Priority is violent crime

January 7, 2005

Dear Sir,

Perhaps it is a matter of perception of priorities. The increasing violence among young black men is a far greater problem for Bermuda and Bermudians than whether or nor we go Independent.

Hence, in my view, attempting to set up parish committees of concerned citizens who will reach out to at risk youngsters is a far more urgent ? and challenging ? need than a Committee to study Independence. Some of the troubled and troublesome 11- and 12-year-olds of today will in a brief four or five years be knife- and machete-wielding young men. What is being done, what practical steps are being taken, to avoid adding generation after generation of alienated and violent young men to those which already exist?

When I first expressed concern in the 1980s about the black Community turning its back on its traditional values many of the current violent young men were either children or not yet not born. It happens very quickly.

The ?Royal We?

January 11, 2005

Dear Sir,

Watching the recent interview aired on ZBM in which Premier Alex Scott held forth on a number of issues put to him by veteran newsman Jim McKey, I was struck by a number of things.

I thought how eloquent the Premier was and how well prepared his remarks were. His delivery was very smooth and professional and revealed a man much in command of his subject. I, like other commentators I?m sure, have difficulty with some of the spin that Mr. Scott put on a number of topics but it was apparent from the interview that this is not a stupid man ? in fact, I thought, he is very clever. I will leave it to others to challenge the Premier?s view of the various subjects he covered ? my concern is more with the personality traits that could perhaps be gleaned from this interview.

In particular, in the final segment of the interview, when Premier Scott spoke in somewhat more personal terms about himself and the position in which he now finds himself, he adopted use of what I think of as the ?Royal We?. It has always been my understanding that this is a royal prerogative reserved for use by a monarch. Throughout this segment of the interview the Premier repeatedly referred to himself as ?we? and to his actions and decisions as ?our? action or decision. This is not the first time I have observed him speak thus. This use of the royal prerogative seemed to me at the time to be pretentious.

Three thoughts occurred to me. Firstly, it could be simply a matter of ignorance. But this is surely not an ignorant man! Secondly, it could be a kind of ?nose-thumbing?. It would, after all, not be the first time that our Premier has adopted an ?in your face? stance toward the British Government as in appointments of Chief Justices, access to the airport ramp etc. Or could it be a form of self-aggrandisement, arrogating privileges above his station? I thought this merited further research.

From the Internet I quickly confirmed my understanding of the usage of the ?Royal we?. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines ?Royal we? as ?The first-person plural pronoun used by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself?. That doesn?t sound like our Premier!

Webster?s doesn?t have the specific term but under its definition of the pronoun ?we? it adds the following note: ?We is frequently used to express men in general, including the speaker. We is also often used by individuals, as authors, editors, etc., in speaking of themselves, in order to avoid the appearance of egotism in the too frequent repetition of the pronoun I. The plural style is also in use among kings and other sovereigns and is said to have been begun by King John of England. Before that time, monarchs used the singular number in their edicts. The German and the French sovereigns followed the example of King John in a. d. 1200.? Now that widens the possibilities; could the Premier be trying to avoid appearing egotistical?

Next I came upon an interesting article entitled ?Linguistic Markers of Psychological State through Media Interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000? written by James W. Pennebaker, Richard B. Slatcher, and Cindy K. Chung of The University of Texas at Austin. In considering the question ?What can we learn about presidential candidates by examining their speech in natural conversation in televised interviews?? the authors of this paper say (in part) ?The reason we-words are somewhat deceptive is that they also are a distancing tool. That is, people often use the Royal We to psychologically distance themselves from their topic. ?We need to take out the trash,? really means that someone other than the speaker will be taking a hike to the disposal bin. It is common for insecure speakers, including politicians, to use the Royal We at disproportionately high rates.? Hmm! Could it be that the Premier is being distant or might there be some hidden insecurity there?

Turning last to Islamtoday.Net under ?Matters of Faith? an inquirer asks as follows: ?My question is related to the expression used in the translation of the Qur??n. Many times the expression ?We? is used for Allah when He speaks about Himself. Please explain why.?

One Sheikh `Abd al-Rahm?n al-Barr?k answered this question as follows: ?The Qur??n was revealed in Arabic and follows Arabic linguistic conventions. In Arabic, even today, a person may refer to himself in the plural voice if he is speaking from a position of strength or authority. It is exactly the same as the royal ?we? that used to be common in English when kings or noblemen spoke to their subjects. By no means does Allah using the word ?we? to refer to Himself imply a plurality. It merely refers to his greatness.?

This, then, is what makes our Premier such an interesting personality. Is Premier Scott stupid or clever, pretentious, ignorant or defiant, egotistical, distant or insecure. Or is he just great?

No to Independence

January 11, 2005

Dear Sir,

I feel I am an open-minded person. A person who realises that change has to happen. I do not totally dismiss the idea that Independence is the right choice for us. What I do not understand is, how does this benefit us?

The Premier seems to think that if we become an independent territory all our problems will cease to exist. The Government of the day will have more power over their own governing. The ability to change old laws and adopt new ones will be simple. When the Government of the day wants a certain someone to hold a certain post, then so be it, it will happen. Is this what this is all about? Complete and total power. Does this Government think that if we become an Independent Territory those guys who sit on the wall will no longer be there? News Flash: They?re there because they want to be. It is much easier selling drugs and dressing in all that bling bling than actually working.

Because the present Government cannot be trusted, we have someone to fall back on now and that would be the United Kingdom. If this Government chooses to change its ways and become honest in its every day dealings with crystal clear objectives, plans and implementations for our country, with fairness to all Bermudians, then we should consider Independence from Britain. Mr. Editor, I do not think that we are there yet. When I listen to all the nonsense this Government spews, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Take for instance the senior?s plight. The Premier first said he would be looking for an alternative to increasing their rents (double in some cases). Well, to date, there has been no alternative and he feels satisfied with the increases in rent. Who is he kidding? Does he think we are all stupid? What about the persons whose only income is being all used up to put a roof over their heads? What about electricity, telephone, groceries, and health insurance? Where does he think this money will come from?

This is just one issue the Government cannot fix, or just simply does not care about. When and if we become Independent, we would like to have a caring Government. A Government which will take the lead and show how compassionate it is towards its own people. The only way to decide Independence, and the fairest way, is by way of referendum. The PLP wants the issue to be decided by election. That?s not fair and it certainly is not the democratic way.

Unequal policy

December 29, 2004

Dear Sir

I was surprised to read your December 28th article, ?BHC evicts tenant? because the PLP Government?s social agenda policy of the Housing Minister, carried out by BHC, is very selective in how it treats individuals, even when one is paying current rent and something on the arrears. How generous and kind of BHC to store an evicted person?s belongings. Is it who you are or who you know? Is this person a friend or relative of staff members? BHC contacts who it wants to contact and ignores written correspondence when it wants to.

Just recently BHC evicted a tenant who withstood a leaking roof for years (still leaking), two ceiling falls in less than two years, breeding of mosquitoes in a confined area of standing water on the roof directly above the apartment, highly concentrated legionella contamination of drinking water, electrical shocks from water mixing with electricity, and major damage to personal property During the eviction BHC put some clothes outside but sent everything else to the dump including the tenant?s medication.

Obviously, BHC did not care about the health of the tenant much less have an appreciation for the thousands of dollar value of a server, lap tops, software, equipment, books, furniture, etc., ordered to be disposed of immediately upon eviction.

I cannot believe that BHC general manager, Vance Campbell, could order in the same month, one evicted tenant?s property to be disposed of immediately and not be put outside of the apartment, on the one hand, then, on the other hand, order another evicted tenant?s property to be stored.

Surely, this must be the PLP Government?s policy of stripping those that do not have of what little they did process and seeing to it that those that have add to their possessions.

No room at the post office

January 10, 2005

Dear Sir,

As a post box holder at Warwick Post Office I would like to see a designated area marked for customer parking as there is only one place outside of the Post Office and the other space is under the Rubber Tree when there are no trucks etc., parked there.

On Friday, January 7, the whole area outside of the Post Office was full due to a funeral being held at St Mary?s Church with no regard to customers.