all seriousness, we cannot continue down the path that we are on. If we do, it will be our undoing!

PAT FERGUSON

Warwick

Let Jesus guide us

August 23, 2006

Dear Sir,

The letter from Pat Brown in today's issue of the concerning homosexuality and the lack of comment on it by Jesus has prompted this response. Pat Brown in correct in inferring that there is no direct mention of homosexuality attributed to Jesus. But there, Pat's understanding apparently ends.

If Pat understood what the Bible really is, he/she would realise that "The Scriptures" were and are the Old Testament, containing the Laws of God, which was studied and lectured upon by Jesus. The story of Jesus's Life and influence as God's son and messenger (of The Scriptures) is told in "The Gospels" with which begins the New Testament. Jesus rarely responded to a point of law without saying, "It is written....." and that means he was quoting the Old Testament.

I would suggest that Pat remember from his/her study of the New Testament, Matthew, Chapter 16, verses 16 and 17.

And finally, he/she might reread Luke, chapter 12, verses 49 to 53 inclusive; this tells us that we all must make the choice of going with God's Law as in The scriptures or against it as in the world of making. The majority of those 'vain, hate-filled' men in pulpits actually believe in what they preach; more's the pity they won't respond publicly to such misguided and inaccurate rantings like Pat Brown's.

Humanity is not perfect. That's what salvation is all about. Jesus guides us to that salvation and "The Scriptures" were and are His textbook.

Rookes, you confused me!

22nd August 2006

Dear Sir,

Thank goodness we have religious scholars of the stature of ROOKES to answer those tricky questions put forward in your column by the likes of Mr. Cash, although some of ROOKES' answers to Mr. Cash's queries left me rather confused. For example:-

1. ROOKES quotes Romans from the New Testament when answering Mr. Cash's question about whether shellfish are an abomination(Lev. 11:10). Leviticus, of course lists all sorts of unclean abominations from hares, pork, anything that lives in the water and does not have fins scales, presumably including whales and turtles along with the shellfish mentioned by Mr. Cash. Does this mean that the Old Testament is actually wrong in some cases in light of modern science and that some abominations are no longer abominations?

2. ROOKES gave a lengthy explanation about how we should treat slaves, but it appears that Mr. Cash is absolutely correct. According to the Old Testament we can still have slaves (Lev. 25:44) but we just have to treat 'em good. Fair enough!

3. Contrary to ROOKES answer, Mr. Cash was not inquiring about selling his daughter into prostitution. He just asked about selling her into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and according to ROOKES that appears to be just fine!

4. What a most peculiar answer from ROOKES about a woman and her menstrual (Lev. 15:19-24). Surely, if you are married to a woman you can politely inquire if it might be "the wrong time of the month". Is that really unseemly as stated by ROOKES? It's saved me from getting into hot water on many occasions!

5. ROOKES completely dismisses Exodus 35:2 and he suggests we simply ignore the edict to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath. It goes against the grain to ignore such a clear biblical admonition in such a religious society as ours, but I realise this could cause all manner of problems in Bermuda where we could have a Holy War between the 7th Dayers and all the other sects about which day is really the Sabbath. And I also have to question whether we are allowed to dismiss the idea of adultery being an abomination requiring death as a punishment? Back to question 1 above, does this mean the Old Testament is wrong here and there?

6. Mr. Cash had clearly not realised that the rules about eyesight as quoted in Lev. 21:20 only applied to the priesthood. Thanks, ROOKES, for pointing that out. But how about the other rules in Lev 21 such as people with flat noses, fractured bones, humpbacks and dwarves etc.? Do we sack our pastor if he falls and breaks his foot, or if the congregation decides he is too short, or he has a flat nose (personally speaking I think the latter could be considered racist and not very popular in our AME churches).

7. Again ROOKES chastises Mr. Cash for mentioning beard trimming being an abomination because this rule in Lev 19:27 only applies to the priesthood. I've read it several times but fail to see where there is any mention of it only applying to priests. Just to make sure, I've decided to shave more regularly.

In light of ROOKES enlightened answers I do have a couple more questions for him:-

1. I know that a man dressing as a woman, or a woman dressing as a man is an abomination unto the Lord (Deut 22.5) but does that mean women wearing slacks are abominators, and how about Scotsmen in kilts ? their bagpipes without doubt make an abominable noise! Do we get to kill them because of the way they dress?

2. It is clearly stated in Deut 22:11 that we must not wear garments made of wool and linen together, and this is reinforced in Lev 19:19. Even though wearing blended fabrics is an abomination I see folks casually wandering through Hamilton every day in those no-iron easy-wear shirts and blouses, and I swear I saw a pastor wearing a blended suit last Sunday morning. Just how abominable is this sin and why is it permitted in a God-fearing country like Bermuda. Now there might be some out there who claim that questions such as those posed by Mr. Cash are demeaning the Bible. On the other hand, I get the impression he is really questioning whether it is legitimate and morally fair to quote one single section of the Old Testament in isolation to justify our hatred and contempt for homosexuals who are described as "abominations" while ignoring all of the numerous other "abominations" it contains, the prime example being adultery for which the punishment in Lev 20:10 is, and I quote, "the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death".

Rethink Loughlands plan

August 28, 2006

Dear Sir,

So far, the Sustainable Development (SD) Plan and public inclusion in its process have been quite impressive. Government and particularly the civil servants involved in the SD process should be acknowledged for the detail that has gone into the collection of information and its dissemination to the public.

However, I am seeing a glaring contradiction happening right before my eyes; namely, the development of Loughlands.

Loughlands is the property just down the road and across the street from Paraquet in Paget where 96 condos are about to be built.

It appears that Government has put through a Special Development Order that bypasses the Development Application Board, meaning that neighbouring residents are unable to view the plans. They have also decided to re-zone the area, so 'bye-bye' Woodland Reserve, hello concrete!

All of this will be done under the guise of "affordable housing". Yes, this is a huge issue that must be addressed. However, these "affordable" units will be going for $500K and higher. Is this a reasonable price to be addressing the need?

Let's bring it back to Sustainable Development (SD).

The SD Plan is still being finalised. Is that why Government is getting started on this humongous Loughlands development now? Before they have to start living along the lines of SD? Curious.

In my understanding, there are three main areas of SD and all three carry EQUAL priority: Economic Growth, Social Progress and Environmental Stewardship. Of course it is socially and economically important to provide housing, but is it social progress to have no green space for kids to play? Is it social progress to have 400+ vehicles scurrying out of one driveway at 8.30a.m. onto the existing bottleneck that is South Shore Road in Paget? Has an environmental impact study been carried out on this development? How will the vast amounts of garbage, sewage and pollution be dealt with?

Loughlands is certainly NOT an example of Sustainable Development.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Government do something revolutionary and resist their "bigger is better" urge for one minute? Why not use Loughlands as an example of Sustainable Development and actually build something of quality as opposed to quantity? A development of 30-40 units where buildings are more environmentally friendly; all appliances are energy efficient, "grey water" (dish, shower, sink and laundry water) is used for landscape irrigation and toilets, and solar energy is generated to run water heaters and lights. A development where the residents agree to live with Sustainable Development in mind. They recycle and agree to minimise waste. They tend to a communal garden. They use the public transportation system and/or carpool. They have a mindset of living with less, but gaining more.

If Government wants to really "deliver", they should rethink this entire Loughlands development and not just talk the sustainable talk but actually walk the walk. To spend so much money, time and energy on the SD initiative and then go ahead with a monstrosity like Loughlands is simply proving what the public is afraid of ? a lot of slop and fizzle.

ERIN MORAN

Paget

Donation appreciated

August 26, 2006

Dear Sir,

Bermuda Diabetes Association, we would like to thank Mr. Paul Singh and his employer Wyndham Resort & Spa publicly for their recent donation to our association.

Mr. Singh ran and completed the 24th of May Marathon Derby and his employer Mr. Larry Magor General Manager of Wyndham, agreed to make a donation to a charity of his choice if he finished the race.

Mr. Singh selected our charity, as he is very concerned about the growing epidemic of obesity in Bermuda, which leads to type 2 Diabetes. The disease is known to affect adults but in recent years has shown up in overweight children as well. Type 2 Diabetes can be controlled by healthy eating and regular exercise. Those living with the disease should consult their doctor and the professionals at the Diabetes Centre at KEMH for a safe programme.

Type 2 Diabetes should not be confused with Type 1, which usually affects children whose bodies no longer produce insulin and they therefore have to inject the insulin. There is currently no cure for Type 1, however Type 2 can be prevented by maintaining a healthy life style. If you are 20% or more above your ideal weight you are considered to be obese, and you are at risk of developing type 2 Diabetes.

Thanks to people like Mr. Paul Singh, Mr. Larry Magor and Mr. Albert Van Lowe all employees of Wyndham Resort & Spa the Bermuda Diabetes Association can continue to educate the people of Bermuda about this very serious disease.

BERMUDA DIABETES ASSOCIATION