21 Square

BHC Scandal Survey Results

1. Do you think the Privy Council was right to rule in favor of the newspapers?

Value	Count	Percent %
Yes	87	97.75%
No	2	2.25%

2. Is it likely the PLP will attack the ruling and allegations as UBP electioneering?

Value	Count	Percent %
Likely	83	94.32%
Unlikely	5	5.68%

 

3. Do you think the PLP will move to introduce anti-corruption legislation prior to the next election

Value	Count	Percent %
No	85	95.51%
Yes	4	4.49%

4. When do you think the election will be called?

Value	Count	Percent %
Summer 2008	33	37.08%
Spring 2008	21	23.60%
Christmas	17	19.10%
Not sure	12	13.48%
Immediately	6	6.74%

Awesome stuff, this survey worked out better than I could have imagined.  Now for the coolest part.  Where did my responses come from?

Most interestingly, out of less than 100 responses there were two outliers, one in Beijing, China and the other in Mauritius.  I'll leave it up to you to guess how the person in China thought the Privy Council should have ruled.

New feature: Surveys

Thanks to recently discovering Survey Gizmo, I've decided to launch a survey engine to see if I can incorporate more visitor feedback into my postings.  So, without further ado, here is the first survey.

 

The survey has now been closed and I'll be posting the responses around lunchtime.

Privy Council Rules

It has just been announced that the Privy Council has ruled against the media ban on reporting about BHC.  No doubt, things are going to be interesting over the coming weeks.

Of particular interest:

They also awarded the costs, which could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, against the Government.

Awesome.  Even more of our taxpayer money has gone to poor use.

Rhetoric 101: If you can't win the argument, attempt to change the subject.

 

In a response made in yesterday's Royal Gazette by Education Minister Randy Horton, rather than address the concerns raised with sound logic and reason, he resorts to changing the subject.  Unfortunately, Minister Horton's attempt to chastise those asking the hard questions as somehow detracting from the accomplishments of those who graduated does not make sense.  The issue isn't those who graduated, it is all of those who didn't graduate who will remain disadvantaged.

"[The media is] placing far too much emphasis on what they consider are 'the numbers'," suggests Minister Horton.

It is not as if 'the numbers' were magically pulled from the air, they were provided by the Ministry itself.  How can he honestly and truly accept that we should all be blind to seeing that there is more to the picture than his cherry picked numbers.  Is Minister Horton willing to sacrifice our children in favor of political gain?

"The graduation rate is in no way inflated"

This is Minister Horton's defense.  If by graduation rate he means the overall number of students, then indeed he is correct.  The hard numbers are consistent and they indicate that there is not a great deal of variation between the number of graduates last year and the number of graduates this year.  This is where you can compare the 48% announced last year vs. the 80% this year and think, does that make sense?  This when the actual number of graduates has stayed nearly the same?

What indeed is of great concern is the severe deflation of enrollment rates.  This is something which is of tremendous importance to the future of our children and should be discussed rationally and openly, not covered up or dissuaded as an issue to be dealt with in 2009.  The issue is important today and not having done the due diligence of collecting the right numbers is not an adequate excuse for those students who have been left disadvantaged.  Yet, rather than address this, Minister Horton changes the subject.

"I am disappointed by those who have tried to minimise the accomplishments of the class of 2007" suggests Minister Horton.

While no doubt many congratulations should be offered to the hard work of those responsible for the students who did pass, those who didn't have been done a grave disservice and should not be swept under the rug and forgotten.

It is incredibly disappointing to watch Minister Horton minimize the damage that is being done to the future of our disadvantaged youth.   Their potential to survive in Bermuda's workforce, to enjoy Bermuda's prosperity and garner the benefits of the proposed racial equity law are being extremely limited.  

When you look at the percentage of students who make up the public school system, the majority are black.  If half of those are giving up on the school system and dropping out, that is a large percentage of our youth who will forever remain disadvantaged.  How can a government who proclaims itself interested in helping right racial inequity so easily sweep so many disadvantaged youths under the carpet in an obvious attempt to save face politically?

Rather than address the concerns raised with sound logic and reason, Minister Horton resorts to changing the subject.  Unfortunately, Minister Horton's attempt to chastise those asking the hard questions as somehow detracting from the accomplishments of those who graduated does not make sense.  While those who graduated are deserving of congratulations, those who didn't shouldn't be sacrificed like pawns in a game of political chess.

Fare hike: what's in it for Joe Electorate?

No doubt the proposed fare hike for taxi drivers is long overdue.  However is it far to coincidental how the timing of the hike falls right in line with rumors of an election being called?  Further, the public still waits for improvements in service that have also been long coming, where are they?  There are improvements that could be made and systems put in place to measure service levels, and thus it should be expected that along with the hike, such announcements are forthcoming.  We, the electorate, can hope that while the taxi drivers are getting their much needed fare hike, that we will also getting a much needed improvement in the levels of service.

Breaking news from the Royal Gazette web site suggests that as of December 1st we'll be paying 10.5% more for our taxi service.  No doubt this has been quite a long time coming as taxi drivers have watched their costs increase while their profits dwindle.  Few can argue with the plight of taxi drivers as fuel costs skyrocket. 

The timing of the hike is one which raises questions, however.  It takes us back to that old question, if there was no pending election, would similar action be undertaken?  For those who recall, the taxi drivers served as a major pillar of support for the Progressive Labour Party by ferrying party supporters to and from the polls in previous elections.  More recently, taxi drivers have become frustrated with the ill-fated forced implementation of GPS which has not yielded the promised results and the despair of rising costs.  Does the timing of this announcement make it far too coincidental?  Would it be too much to wonder whether this is little more than pre-election pandering and if an election weren't in the cards, the taxi industry would get nothing and be quickly forgotten about as they have in the past?

The other issue that comes to light is the lack of improvement in service over the years.  GPS was a flop and no doubt many in the electorate will be disgusted by the rate hike should it not accompany strict measures designed to improve the reliability and service offered by the taxi industry.  Thus, tomorrow's more detailed announcements could take two courses of action.  One which will prove that this is a case of genuine improvements for all, or the other, which suggests this is little more than simple electioneering. 

If this writer were to take a guess as to what improvements could be made, he would propose that the Ministry of Transport would create a special auditing program designed to assess the service levels of the industry.  This program would involve having random individuals test and rate the level of service offered around the island from response times, cleanliness, attitude, etc, all from varying locations and to varying destinations.  Those drivers who refuse to drive to certain destinations should be met with an instant fine and suspension of their license.  Other violations should also be met with fines and suspensions depending on their severity.

So, certainly allow the taxi drivers to have their rate hike for it is long overdue and they deserve it given the rising costs.  However, the public should be weary to watch whether this is a case of electioneering or genuine intentions to improve service overall.  No doubt improvements can be made and systems could be put in place to track levels of service, for to expect a commitment of improvement in service from the industry and our government at the same time as a rate hike would not be asking very much.   For certainly, just as fare hikes have been a long time coming for taxi drivers, so have improvements in service for the electorate.

Cronyism disputed

This evening I was having a chat with a good friend of mine which turned towards the topic of the poor coverage offered by local papers and their lack of investigation into their stories.  His example was the recent case of accused Cronyism where UBP Senator Richards accused the government of unfairly creating specialized permits for limousines only weeks before the exact cars specified were brought in after having preordered them months ahead.

My friend had some interesting remarks which have left me wondering about this specific case.  His argument is that some 6+ months ago, the government put out ads in the newspaper and radio for those interested in acquiring licenses to operate limousine services.  Of which, he was one of only 6 entrepreneurs who turned up for the advertised meeting.

By his recollection, further information regarding limousine service was only shared with those 6 as originally the government had expected a greater turnout and did not feel it was worth continuing expensive advertising for such a small turnout.  Apparently, the specifications of the specific cars were provided in these original meetings.

My colleagues comments raise questions in my mind as to the validity of the claims of cronyism.  On one hand you have the undisputable coincidence of how entrepreneur David Durham knew months ahead of time what specific make, model and color of cars were required for the official announcement of regulations.  On the other, I have someone claiming that those specifications were made public in a meeting months ago which was well publicized.

Thus, it is hard to draw solid conclusions without hard evidence.  In the government's denial of cronyism, there is no mention of publicized meetings.  Also, there are no records I have found of which such meetings were advertised in the paper.  Thus, it would be helpful if the government could provide some evidence to support the argument that such meetings were organized and publicized some time ago.

Without such evidence, unfortunately just about everything falls under the category of hearsay and can only be taken with a grain of salt.  It would be helpful to find more evidence supporting either side of this case in order to get a better picture of whether cronyism really plays a part.

Milestone: 3000+ visitors a month

Over the year that I've written this blog, I've watched it grow from zero readers when it began to today where I've reached 3000+ visits in a month.

The purpose of this blog as it has grown is to dispel rumors and myths so as to encourage people to seek truths with regards to our local governance along with share ideas of how we could be doing better.  We deserve honest and forthright governance that holds the interests of our people closest to their hearts.  Not their own.

If you believe in what I say and wish more people would listen, help make a difference by telling people about my site.  Convince them that they should read my arguments to understand what our government is doing and what questions they aren't answering.  Force people to ask themselves why our government isn't answering.  The more people you tell, the more they will tell, and truth shall spread like a virus.

If you have something to add, start a blog.  Speak out and spread the word.  The more people who voice their disappointment in the system and their willingness to place their vote not on party or racial lines, but on those truly committed to making our island great, the sooner we'll get there.

With your support truth will spread.  With enough voters demanding truth and pressuring our government, whether PLP, UBP or unknown, they'll finally start giving a damn about what the people think.

Make a difference.

Startlingly poor statistical analysis

things appear to be going backward with the number of black executives declining from 29 percent to 27 percent in the most recent figures.

This was a statement from an article where Community and Cultural Affairs Minister Wayne Perinchief justifies the proposed racial equity law.  This is just another example of poor statistical analysis on the part of our leadership. 

29% black executives suggests that out of 100 executives, 29 are black.  Taking that 100 as a benchmark, that means we have a pool of 29 qualified well educated black executives to pull from.

Now consider the 10 new insurance companies that formed in only the last 3 months, let alone who knows how many others over the last couple years. Then ask yourself, if we have 29 qualified and well educated black Bermudians and you add 10 new companies, does that stretch the pool of available qualified black Bermudians? 

Well, using our benchmark of 100, only 7 new executives would need to be added to cause a shift to 27%.  That would mean that while the total number of black executives, 29, has not changed, the percentage would, thus giving us 27% of executives being black.  So, there are now 29 black executives out of 107.

Far too many people incorrectly see this as 'things going backward' in a clear misunderstanding of basic analysis.  In reality, lets say that on average those 10 companies each add 1 representative executive to our benchmark.  That means, we have 110 executives overall instead of 100.  Now we take our 27% of 110 which gives us 29.7, or rounded up, 30 black executives.

Is it possible that the number of black executives may well have increased  and not decreased?

Prove me right or wrong.  Show me the hard numbers over the last 5 years of:

# of black Bermudian executives
# of white Bermudian executives
# of black ex-pat executives
# of white ex-pat executives. 

No percentages, hard numbers.  Prove to me that there has been a decrease in the total number of black executives, not just the percentage due too the influx of new companies.

Why Regiment sucks

There are times when being conscripted into the Bermuda Regiment can be bearable and then their are times when it just downright sucks.  This happens to be one of the latter.

Usually the Regiment is pretty reasonable about scheduling, a lot more reasonable than I anticipated when I first went in.  Weekend camps occur usually once every 6 weeks or so, or are at least spaced out by a couple weeks.  We usually get the Thursday night off after a weekend camp and we get 2 months off in the summer to break up the year.  Overall, the year was looking quite reasonable.  Right up until our schedule was changed three weeks ago.

Our new schedule is quite ridiculous.  We began the month with a full Saturday (we have to be there for about 7:00 am) of exercises and training, a Sunday morning (another 7:00am) parade practice and half the Monday for the Governor's leaving parade.  The following Thursday we had off.  Then we had to return for Thursday last week, we had a weekend camp this weekend which meant the Friday night and Saturday up until about 6pm but thankfully Saturday night and Sunday off.  However, we have to be in camp for Thursday when we usually after a weekend camp we have it off and we have another weekend camp this weekend.

The only thing worse than having two weekend camps with two Thursdays in a row is that we have to be in camp over Halloween weekend, which just plain sucks.

An open letter on graduation rates

Minister Horton,

The following is an open letter which I have posted on my blog (www.21square.com) and copied to both The Royal Gazette and the Bermuda Sun.

I am writing to express my confusion at the latest release of graduation rate statistics.  Unfortunately the quoted 22% jump is not clear to me as it is accompanied by a 31% drop in enrollment levels.  This leads me to wonder how graduation rates are calculated and whether or not dropouts are included in the calculation. 

Back in January, it was suggested in an article in The Royal Gazette that the way graduation rate statistics are calculated has been changed.

"In previous years, said Mr. Horton, students who were not enrolled in the BSC programme were included in published graduation rates, giving an inaccurate set of results. "

"He said previous statistics were also less reliable because there were was no way of knowing whether students had left the school system before graduating privately in Bermuda or abroad; if they were institutionalized; or if they dropped out in the traditional sense of the word. "

Could you please clarify for me the definition of those who are enrolled in the BSC programme and how the graduation rate is calculated for each school?  My understanding is that the new way of calculating measures students who enter Senior Four and leave with a BSC while discounting those who transferred to other schools or left the island.  However, this method would not yield accurate numbers for how many students entered Senior One, compared to how many left with a BSC four years later.  Thus, the statistics for those who did not progress through Senior One through Four are lost which makes an accurate measure of the number of individuals who dropped out difficult to ascertain.

Would you be so kind as to provide me a breakdown of how graduation rates are presently calculated along with dropout statistics and enrollment levels for Seniors One through Four?

Thank you kindly,

Denis Pitcher

Fool me once...

"There are others such as IT companies that are small anyhow their workforce is non-Bermudian."

This was a comment made by Community and Cultural Affairs Minister Wayne Perinchief in todays royal gazette as for why the proposed workforce equity act is needed; especially to apply to companies under 40 people. Unfortunately Minister Perinchief hasn't been in communication with the immigration department as, if he had, he'd know that the vast majority of advertisements for IT jobs go unanswered by Bermudians. Not only are companies having a hard time finding capable Bermudians for IT positions, they're having a hard time finding non-Bermudians willing to come here.

IT is a perfect example of why this act is ill concieved. Bermudians were generally very late to be exposed to computers and the internet due to their high cost and difficulties of our location and infrastructure. When combined with the sad reality of economic disparities between the races, the likelyhood of blacks generally having the same experience with computers as generally wealthier whites is sadly minimized. Does this mean there are no blacks skilled in IT? Of course not, there are many, however the expectation that there are enough to meet the proposed equality measures is beyond far reaching.

Despite this disparity in exposure, our government has expressed little interest in making IT, computers and strong exposure to internet and technology more accessable for Bermudians of tomorrow. Instead, focusing most on disadvantaged Bermudians of yesterday who are victims of the same lack of foresight we're witnessing today. This lack of foresight and unwillingness to recognize and address the prime causes of disparities between the races is largely what people are up in arms over with regards to the present efforts of our leadership.

It is this blindness that leaves many wondering whether our present leadership truly understands the implications of what they are proposing or if this is simply the latest in racially motivated electioneering tactics designed to fool the electorate into thinking they have our best interests at heart.

As the saying goes. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'. Are we again being played the fool?

Psst... Mr. Premier

The Royal Gazette has 10 reasons why Bermuda was perfect for the Grand slam by the managing editor of the US PGA website, John L. Byrwa.  Number 9 caught my attention.

No. 9:A pop-star Premier. Where else can you go and find the leader of a free country — albeit a country that's only approximately 22 square miles in total area — out milling about with the common folk? No massive security detail, no armed guards in dark sunglasses whispering into walkie-talkies, no huge entourage, just the Honourable Dr. Ewart Frederick Brown and a discreet assistant out walking among the people, shaking hands and talking to anyone who approaches. He even remembers your name the next day. (Trust me on that one, too.)

Hint hint, Mr. Premier: "no huge entourage".  We like you better when you're just one of 60,000 at the same level as the rest of us and, apparently, so do others.

The rest of the 10 reasons are an enjoyable read and definitely paint our little island in a good light.  Kudos to Dr. Brown for pulling it off.

Generally not right

In recent weeks, Attorney General and Senator Phil Perinchief has made inaccurate summations of the views our former Governor, racially motivated personal attacks justifying draft racial equity legislation and unfounded assumptions about the causes of perils of our society.  As the primary legal advisor to our government, should we not expect more from him and has he jeopardized his ability to be taken seriously in the future?

"This is the draft Act that the outgoing Governor Verecker, a non-Bermudian and a non-lawyer, took what he thought was a constitutional parting shot, together with his other parting shot against independence."

These were comments made by Attorney General Senator Phil Perinchief which are clearly incorrect when the headline quote of the former Governor's comments was 'I understand case for Independence'.  Within the article, the former governor describes the arrangement of the UK's power over Bermuda as awkward and outdated.  Is this an example of a "parting shot against independence" made by the governor or instead a shot against the governor made by the Attorney General in a clear misquotation.

Further confounding statements made by Senator Perinchief described how there has been no change in the stature between blacks and whites since 1616.

"There's been no significant or fundamental change in the social and economic divide between blacks and whites, rich and poor, from at least 1616."

Yet, in the very least between 1616 and today we have seen the end of slavery, the end of segregation and the election of an all-black leadership for 2 terms.  What is Senator Perinchief trying to say exactly when he suggests that there's been no change since 1616?  There's been a lot of change.

All of this comes after his remarks against local lawyer Tim Marshall who exercised real concerns with regards to the efficacy of the draft racial equity law.  Rather than addressing the concerns raised, Senator Perinchief threw equity out the window and took the low road by attempting to use racism to his advantage. 

"Mr. Timothy Marshall, a recipient and beneficiary of this unequal status quo, and a lawyer, should know better [before criticizing the draft equity law]."

To which Mr. Marshall responded that his family was far from privileged and his own father had to fight against discrimination himself as a person or Portuguese descent.

"What the Attorney General doesn't know is that my father, brought up by a single parent who absolutely believed in the power of education, couldn't get a job in Bermuda after university because of his Portuguese heritage.

"Neither the black nor the white school systems would hire him. He left Bermuda and did not return until he was 42. "

Mr Marshall continued by attributing his own success to his parents commitment to the power of education.  Something which leads us to the next question of Senator Perinchief; does appreciate the true importance of education in this whole racial equity situation?

Not long ago, Senator Perinchief suggested support for the inclusion of only black Bermudians in the draft racial equity law because of statistical evidence.

"Statistics show that black Bermudians as a group are underrepresented in certain occupational categories in the workplace," he said.

Yet, fellow PLP MP Renee Webb has already suggested that such statistics alone are not an accurate measure when you fail to weight qualifications and experience equally.

"Until you address the education system you cannot turn around and say people should hire people who are underqualified" said Ms. Webb.

As much as we would all like to see equality amongst Bermudians, it is very difficult to advance under-privileged segments of society into positions for which they are not qualified without adverse affects.  To do so risks tokenizing and demoralizing black Bermudians which could cause more harm than the intended good.  As Ms. Webb suggests, without heavy focus on equipping all Bermudians with the correct tools for success, things won't change for the better.  Risking our local economy on short term solutions that won't yield the desired results over the long term is simply not a good course of action.

It is very concerning to discover that an individual can be placed in the position of Attorney General, the main legal advisor to our government, while carrying such ill-formed perspectives.  How can someone of such a position make grossly incorrect summations of the views of others?  How can he play the race card through dubious and false assumptions while at the same time trying to champion legislative changes purported to create racial equity?  How can he make unfounded assumptions about the prime causes of the perils of our society when his own colleagues are suggesting the correct course?  As the primary legal advisor to our government, should we not expect more from him and has he jeopardized his ability to be taken seriously in the future?

Tribute or vandalism?

Something needs to be done about the rising levels of graffiti on our island.  While some may start as tributes to fallen friends, untackled graffiti starts a chain reaction towards increased crime.  This needs to be tackled head on by those responsible and solutions need to be considered to clean it up and put and end to it. 

A couple months ago, not too long after hearing of one of many bike accident deaths we've had of late, a spray painted tribute appeared on the wall of a bus stop in Hamilton parish.

In the weeks and months since that tribute first appeared, the tribute grew and along with it came other spray painted remarks.

 

Now what can be found are the inner walls covered in a tribute, along with various initials spray painted on the walls.

The inner whiteboard which is supposed to be used to mount bus schedules and routes is covered in cursings and initials and various sayings.

It is clear that the PLP has failed in their maintenance of this bus shelter, just as they have with the one in St. David's. 

Our leadership needs to Malcolm Gladwell's book called The Tipping Point, which tells how vandalism and graffiti serve as sources of dissent that spur the growth of crime.   What began as a tribute has grown into vandalism.  The reason being that because the spray painted tribute was never cleaned off, more and more people who see it begin to think they can get away with similar.  So they add to it.  The longer that isn't cleaned, the more people think they can get away with disobeying the law.  It causes a chain reaction.  Now imagine every driver from the east end in the morning clearly seeing this graffiti.  What does that cause them do to?  Well, none other than begin to question their own respect for authority and begin driving more recklessly and speeding more.  For really, if the government can't be bothered to tackle things as simple as graffiti, they clearly aren't policing properly and thus there's less chance I'm going to get caught if I ignore the law as well.  If you don't follow this logic, I highly recommend you read The Tipping Point.

Anyway, with all of Premier Brown's raving about his Grand Slam achievement and his encouragement of Bermudians to do their part, I really point the finger at him for not doing his own part.  Very easily, some of the tourists and even people from the PGA could take a ride from the airport and see this as they ride past.  Such a great image representing Bermuda don't you think?  Considering that this is a bus shelter, I place responsibility for leaving this for so long squarely on the Minister of Transportation.

Here's my recommendation.  Clean up the graffiti ASAP but still give the youth their tribute.  How do you do this?  Cleaning up the graffiti should be pretty straight forward, so let's focus on the tribute.  Find out who from Hamilton parish has died in bike accidents recently, especially but not limited to those to whom those wall tributes are made, interview their parents and friends to get their story and get photos of them.  Then have new bus schedules posters made up and include in them photos and stories of those youth who died as a tribute.  This will accomplish a number of things. 

• It will earn respect from the local youth for having given their fallen colleagues the recognition that they feel they deserve. 
• It will rid the area of the distasteful graffiti and help stop the spread of lawlessness. 
• It will serve as a tremendously positive reminder to youth in the area why they themselves shouldn't speed.

Following these recommendations will hopefully spark some imagination in our leadership in order to begin solving the rising levels of graffiti.  The community is calling out for tributes to fallen youth and the government should be heeding their call for their own tributes will only lead to greater problems.  There are real solutions for tackling such issues, just hopefully they'll be embraced.

BermudaSucks.com has competition

A new forum for Bermuda has been started at Bermuda Is Another World.  Hopefully it's name will elicit less controversy.

Housing by the numbers

My contention is that we have a major housing shortage, especially studios and one-bedrooms which due to the increase of ex-patriot workers over the last 7 years.  Assuming supply and demand were balanced in the year 2000, my rough estimates indicate that by now we should have built roughly the following numbers of units to meet present demand.

1,312 new studio / one bedroom units

478 new two-bedroom units

283 new three-bedroom units

110 new four-bedroom units

4 new five-bedroom units

A failure to have built units to match these numbers would suggest that we have not matched supply with demand and thus would explain the major strains presently on housing.

By my last count, government was in the process of adding 341 new units which will barely satisfy the needs of those on the emergency housing waiting list.  Even with private sector development, it is doubtful that we're anywhere near the estimates of increased demand which I've noted above.

Bermuda is deep in a severe housing crisis.  We have not adequately prepared for the growth of ex-pats, especially one-person family ex-pats who share homes that otherwise should be going to Bermudian families.

So, remind me again where we're going to put all the people for the 1000 jobs a year we're expected to add over the next 3 years?

 

 

Supporting thoughts + calculations

From the statistics report on the Characteristics of Bermuda's Families

A greater proportion of non-Bermudians lived in one-person families than Bermudians. In absolute terms, however, the greater number of one-person families were Bermudian (8,124) and 66% were one-person households. Their non-Bermudian counterparts formed 3,056 one-person families and 54% lived alone.

...

In composite households, 73% were comprised of one-person families (Figure 1 and Figure 2); for example, four unrelated roommates would form four one-person families.

So, 2680 one person Bermudian families share households and 1406 one person non-Bermudian families share households for a total of 4,086.

According to the 2000 census there were 6,881 non-Bermudian workers (not including spouses of Bermudians and potentially including permanent residents).

According to the most recent Labour Market Indicators, there are 9,813 filled non-Bermudian positions for 2006.  That represents an increase of 2932 additional workers.

Considering that the overall population of non-Bermudians in 2000 was 13,256 and 6,881 of them worked, that means approx 52% worked.  Applying that number to the 9813 filled non-Bermudian jobs today, that equates to 18871 non Bermudians, or some 5615 who would have been added to the overall population.  Which matches estimates that our population is roughly 67,000 people at present. 

If one were to use the 2000 Census of Families by family type and Bermudian Status of family head as a benchmark, 3056 non Bermudians were one person families out of 13,256, so about 23% overall.  Assuming that same 23% of the 18871 non-Bermudians at present suggests 4340 one person non-Bermudian families today.  If using the benchmark noted above of 54% living alone, that would mean 2344 live alone today and 1996 share households.  Contrast that to the 1650 who lived alone the 1406 who shared back in the year 2000 and we've got comparative increases of 694 living alone and 590 sharing.

 

If, according to the 2000 census, there were 1,188 Studios and 6,385 one Bedrooms available in the year 2000, that indicates a total stock of 7573 units catering to one-person families.

If in the last 7 years, there was an increase in 694 ex-pats who preferred to live alone, that would indicate that we'd need approximately 694 new studio/one bedroom places added to the housing stock.  Has that many been added?

If that many hasn't been added, it is a likely assumption that those individuals could outbid Bermudians out of the existing housing stock and thus force more Bermudians who traditionally would have enjoyed one-person abodes to end up continuing to live with their parents or to share accommodations.  Even worse, if prices rose too high due to factors of demand and supply, it is likely that these ex-pats who traditionally would have lived on their own would spill over into shared accommodations as well, impacting supply of multiple room dwellings.

In order to evaluate the increase of 590 ex-pats who traditionally would share accommodations, we can use the percentage distribution of households by number of bedrooms to guesstimate their requirements.  When discounting one bedrooms and studios, roughly 52% of homes are two bedrooms, 40% are three bedrooms, and 7% are 4 bedrooms.  So roughly, lets guesstimate 148 new two bedroom units, 83 three bedroom units, 10 four bedroom units and 1 five bedroom units to satisfy the needs of these house-sharing ex-pats.  Again, if comparable numbers haven't been built, you can expect Bermudians to be outbid an that ex-pats will put multiple people into each bedroom, if necessary.

Now, of course we haven't even gotten to the growth in multiple person expat families of approximately 4331 people who may share a studio or one bedroom, but could also opt for a larger households. 

According to the 2000 census, there were 1,468 adult couples in the year 2000.  So that makes 2936 non-Bermudians of the 13256, or 22%, of the total number of non-Bermudians.  Taking into account the 5615 non-Bermudians we've approximately added to our population, that's approximately 1235 people, or roughly 618 couples.  That means we'd need to add 618 studio or one bedroom units to accommodate them assuming they wouldn't opt for bigger.

Now lets deal with the couples with children.  Ignoring the other, extended family and one parent cases to make things easy, we're looking at about 1582 people, or about 12%, for the year 2000.   Adjusting for our present approximation of non-Bermudian population, 12% equates to 2,265 people.   To make it easy, lets use similar guesstimates as we did above for expats sharing.  So, 330 two bedroom units, 200 three bedroom units, 100 four bedroom units and say 3 five bedroom unit, which takes into consideration that kids will roughly end up sharing rooms in many cases.

Quite startling.

Is the UBP's proposed drug policy doomed for failure?

Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley's suggested policy for combating drugs likens the 'war on drugs' that has taken place in America.  Though, isn't that the exact same tack that Premier Scott took only a couple years ago?  Has the 'War on Drugs' movement in the United States been a success or a failure?  Does prohibition work and was "Operation Clean Sweep" of our past really a success?  Does cracking down on drugs really prevent crime or does it fuel it?  Is the UBP's proposed drug policy doomed for failure?

In his recent submission to the Bermuda Sun, Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley declares that we must 'fight the problem' of drugs.

The United Bermuda Party has an aggressive plan to fight the drug problem. We will give Police the equipment, manpower and training to detect and stop the inflow of drugs to the island. We will increase penalties for traffickers.

Citing increased awareness and drug programs as solutions, Mr. Dunkley toes the line of traditional anti-drug policy which has not achieved success elsewhere.  Indeed, his avocation of the creation of a "drug 'czar'" is not new and clearly takes a page out of former Premier Scott's strategy when he founded the now defunct Ministry for National Drug Control.

In order to understand why a 'war on drugs' won't work, one could turn to the comprehensive 146 page report produced in 2005 by the Seattle-based King Country Bar Association.   It cites a wide range of reasons why the 'war on drugs' has failed and offers solutions as to how to truly combat the problem.   The report even cites the US's own drug czar, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy John Walters, admitting the anti-drug campaigns failure to dent the flow of Latin American cocaine onto American streets by cracking down on supply.

"we have not yet seen in all these efforts what we're hoping for on the supply side, which is a reduction in availability."

The King Bar Association's report asserts that the US's “War on Drugs” is fundamentally flawed and is associated with numerous negative societal consequences, including:

• the failure to reduce problematic drug use, particularly among children;

• dramatic increases in crime related to prohibited drugs, including economic crimes related to addiction and the fostering of efficient and violent criminal enterprises that have occupied the unregulated and immensely profitable commercial market made possible by drug prohibition;

• skyrocketing public costs arising from both increased drug abuse and increased crime;

• erosion of public health from the spread of disease, from the concealment and inadequate treatment of addiction and from undue restrictions on proper medical treatment of pain;

• the abridgement of civil rights through summary forfeitures of property, invasions of privacy and violations of due process;

• disproportionately adverse effects of drug law enforcement on the poor and persons of color;

• the clogging of the courts and compromises in the effective administration of justice, as well as a loss of respect for the law.

Cracking down on drugs can be likened to the prohibition of alcohol in the United States between 1920 and 1933.  Prohibition created incentives for bootleggers to smuggle more potent alcohols which lead to a change from the US being a beer and wine society into a bourbon and gin society.   It also served as the foundation under which organized crime flourished and fueled the gang mentality spurning the gangster subculture.  Compare this to the success of Bermuda's "Operation Clean Sweep" of a few years back.  Indeed it may have cleared the streets of drugs and yet, if decent statistics were readily available, it would not be surprising if stats showed a marked increase in harder drug use since that time.

Cracking down on trafficking spurs traffickers to take greater risks and seek to import more potent drugs.  It becomes less profitable to bring in less potent drugs and more profitable to focus on hard drugs, especially considering the high risks involved.  What ends up happening, as has happened in Bermuda and continues to today, is that hard drugs become more readily accessible than less potent ones and leads to even worse addictions and crime.  Even worse, in the face of higher risks, traffickers start arming themselves with guns to 'protect themselves' as their profits go through the roof.  Gangs form and turf wars surmount as wayward individuals fight over the rights to the vast source of income created by prohibition.  Cracking down only serves to fuel drug related crime, not prevent or stop it.

While Mr. Dunkley along with our present and past leaderships can be commended for their passionate arguments for cracking down on the trafficking of drugs, is it really the right long term solution?  Will it reduce criminal activity as Mr. Dunkley hopes?  The American 'War on Drugs' has gone on for decades without a great deal of success.  Prohibition and crackdowns have been shown in the past to not be effective long term solutions and cracking down on drugs fuels more crime than it prevents.  So, if elected, would the UBP's proposed drug policy be doomed for failure?

Pay attention to what you put in your mouth

Seeing as there has been an uproar related to the unfortunate supersized nature of the average Bermudian, I thought I'd share some of the insights I've gained with regards to nutrition.  Now, of course I'm no dietician so take my words with a grain of salt (or none if you concerned about your blood pressure). 

Losing or gaining weight comes down to a very basic principle:  Pay attention to what you put in your mouth.  The core tricks to understanding the basics of managing your weight are to remember what you put in your mouth, figure out how much you need and recognize how that impacts you.

What you put in your mouth counts for everything because your body has 3 means of dealing with it.  It can burn the energy, store it or pass it out your rear.  Unfortunately, very few things fall into the latter category so you've got to focus on what your body burns and stores.

That cookie you ate as a snack?  Yes it does matter.  As with everything else you eat in a day.  The first step is to mentally note everything you put in your mouth so that you can remember it later.  Mental notes are the best way to encourage yourself to pay attention to what you eat.  If you can mentally recall everything you ate in a day before going to sleep, it helps encourage you to pay attention to what you put in your mouth tomorrow and builds long term awareness.   Once you know what you put in your mouth, you can start comparing how much you're supposed to be eating vs. how much you actually are. 

No doubt you've heard a great deal about the wondrous "calorie" but may be oblivious to what the word actually means.  In the simplest of definitions, a calorie is nothing more than a description of how much energy is in what you eat.  In order to simple maintain your current weight (assuming your the "average" person), you will need to consume about 2000 calories worth of energy a day.  Generally, this can be more or less depending on your sex, your size, your metabolism and the amount of exercise you partake in each day, but for today's efforts, lets keep it simple and say 2000.

Once you know how many calories you're supposed to be having, you can start paying attention to those helpful labels found on most foods today.

Here's an example:

Note the red star next to "Calories 190".   This particular label, one for hazel nuts, tells you that if you wanted to survive on a diet of hazel nuts alone (though not recommended), you'd have to eat about 262 of them each day.  Very basically, if you ate 300 of them each day, you'd gain weight, if you ate 200 of them each day, you'd lose weight.  Again, the "hazel nut diet" is not recommended as the next diet fad because while you'd lose weight, your body would deteriorate due to malnutrition.  Same goes for not eating eating enough because your body doesn't react well to it.  A proper balance of consuming everything your body needs is essential to healthy living, but outside the scope of this piece.

Let's assume for argument's sake that you love hazel nuts so much, they're all you eat.  If today you ended up eating 300 of them, that'd be the equivalent of eating almost 2300 calories.  300 more than the 2000 your body can burn off as energy.

Why should you care?  300 calories doesn't seem like all that much and it's only 38 more hazel nuts and because you love hazel nuts so much it shouldn't really matter, should it?  The core problem is that those extra 300 calories don't fall into the category of energy your body will burn and they certainly won't end up coming out your rear so the only likely alternative is that your body will make like a squirrel and store those nuts for later. 

When your body stores those nuts, it does so by converting the energy in them into fat.  This is where understanding how much energy is in what you eat is critical because your body can store 3000 calories worth of energy in a pound of fat.  That means, if you overindulged in your diet of hazel nuts for 10 days, you'd find yourself one pound heavier.  Just as if you under-indulged by 38 hazel nuts (300 calories) each day for 10 days, your body would have to burn a pound of stored fat to maintain.  Healthy weight loss involves moderate under-indulgence for long periods of time.

The core tricks to understanding the basics of weight gain and loss are to pay attention to what you put in your mouth, look at the labels on foods so you can understand how much to put in your mouth and recognize what your body does with it. 

Happy Blog Day

A year of blogging. Thus far it's been an interesting and enjoyable experience, one which I continue to learn from.

While I wasn't entirely sure of it's intentions when it first began, I am proud to see what it has grown into. It still amazes me to this day the number of people who like to look in on my ramblings.

Thus far I am quite pleased to have met some of the personal goals set when first starting this blog. Those being to spread my ideas of how to make Bermuda even better, give a bit of commentary on life in Bermuda to look back on and improve my ability to write.

For those of you who have been with me since the beginning of this journey, thank you for your support. For those who have joined the ride along the way, thank you as well. While this journey has largely been one of writing for my own satisfaction, I am growing ever cognisant of the increasing influence my words can have. As such and as always, should you agree or disagree, feel free to let me know. Should you like to see more on any topic or hope for my opinion on one, contact me and I'll do my best. Should you yourself have thoughts you'd like to share with my readership, send them along and hopefully we can use this blog to give your ideas a voice.

Hopefully in even just a small way this blog helps Bermuda become an even better place to live.

Real solutions to black advancement

The best way to solve racial inequity is through investment in solid education.  MP Renee Webb knows it.  The Irish knew it.  Why can't Bermudian's accept it?  Education is the key to black advancement.

In today's Royal Gazette, Renee Webb makes a spot on review of how to provide real opportunity to underprivileged Bermudian's:

"Until you address the education system you cannot turn around and say people should hire people who are under qualified. "

She continues by making a case for ensuring Bermudians are properly qualified:

"Are we making sure Bermudians are qualified to take over? That's the big issue. Are we training them to take their rightful place in the country? "

"Is Government creating a scenario where Bermudians can work overseas and they are getting training. Is that being encouraged? I think the cause is laudable but, if you look at a quota system you have to look at the economy, how it works. Look at the education system, look at work permit policy. "

Exactly.  The performance of the education system speaks for itself.  Then look at work permits.  Every single one accepted is scrutinized by the immigration department.  That means either one of two things:  Either the immigration department is inept or there are no qualified Bermudians available for the vast numbers of jobs filled by primarily white ex-pats.

30+ years ago, the Irish understood the struggles of being racially profiled.  An editorial in the times online outlines the struggles and success of the UK's Irish Community.  It suggests that 30 years ago, it was not uncommon for boarding houses to post signs saying 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs'.  The writer contests that while he can't speak for blacks, the Irish have achieved success through hard work and focus on education.

"the real reason why the Irish are now at an advantage is by virtue of education. The present generation of affluent Irish came from a state that continuously made schools a priority, even when Ireland’s lacklustre economy meant that the Irish Government was educating us for emigration. Even now, Irish class sizes are smaller than here and Irish teachers better paid."

Stop and think for a moment.  Where is there a growing competitive jurisdiction threatening our dominance over the reinsurance markets?  Why it must be Dublin, Ireland of course!  Coincidence?  Likely not.

Why can't Bermudians achieve that kind of success?  While the Irish made education a priority, what priorities have we seen under 9 years of Progressive Labour Party governance?   How much time was wasted pursuing  independence?  How much time has been focused on pointing the finger of blame?  How much time will be wasted on poor legislation that will potentially jeopardize our strong economy?  If Bermudians aren't qualified for the jobs, what is the point?

We should be putting focus on ensuring Bermudians are qualified.  This means education, full stop.  Yet how much focus has been placed on education in all these years?  Has it been a priority?  Has education again fallen off the radar thanks to a magical study but no further updates on what is actually being done?  Shouldn't fixing education be an ongoing focus and our top priority? 

Racial inequity should be solved through the most effective means possible: an unrelenting focus on education.  The PLP as a whole may not want to listen, but even their own MP's are saying it.  There are many examples of underprivileged races like the Irish who knew it and took advantage.  Why aren't Bermudians listening?  Why are we not giving education, the best means of providing opportunities for black advancement, 110% of our focus and energy?

Held Captive

The following was submitted in the comments of the "No Comments" article by reader Silencedogood with apparent excerpts from Catherine Duffy's book "Held Captive" which described the history of Bermuda's insurance industry.

 

It's sadly ironic the situation we are in with Ewart Brown. One need only take a look at the pages of our own history to understand what is going on. The following are some excerpts from Catherine Duffy's book Held Captive:

"Lynden Pindling of the Bahamas was our biggest ally...Pindling gave a speech, known as the 'bend or break speech', in which he threatened international companies based in the Bahamas. Pindling required that all foreign workers be replaced by Bahamians. Deeming this to be impossible, offshore business flocked to Bermuda. Indeed in two years 20,000 ex-pats who had been working in the banking and insurance industries in the Bahamas left that country, taking most of the industries with them in their suitcases when they left. Many set up shop in Bermuda."

The chapter goes on to discuss how it wasn't just the bahamianation (sic) of the IB sector that drove companies out, but also the onerous push for more intrusive regulation, including reporting requirements.

It goes on to state:

"Fortunately the Government of the day, realizing that it did not fully understand this new Exempted Company Business and the complexities of insurance, left it up to the private sector to be the trailblazers. It was from this moment that a partnership between the public and private sectors began. The Government of Bermuda learned to listen to the concerns and interests of the international business arena so that it could develop its expertise in regard to this new area of commerce for the greater benefit of the island."

It doesn't take a genius to recognize the parallels. Just change Bahamas to Bermuda and Bermuda to any other prospective offshore jurisdiction. Goodwill+ and the new CURE legislation recently unveiled which besides being discriminatory and poorly drafted more importantly (from a business perspective) requires extensive and burdensome regulatory reporting making it, along with the other proposals, a nearly identical replay of what took down the Bahamas and allowed Bermuda to rise.

The very things that were at the core of why Bermuda was a great place to do business--i.e. an effective partnership between the public and private sectors--is exactly what is being eroded. Why? ...

Lest we fall prey to the false arguments that IB has done nothing for the working class or the black community, I found this quote also interesting:

"By some estimates the ruling class of Bermuda consisted of only five families, in those days of the 1960s that now seem so far away. Be that as it may, by the end of the decade the privileged few, whoever they were, had no other choice than to accept that if Bermuda was to be seen by the outside world as credible, responsible, viable and attractive jurisdiction, the ruling elite had to be seen to spread their wealth around the Island."

Now, being seen to spread wealth and actually doing it are two different things, but no one can deny that this was a push in the right direction which has ultimately led to the wealth of opportunity available today. That push was helped along by the efforts of many, including LBE, but no one can deny the rising tide which helped to lift all boats.

The Bahamas has been able to prevent a full scale tailspin such as the post-Michael Manley Jamaica, but that doesn't mean it didn't suffer some hard times, the outcome was never a certainty, it doesn't mean it is more prosperous than if it had not been so reckless with its economy, or that Bermuda would be able to pull off the same feat.

 

 

Note: If anyone actually has a copy of this book that they'd be willing to lend out, I'd be greatly appreciative as I think I would benefit from the read.  Thanks

"Arrivals" breakdowns

A few months back I found myself incredibly dismayed by the release of visitor arrival statistics because of the lack of distinction between which visitors were here for business and which were here for pleasure. 

It was quite a surprise to open this morning's Royal Gazette to see that these statistics have now been released as they will enable me to paint a much more detailed picture of the state of our tourism industry.

Quite helpfully, the Ministry of Tourism has accepted my request for access to the original statistics so hopefully I'll be able to cover things more extensively.

There are many questions I hope to ask and provide some speculative answers:

• What factors are contributing to the decline in pleasure visitors?
  
• What factors are driving the increase in business visitors?
  
• How much is spent by pleasure visitors in comparison to business visitors?
  
• How has hotel room availability impacted the overall picture? 
  
• Are we witnessing a case where business and pleasure visitors are competing for accommodation?
  
• How will the continued weakening of the US economy affect our overall tourism picture and are we seeing a comparative rise in visitors from other jurisdictions?
  
• What likely impacts have discount airlines had?