Losing faith

December 29, 2003

Dear Sir,

Anyone listening to the people show on December 17, 2003 would have clearly heard the arrogance and contempt displayed by the Minister of Transport when the talk shifted to taxi drivers.

It would be fair to say that what I heard the Minister say over radio that day and then again a few days latter while on VSB radio talk show, there will be no peace between the two parties based on the feeling held and I as a taxi operator can understand.

Maybe the time has come to congratulate the Minister along with some taxi driver and operators for destroying the taxi industry, for it won't be long before Bermuda look likes all the other islands, with mini buses and taxi all over the Island just parked waiting and hoping to make a living.

The time has come for someone to remind the Minister that the government has a responsibility to the taxi industry, and that responsibly is,

1. The government in 1970 sold 50 taxi permits to the industry at $6,000.00 and $300,000.

The government again in 1988 sold 38 taxi permits to the industry at $50,000 = $1,900.000.

The government over and over, year in and year out, plays a major role in the sale of taxis permits from $100,000 to $140,000.

To say that the Government doesn't have a responsibly to protect this industry would be an error in judgment because the above can't happen without Government approval, they set the standards, they set the fares, they say who can and who can't, taxi operators have no say when it comes to their business, how much they can charge or to any regulation that may come forth. That's for the doctors!

What the Minister needs is a lesson in truth honesty and loyalty maybe then he will understand the commitment the government has to the taxi industry, the office he hold and to the people of Bermuda. After all it was he who said “That we had to lie to you”, the proof is in eating the pudding.

LOSING FAITH IN A PLP GOVERNMENT

Devonshire

A fool and his money...

January 4, 2003

Dear Sir,

Let's just go over a couple of facts about gambling.

1. Whereas most services promise something for money, gambling provides the prospect of ...more money. Money is the reward for money in gambling. Someone widely respected on this Island once said “Money is the root of all evil”. Well money begetting money is surely the picture of greed feeding itself. Many people say that gambling is based on the laudable virtue of hope. Where does hope become its evil twin, greed? I defy you to tell them apart in a casino.

2. The social ills that are associated with gambling are many. They include gambling addiction, broken homes, robbery and the involvement of organised crime. Gambling is an addiction and so resources of the community must be spent to cure the addicted. Rising crime means more police who have to be paid. The effect on the islands reputation will not be good.

3. God made little green apples, we all pay taxes, we all die and at the end of the day the house always wins. Gambling has been called a tax on the mathematically challenged. The number of people who win at gambling is very, very small. They spend their entire life figuring the odds and they play exhaustively. When they do win they are harassed by the house. The gambling industry keeps a record of people who win and makes sure that wherever they go they will find it difficult to gamble.

If someone tells you you can win at gambling they are lying. If you run a gambling casino you are ripping people off. And you know it. Which is pathetic.

If we in Bermuda wish to embrace an industry that makes fools of people and endangers the social goodwill, then we have to accept what we are doing and what that means we are. Yes, capitalism is based on greed. One might say that gambling is the logical extension of that. But we are not hard capitalists. We are soft capitalists; capitalism moderated by laws and other constraints.

If we want to make money and we will risk all for gambling, why not try less harmful sources of revenue? We should legalise prostitution, which when regulated properly is nowhere near as damaging. Why not legalise heroin? At least then we are providing a tangible product. Its also addictive and much less expensive. I have never heard of anyone doing enough cocaine in one night to lose their life savings. But you can do that with gambling.

JOHN ZUILL

Pembroke

Let's ditch them

December 30, 2003

Dear Sir,

By filing a complaint against Minister Renee Webb, the staff of the Department of Tourism have done what other public servants wanted to do but were afraid to. They can't all be wrong. Since 1998, the number of early retirements, resignations and general flight from the service can be attributed to the behaviour of Ministers, but no one would dare to admit this.

We'll see what comes of the complaint, as judging the past, we don't expect any action to be taken. The present Premier should have been ditched long ago for his mishandling of the Berkeley project, Nelson Bascome for his many transgressions, the then Attorney General for the pyramid scheme and the list goes on and on.

We'll wait and see.

KEEN OBSERVER

Devonshire

Some words of advice

January 2, 2003

Dear Sir

I have been reading a letter to the editor in today's edition of The Royal Gazette by L.G. Tarita Rawlins, a Christian mother. You have used the heading ‘Panto was perverted', and the letter is about the recent BMDS Pantomime, ‘Goldilocks and the Three Bears'.

The writer believes the pantomime she saw (and possibly all English humour) is perverted and against Bible teachings. Please allow me to make a few points.

First, I am delighted to see Mrs. Rawlins writing to the newspaper. I'm an advocate of creative writing.

Second, by writing in public, Mrs. Rawlins must accept that her words have made her opinion visible, and she has to be prepared to defend herself against critics and to accept praise when it is due.

Third, I have no quarrel with Mrs. Rawlins' opinions on what is acceptable behaviour as far as sex and sexuality is concerned, what she does in private is none of my business. I'm sure that she feels comfortable in her own skin.

Fourth, I was shocked at Mrs. Rawlins' take on gender-identity in theatre. A friend wondered if Mrs. Rawlins' opinion was plain ignorance. There may be naivete involved, and Mrs. Rawlins was judging a book by its cover. Naivete is quaint, ignorance is not.

Can I suggest that Mrs. Rawlins look online and read about traditions in theatre, English and otherwise. If Mrs. Rawlins is not online, she might go down to the Bermuda National Library and look at a few reference books, or use the Library's online services. If Mrs. Rawlins is a bit wary and would like some help, and Head Librarian, Mrs. Brangman, and her Library staff are busy, she can call me and I'll go down and help her myself.

Mrs. Rawlins might look at the female characters in Shakespeare's theatre, and in the earlier miracle plays in English churches. Also, the practice of castrating young males so as to provide soprano and alto voices in choirs and in theatre. Women were forbidden the stage, and roles in church, because of Biblical restrictions on the proper place of women in public and private. Think Taliban.

Of course, Mrs. Rawlins does not believe that an actor playing a role becomes that role. Denzel Washington did not become Malcolm X, he brilliantly portrayed him. Flip Wilson's ‘Geraldine' (the Devil made her do it) was not Wilson as an actual ugly woman (or a drag queen). When an actor plays Jesus of Nazareth in a film, passion play or nativity pageant, he is not, suddenly, Jesus Christ. If a female infant lies in the manger, the heavens will not roar disapproval. What about paintings depicting a black Madonna and Child?

One final word of advice: Don't create your own work using a quotation taking up more than a half of the words you submit. A short quote is delightful. But do try to use your own words if possible. When you are called to give evidence, to say what you have witnessed, you must state what you personally saw or heard. You cannot just copy someone else's experience.

ROSS ELDRIDGE

Devonshire

A simple solution?

December 29, 2003

Dear Sir,

I have been reading the newspaper and listening to the various radio talk shows with great interest as it pertains to drug trafficking in the Admiralty House Park.

As a resident of Spanish Point, and having to pass the said area everyday, please allow me space for my personal observation.

Let me give a common sense suggestion. This may not be the entire solution, but it is something to think about. There are two walls that run parallel with each other, one on the southern side of the road and the other on the northern side.

The wall on the southern side of the road protects homeowners' properties while on the other hand the wall on the northern side of the road over the years has been basically protecting those who indulge in the selling and using of illicit drugs.

Why not remove the northern wall that runs from the east entrance of the park to the west entrance and replace it with a sidewalk. The sidewalk can start from the west entrance, near the Telco telephone unit and proceed all the way to eastern entrance of the park.

This would afford the area residents a sidewalk and would make the park open and visible to passers by.

The northern wall, once removed, should not be replaced with a wooden fence (as it located at the Spanish Point Park) or a small three to four foot wall behind the sidewalk. Since this would only encourage the congregating of those same individuals with having lookout persons.

R.K.

Pembroke