bermudashorts

Your Government is Hiding March 10, 2011

The PLP government has become increasingly vague, recently. I cannot help but see their defense of past problems as hiding behind half truths. The whole political game of speaking in platitudes is becoming so un-constructive it’s pretty clear that they are unfit to handle the practical solutions that Bermuda needs for today. When the opposition makes its case with numbers and facts, the response that they get is just BULLSHIT.

Last night’s parliamentary debate over the Wharfage Fees in Hamilton is a prime example. The opposition essentially questioned the wisdom of this whole scheme.

“One wonders why have we gone though all this palaver for such a small fee. The former Premier spent $800,000 on lawyers to get this thing done. They spent all this money for the takeover, the net is less than a million dollars. One wonders what it’s all for.”-Bob Richards

PLP Response:

“The idea is not to take all revenue from the Corporation. History will show that the move and the amendment, and this adjustment to the way the affairs of the Corporation are handled, was good for the City, it was good for democracy and therefore it was good for Bermuda.”- Michael Scott

“When you talk about net spend, if it could have cost $3 million or $5 million to get that Act changed and get democracy in the City, it would have been money well spent”. “When I think of the poor Bermudian families that have been disenfranchised, if we had to spend millions of money on that, it would have been money well spent.”- Zane Desilva

“Government backbencher Walter Lister stressed it was about democracy, while Ms Cox concluded: “This isn’t about the money. Really it’s about the fact we had a principle at stake.”

Is Bermuda in a position to spend money fighting for a principle, which frankly not many people care about? Furthermore, if this legislation was truly about the principle of democracy, it could have been done without the price tag. If it was really about democracy, the government could have pressured the Corporation into changing it’s voting system. The government is acting like they’ve had some huge victory for democracy, but what is the point if people are struggling to meet ends meet? What could that $800,000 gone to instead of this legislation? How about sending struggling households in Hamilton a cheque for a piece of that money? If that were the trade off, I dont think that anyone would give a flying fuck about democracy. The legislation doesn’t provide any social benefits, provides a very small chunk of cab fare for the government and provides everybody in Hamilton with the right to vote in a Corporation that no longer has any power. So was it worth it? Absolutely not. Zane Desilva and the other PLP members are taking a position similar to neo-conservatives in the US, that you can’t put a price tag on principles like democracy and freedom. But the problem is, there is a price tag, whether we like it or not. Bermuda is not in a position where we can pay such a high cost for small principles, especially something that could have been done for free. The PLP needs to get a grip on reality and stop hiding their financial stupidity and abuse behind platitudes and buzzwords.

bermudashorts Redesigned February 17, 2011

I made some changes to the appearance of the blog today. If there is anybody still out there, look for some fresh posts coming your way soon.

Party Crashers January 13, 2011

Bermudians tend to make mountains out of mole hills. That is exactly what is going on with these former UBP candidates switching over to the PLP. Is it shocking? No. Does it really matter in the scheme of things? Not really. I think that Maxwell Burgess and Gwenyth Rawlins see an opportunity to claim a seat. The PLP will wipe out the opposition in the next election, except for Paget. I don’t think they’re switching for idealogical reasons. At least for Mr. Burgess, there is a place for him in the PLP and I believe he will do much more good there than in the UBP. He will be able to get his opinions heard and wished granted.

Let’s see how far he can get up the ladder before falling off again.

Walton Brown’s Reefer Madness November 24, 2010

I’m still struggling to understand Walton Brown’s editorial in the Royal Gazette today. He mentions that “We have to first listen and better understand young people before we can begin communicating with them on this issue.” so why don’t we start right here…

Mr. Brown firmly states that he is not in favour of legalisation or decriminalisation. Yet, one of his main ideas for marijuana policy is decriminalisation. He believes that people should not be given criminal records for posession. That is decriminalizing pot, Mr. Brown, I’m not sure why you think otherwise?

The one thing he got right in this editorial, “smoking anything is not good for you”. Correct, smoking is not the healthiest practice. However, smoking weed is a lot less harmful than smoking cigarettes.

I’m not sure whether his portrayal of the pro-legalization arguments are misrepresented on purpose, or out of misunderstanding.

He states that the “juvenile” juxtaposition of alcohol’s legality and weed’s illegality is unfounded. He argues that moderate amounts of alcohol have health benefits while smoking weed has none. I suppose that is true if you put it that way. However, the “juvenile juxtaposition” is based on the idea that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, which it is. Alcohol can make some people angry and violent, and it goes without saying that drunk driving can be lethal. When you compare that to the only “dangerous” effect of smoking marijuana (its bad for your lungs), this argument makes a lot of sense. If someone smokes a lot of weed, chances are they may eat an extra bag of Cheetos or fall asleep and will probably be too lazy to even get behind the wheel of a car. If our government does not want to “validate the use of something that so clearly destructive” they had better outlaw alcohol, cigarettes and ban all cars with combustion engines.

He also does not buy the argument that legalization and taxation would earn revenue for the government and end the profitability of the illegal trade, which I don’t quite understand. If the government grows, taxes and regulates the selling of weed, chances are the price of what you pay for say an eighth would go down dramatically. The government has the ability to put any person growing a bunch plants in their closet, out of business via economic strangulation. There is also not just tax revenues to be gained, but huge savings in the police, prisons and court system. Money that can be better allocated to fighting real crime.

He mentions that he’d like to lower demand, much like the demand has lowered for cigarettes in the past 30 years. People have stopped smoking cigarettes because they are extremely bad for you. Everyone has seen the anti-smoking ads where they list the different harmful chemicals in cigarettes. Your average joint doesn’t have those. People won’t stop smoking weed for the same reason, mainly because it is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Truth be told, there is no way to stop people from smoking weed.

If Mr. Brown want’s a meaningful conversation with young people about weed, he’ll have to understand that most young people enjoy getting high and don’t want to be fed a bunch of lies about marijuana’s ill effects.

ps. I suggest that Mr. Brown go and pay a visit to California. Although they didn’t pass Prop. 19, weed is practically legal anyways.

Correction November 18, 2010

Okay, so false alarm. There will be no PLP primary to challenge Dale Butler.

Ha-hah! November 3, 2010

Very happy with the story on the front of the RG this morning. To see my related post in tourism, click here