Point of grammar

August 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

I wish to add a point to the grammar lesson offered by the letter writer of August 5th.

In the sentence "An interviewer only needs to hear a double negative once before they throw a resume in the trash can," 'an interviewer' is a singular subject and so the relative pronoun should be 'he/she' rather than 'they'... as far as I know.

HELENE STEPHENSON

Smith's

Wishes for Premier

August 6, 2009

Dear Sir,

So now we understand that the Premier has on his 'wish list' that the RG would stop feigning neutrality; well now, the Premier is not the only one with a 'wish list'.

Mr. Editor, I wish Dr. Brown was not so egotistical to feel his every move should be on the front page.

I also wish he had not said:

White people need to be made to feel uncomfortable

I have scores to settle and accounts to pull even

I really wish he did not say on the floor of the house "I would not call you a racist dog because I can see you are not a dog'.

This reply was given to a member of the Legislature on the opposition side and white of course. I wish our Premier were a much better man than this!

To be fair to our leader, it is common and usual for Governments to be at variance with the media and every democracy in the world feel they are not treated fairly or accurately. In Dr. Brown's case, I wish his perception paranoia were not so acute. I wish the Premier could be trusted to not continually mislead us. I wish for the Premier a strong dose of humility and honesty. I wish the Premier would stop feigning inclusiveness when we can clearly see he acts in the interest of one racial group. I wish the Premier would answer the tough questions and not attach agendas to queries he is clearly uncomfortable in answering. I wish the Premier would be respectful to all peaceful demonstrations/protests without some mindless lecture about where were they when . . . No need to wish our Premier to be smart, eloquent, strong courageous and well dressed. Clearly he is all of that. I wish the Premier would be mature and open to the needs of 'all' Bermudians. I could add more but this will do for now.

Footnote: Oh, please respect our Constitution Mr. Premier. So much for wishful thinking!

SUPPORTER

Smith's

Marriages of convenience

August 10, 2009

Dear Sir,

Last Saturday, whilst dining in a Hamilton restaurant, I could not help overhearing the conversation between two friends at the next table. It may be of some interest to you:

The first friend was angrily voicing her displeasure at the deceitful and underhanded way in which the four men had been brought into the island, with obviously no passports and no papers under the cover of darkness. Furthermore, she was even more angry that the four had now been found work at the new Port Royal Golf Course. However, she went on to say that she was pleased to hear that, according to the Attorney General, they would never be able to apply for Bermudian Status.

This is where the conversation took a really interesting turn as follows: — The second friend simply said that she was sure that they would all get status if they simply followed the actions of many other foreigners, by simply seeking out a Bermudian willing to marry them!

To add weight to her statement, she cited information volunteered by her sister who is employed at a hotel. Apparently during this past June, the hotel experienced not one, not two, but three such marriages of convenience, as the work permit date was approaching! In fact, one of the women was so desperate to hang on to her shaky position, that she got engaged and then had a quickie Vegas wedding all within the space of one week!

Mr. Editor, the alarm bells are ringing in my head concerning these marriages of convenience. How prevalent are they? and what happens down the road when these scheming and unscrupulous individuals ask for a divorce, and how many children are they bringing into our island?

UNWITTING EAVESDROPPER

Smith's parish

Cry-it-out is out-of-date

August 14, 2009

Dear Sir,

The following is a shortened version of a letter I sent to Dr. Sylvia Rimm, in response to her parenting advice column published in The Royal Gazette on August 8.

Dear Dr. Rimm,

I recently read your response to the "frustrated" mother of a nine-month old girl who wanted advice on how to move her daughter out of the parents' bed and into her crib "without a struggle".

You advised the "cry-it-out method" where parents increase the time they let their baby cry alone. You admit that the baby will "eventually … sob herself to sleep".

Is this really the type of parenting you wish to promote?

The Australian Association of Infant Mental Health is so concerned about the use of "controlled crying techniques" that they have issued this statement: "Controlled crying is not consistent with what infants need for their optimal emotional and psychological health, and may have unintended negative consequences."

A mother's biological response to hearing her infant's cry is intense and difficult to ignore. She instinctively responds by comforting her crying baby.

Even if the cry-it-out approach does "work" after a baby sobs herself to sleep for several nights, what has really happened? Has the baby learned to fall asleep on her own in comfort and security, or has she simply stopped crying and given up on her mother's availability? What are the long-term effects on the child's view of sleep, being alone, or her parents' ability and desire to meet her needs?

How can forcing a child to sleep alone teach her to have positive sleep associations? Would you recommend to your readers to toilet train their children by forcing them to stay on the potty until they go?

You do your reader a disservice by asserting her daughter will, without a doubt, feel "happy and secure" after nights of crying herself to sleep. The sensitive connection between a mother and her baby can be negatively influenced by insisting that a mother ignore her infant's wants. At nine months of age, an infant's wants are the same as her needs.

There are less traumatising methods to achieve better sleep which take into account the desires of the parents and the needs of the baby. Both "The No-Cry Sleep Solution" by Elizabeth Pantley and "The Baby Sleep Book" by Dr. William Sears suggest other options.

The cry-it-out method is outdated and potentially damaging to a mother and child's relationship. With other, more sensitive alternatives on offer, your readers may appreciate being better informed.

ALEXANDRA HASSELKUSS

Paget

P.s. Here is the original Sylvia Rimm column:

Question: My husband used to work third shift so I took care of our newborn alone at night. Being tired, I had her sleep next to me so when she woke up I was there to feed her. My husband got laid off and is now home nights. Our daughter is now 9 months old and I desperately want her out of our bed! We've tried, with no luck, to have her sleep in her crib. My husband and I are frustrated. I feel guilty because I started this whole mess. What can we do to get her into her own bed without a struggle?

Answer: It usually takes a small struggle to move babies to their own cribs, but if you persevere, it won't be more than two or three nights. Give your daughter the usual hugs and kisses and place her in her crib with her favourite stuffed animals and blanket. When you leave the room, she'll cry. If she continues to cry for 15 minutes, comfort her within her crib, but don't take her out. Then leave the room. If she cries again, wait 20 minutes before you go in a second time.

Extend the time between each comforting, but never pick her up and take her out of her crib. Eventually, she'll sob herself to sleep. The second night will be easier and by the third night, she's likely not to cry at all. You and your husband will have your privacy back and your daughter will feel happy and secure in her crib.

Where is the UK?

August 14, 2009

Dear Sir,

I read an interesting letter in The Royal Gazette from a Bermudian who said he had been out of work since February and could not find a job!

He quite rightly questioned why these Uighurs were suddenly found employment. Who agreed to the work permit, etc? It appears that all traditional laws and policies have been cast aside to accommodate these people! The law in question here is the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956. Under this law Bermudian Status holders are given priority for employment. All available posts must be advertised three times in local newspapers and only if no interest has been shown can the job then be offered to a non-Bermudian. Finally the employer must apply to the Immigration Department for a work permit.

If I were Mr. J. C. Simpson, I would contact an Attorney & the Human Rights Commission, as the law is the law, to get answers! But, I wouldn't hold my breath, as Dr. Brown is a "dictator" and as we know the Government answers to no one! My question still remains ... why is the UK Govt not addressing all the "shenanigans" that seem to occur in Bermuda on an almost daily basis?

I also refer to another article in today's Gazette, which stated that Britain ordered the suspension of the government in its Caribbean territory of the Turks and Caicos on Friday after an investigation found evidence of widespread corruption.

"After careful consideration, I have instructed the Governor to bring into force today an Order in Council which will suspend ministerial government and the House of Assembly for a period of up to two years, to allow the Governor to put the Islands' affairs back in good order," Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant said in a statement.

The Turks and Caicos seems to be a priority for Westminster! Why do they keep turning "a blind eye" as to what is happening in Bermuda! Bermudians want answers. Why are they not forthcoming? Bermudians should start a vigorous e-mail campaign to Westminster until they get the answers they deserve, or do they have to wait until next year when David Cameron is in control?

BRUCE MCCLARRON

Arizona