Enforce the law

February 7, 2003

Dear Sir,

There is a very simple solution to the problem of drivers and riders using cell phones.

Enforce the law as it applies to driving without due care and attention.

Johnny made my day

February 12, 2003

Dear Sir,

Friday, February 7, 2003 was a normal morning to most Bermudians, but it was one I will never forget. I live in Devonshire and commute via car on the North Shore Road, which is usually non-stop, and traffic moves reasonably fast. However, this morning, was slow going and so was I. The traffic was basically crawling.

My first thought was of doom, I was praying no one was hurt in an accident, when I rounded the corner heading towards the roundabout at the bottom of Palmetto Road and Barker's Hill, and to my surprise, low and behold, there stood none other than Johnny Barnes.

Mr. Barnes, a fixture on East Broadway every morning, was there to serenade us commuters coming from the east together with some Primary School students.

This not only lifted my spirits, but my steps all day long. It's amazing how such a small gesture could change someone's perspective that easily. I'm not sure how the other commuters felt on that morning, but I know my face hurt from smiling. I would like to thank the primary school involved and apologise for not being able to acknowledge them properly, please forgive me as I was awestruck by the presence of Johnny Barnes, and to Mr. Barnes, you are definitely blessed and I love you too.

Amazing trails

February 9, 2003

Dear Sir,

It never ceases to amaze me when I see the number of motorists who continue to use Stowe Hill in Paget to go from Rural Hill onto The Lane during peak traffic periods, especially in the evening. Honestly, although it's a little further, it's much quicker (especially if you're not on a bike) just to continue up Rural Hill to South Roundabout, and then turn left over Trimingham Hill.

And why? Because traffic going down Stowe Hill is faced with a "STOP" sign, and beyond that is a virtually solid line of traffic either going into, or coming out of, Hamilton. Are those motorists inclined to let traffic from a side road out onto the main road? Very, very rarely.

War no laughing matter

February 10, 2003

Dear Sir,

In Friday's , US Consul General Denis Coleman, when asked: "What's the most painful way (of defeating Iraq)" replies "Blow the place up" and laughs. I, for one, would like to know what is so funny about a war that is going to impact us all? What is so funny about innocent men, women, children and babies being bombed to death? And this is the kind of answer coming from a diplomat?

We need to get past this idea that somehow their lives are less valuable than ours, and that it doesn't matter if some people die, as long as the final objective is met-collateral damage, it's caused. I wrote in a previous letter once that this is exactly what terrorists think when they attack us, that it doesn't matter if some people die - it's just collateral damage.

This war is going to open up a whole new can of worms. Yes, Saddam Hussein seems to be a very dangerous man. However, I saw a television programme in which an expert on Middle Eastern affairs made a very good point in that as dangerous as he appears to be, he is certainly not stupid.

This expert said that people like him aren't the ones we need to watch out for, because people like him `love life more than hey hate us' (meaning Americans).

He loves the lavish life he lives, his luxurious palaces, all the adulation that is heaped on him by his people. No, the truly dangerous people out there, according to this expert, are the ones who `hate us more than they love life.'

These are the ones who have nothing to lose, who would think nothing about strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing themselves up - as long as they take as many people as they can with them. There are many, many people like that out there, and this war will only create more of them.

I don't understand the rush to enter this war. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright said on Sunday's Meet The Press that she feels that George Bush is `overdramatising' the need for this war. This problem is not something that crept up over night, it has existed for years, all during the Clinton Administration.

In fact, Clinton bombed many of Saddam's facilities in 1998, which would have been a serious setback for him. So she said what's the big rush to war - why not let the UN inspectors do their jobs? In fact, on another programme (Oprah), it was suggested that the US wants to get the war started now because in March it begins to get very hot in Iraq, and as they will need to be in full anti-chemical gear, this would put the US at a disadvantage.

We, especially in the Western world, need to be asking questions. Why is diplomacy being used in North Korea - Kim Jong II seems to be just as dangerous - if not more so than Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia has more links to al Qaeda than Afghanistan (the majority of the terrorists stemmed from Saudi Arabia) - why isn't anything being done there? It doesn't make us `Anti-American' to ask these questions - we deserve to know. Recent polls have stated that 80-90 percent of the world is against this war. The sad thing is that most of us are against it because we are afraid that it will impose on our selfish, superficial little lives.

Oil prices will rise even further, we won't be able to travel as much, the risk of further terrorists attacks on us (our lives are more `valuable', remember) etc. However, let us not forget that the people in Iraq, who are already suffering due to the impose sanctions, are real people with real emotions like us.

They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, and must be terrified right now. War is never the answer, and should always be the last resort and, Mr. Coleman, we should certainly never make light of it.

P.s. North Korea is now saying that they may strike American preemptively rather than wait for the US to come after them next. Is this what everything is coming down to `get them before they get us?

Use right, not might

February 10, 2003

Dear Sir,

If possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and a history of conflict with neighbouring states (with internal suppression being a bonus) is justification for a war on Iraq, then why isn't the US threatening North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel? (One could also add China and Russia if one wished).

US president Bush has said that North Korea can be dealt with diplomatically. Why can't the same happen with Iraq? Both Pakistan and India possess nuclear missiles and have been involved in various wars (mainly over Kashmir), internal suppression of minorities and interference in neighbouring states. Why doesn't America threaten them with war as well? And then there is Israel.

Israel is a de facto nuclear state (with about 300 nuclear weapons), possesses advanced missile technology, has been in numerous conflicts with its neighbours (most infamously with the invasion and occupation of Lebanon), discriminates against Israeli Arabs, is guilty of the armed suppression of the Palestinian people and has broken more UN resolutions (dating from 12947) than Iraq.

And yet, instead of sanctions, Tel Aviv receives billions of dollars in military `aid' and `gift' loans from the US government annually.

And what about the Kurds of northern Iraq? The crocodile tears of the US government for their plight is shown by the US support of Iraqi suppression of these people in the 1980s (including the infamous use of chemical weapons) and silence when Turkish troops and planes routinely invaded the northern Iraq no-fly zone to attack the Kurdish population there.

Why the US support for the suppression of the Kurdish people? Out of fear that the Kurds would seek to reinstate Kurdistan - their nation that was absorbed by British, Ottoman and Persian empires (now divided into Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey) a century ago. A declaration of independence now would destabilise the whole region and disrupt oil prices.

And what of Iraq's war with Iran? Need we be reminded that this was a US supported and assisted war with the primary aim of seizing Iranian oilfields lost during the Islamic Revolution in Iran against a US installed puppet government of the Shah?

Then comes to the US itself. The US possesses the worlds largest stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles. They also have the infamous claim of being the only state to have used nuclear weapons in war and has been involved in more conflicts than any other state since 1945 (21 wars to be exact, if you consider the bombing of Iraq from 1991 to present as a continuous war). They are also guilty of sponsoring assassinations, military coups, dictators and terrorist groups throughout the world (Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Mobotu in Congo, the Shah in Iran, the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola, etc.).

Furthermore, the US is the world's largest arms supplier, and is linked to more cases of weapons diffusion than any other state. With these credentials shouldn't the UN be sending weapon inspectors to Washington, DC before they send them to Baghdad? And why has the US thrown away one of their most cherished notions of the justice system, of innocence until proven guilty?

Until the US gets serious with Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea (China and Russia too), not to mention itself, one must conclude that a war against Iraq has very little to do with WMD. So why a war with Iraq? I offer you the following motives:

4 Control over Iraqi oil - the second largest supply of oil after the oilfields of Saudi Arabia.

Strategic control of the Middle East, with bases in a post-war Iraq the US could easily `police' Iraq's neighbours, especially Iran, Syria and the increasingly unstable Saudi Arabia (should a crisis develop in Riyadh, US forces in Iraq could easily `secure' Saudi oilfields).

A training/priving ground for US military technology - the US military has made no secret of this role of an Iraqi war.

Securing US global hegemony - through a display of US firepower, along the idea that `might is right.'

A personal vendetta of Bush Jr. in relation to the failure of his father to topple Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.

Deflecting domestic attention away from his anti-worker (pro-boss) agenda and the economic failure of the US economy under the Bush presidency.

These motives benefit only US oil companies and the US military-industrial complex. They do not justify a war against Iraq in the eyes of workers the world over - a war based on them would be unjust and inhumane. With this in mind we are left with just one conclusion:

No to war on Iraq!

Premier attention

February 7, 2003

Dear Sir,

Our Premier was seen last Sunday inWarwick attending services at Christ Church at 11 a.m.

Is this a sign that an election is imminent or was she there saying a prayer for her colleague Works and Engineering Minister, Mr. Alex Scott, who appears to be getting deeper into the hole over the Berkeley School project and who is now struggling to come up with answers?

Throwing bodies into the project is certainly not the answer to this major fiasco created by the PLP and the BIU as all Bermudians are going to feel the hurt in their pocket books in the months and years ahead.

Mould with my movie

February 9, 2003

Dear Sir,

It's No Longer In To Go To The Movies: When are the two theatres in Hamilton going to refurbish their facilities? Between the odd smells, gummy floor, uncomfortable chairs, poor picture quality, poor sound quality and tacky ads that are run it turns a night out at the movies to be as much fun as a night out at the mortuary.

We were so fed up that we have just invested in a 50" wide-screen TV that is fantastic and will stay at home in the comfort of our own living room to enjoy our own home cooked popcorn until some effort is made to care for the consumer. It is a shame as a night out at the movies use to be a lot of fun.

A true Bermuda spirit

Dear Sir,

We have been coming to Bermuda every year for 15 years. We have come to know and love Bermuda and the wonderful people who call this beautiful Island home.

On Monday afternoon, February 10, we along with our friends on their first visit to Bermuda, took the bus out to St. George's for lunch. The great bus system on the Island offers a great sightseeing opportunity.

While we were waiting for the bus back to Hamilton, a lady pulled her car up to the bus stop and asked us if we were aware of the bus drivers strike. She said there would not be a bus, but she was on her way to get her daughter in Hamilton and would be happy to help us get back to Hamilton.

We had not read anything in the paper or heard anything about a bus strike, but we gladly accepted her generous offer. This wonderful lady's name is Carol Bennett. On our trip back she told us stories about the history of Bermuda. She said she was born in St. Georges and was a true native of Bermuda. We feel she needs to be recognised for her "True Bermudian Spirit".

Many thanks Carol, and may God Bless You.

Stanley will be missed

February 10, 2003

Dear Sir,

My wife and I had the pleasure of meeting Stan and Pat Ratteray about 12 years ago. Stan travelled to Toronto on a regular basis and we had the pleasure of regularly entertaining him during his visits. He was an incredible man and we loved, respected and admired him deeply.

His involvement in desegregating the theatres of Bermuda was an event that he was far too modest about. We had dinner with him in Toronto in late January and he brought us a copy of the documentary `When Voices Rise'. We managed to view the documentary and discuss it with him before he flew back to Bermuda.

I know that a great many people in Bermuda are mourning his loss and we share in their grief. Our condolences go out to his wife Pat, their three children, various grandchildren and other relations. We were honoured to have known him and will always cherish our memories of Dr. Stan.