Pleasant questions

Yesterday's Royal Gazette featured a disappointing interview with Transport and Tourism Minister Dr. Ewart Brown. It eschewed difficult questions in favour of affording Dr. Brown another opportunity for self-promotion.

What motivated his "back to the plantation" remark in the run-up to the 2003 election? Does Dr. Brown regret his now-infamous "we had to deceive you" comment? Is he concerned about the effect of the pay-to-play allegations and the Government's failure to investigate them? Why will he not say why the Club Med negotiations with the Renaissance Group fell through? Does he understand why many people do not trust him? Is he concerned that this lack of trust may prevent him from ever assuming the Premiership, which he so openly covets? These are some of the questions I wish the newspaper had asked Dr. Brown, even if he had invoked the "plantation questions" defence in order to avoid answering them.

Nevertheless, I suppose we should be grateful that Bryan "Leading Question" Darby wasn't conducting the interview, otherwise it would probably have gone something like this:

Darby: Dr. Brown, you came in for a lot of criticism during the 2003 election campaign, when you said that a vote for the UBP would be a vote back onto the plantation. But we know that things get said in the heat of election campaigns that might not be said otherwise. You must find it frustrating that people keep harping back to this comment, along with "we had to deceive you", the pay-to-play affair, and your sale of that house to the BHC. I imagine you just wish people would focus on your achievements, don't you?

Brown: Uh huh.

Why are there no tough interviewers in Bermuda? Is it that our politicians are so cowardly that they would refuse to be interviewed by them?

Comments

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 08:34]

I can't recall any journalists working in Bermuda that operate on the level of Jeremy Paxman on the BBC (Paxman is notoriously aggressive in his interviews). The only person I can think of is Raymond Hainey a few years ago when he worked for the RG. He wasn't so much aggressive as he was sensationalist, cut from the UK tabloid press cloth.

[jake on 18.04.06 at 08:38]

I think you are playing a broken record, Phil.

Brown has not won over people's hearts, but he has been winning airlines, tourists, hotels, GPS Taxi's, Ferry Boats, and the like. Many businessmen in the tourism industry say he is a man you can do a deal with.

In short he is doing his job.

What you will find is that Bermudians will forgive almost anything dumb that comes out of your mouth, and even the most naked of ambition.

What they will not forgive is Young & the Restless being taken off the air, or policies that lose them money.

Brown gets that, and so he has no need to answer your questions.

I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 09:05]

"What you will find is that Bermudians will forgive almost anything dumb that comes out of your mouth, and even the most naked of ambition.

What they will not forgive is Young & the Restless being taken off the air, or policies that lose them money."

Thankfully, you don't speak for me or for many other Bermudians. I'd like to have some of those questions answered, myself. Dr. Brown has certainly done his job well, but I still wouldn't vote for him, because you never know if he's going the stab the island in the back they way he stabbed the party leadership after the election.

[Cynic on 18.04.06 at 09:25]

Its funny because what I firmly believe is that those people like D'Olivier that say they wouldn't vote for him because he may stab the country in the back etc, probably wouldn't have ever voted for him or anyone PLP anyway...this just gives them an excuse to not cast that vote.

It is obvious to me that Dr Brown is doing his job wonderfully. He is not to blame for the questions that he was asked or not asked. He is charismatic, intelligent, & knowledgeable about his subject matter.

He will have no problem getting re-elected in his constituency which he won easily in 2003. He makes no apologies, and needs to make no apologies for having leadership ambitions. However he does state that just because one has leadership ambitions doesn't mean that they do not support the current leader and do not work as a team. Should he be ambition-less? I think not. A party is at its best when there are more than 1 capable leader, as everyone has to perform at their best. They are capable of waiting and biding their time for the right situation. Maybe in 2003 it wasn't done 'correctly', however many of you probably wanted Premier Smith to be ousted. You are just happy that the way it was done was so messy that it is something you can use to tarnish them.
He may forever regret the comments after 2003 election, but in my opinion his work ethic speaks for itself. There have been instances where the Opposition and the Press have accused him of wrongdoings, however nothing has been proven or substantiated. Let the Dr perform his job!

[novote on 18.04.06 at 09:49]

EB's not a very likeable person. He's ruthlessly ambitiouos, manipulative and egotistical.

However, he is doing a great job in his ministry.

Personally, I disagree with his views on Independence and despise the way that he uses race as a political tool.

Nevertheless, given a political landscape (on both sides of the house) devoid of strong leaders and effective implementors, sometimes there are trade-offs to be made.

I'd rather have him in situ than not...for now.

[Rossini on 18.04.06 at 10:02]

Limey, it is most unfortunate that you choose to blame politicians as cowardly on this account. There are no real journalists in Bermuda.They do a disservice to themselves by refusing on most occasions to do any research. And they are done a disservice by their editors who fail to proof / edit what they write to ensure that it will resonate with the readership. One headline in the Gazette springs to mind....something was described as a "damp squib"....well unless one has lived in the UK for an extended period that phrase is meaningless.....A real journalist would have a field day with a character like Dr. Brown who probably would welcome being interviewed by one.

[Zoom on 18.04.06 at 10:11]

It's funny. Everyone complains that the RG never says nice things. And when they do, everyone complains.

Actually, my read is that it's a pay-for-play. Ewart undoubtedly gives them the inside scoop from time to time, and this is the payback.

I thought the article was very revealing on how radical the Doctor really is.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 10:14]

No Vote,

"He's ruthlessly ambitiouos, manipulative and egotistical."

Can you name a politician who does not fit this description? The nature of politics is to attract votes and very few "low profile" politicians have been successful.

As far as your comment about Dr. Brown not being a likeable person, is that from a personal of political perspective?

D'Oliver,

When has any PLP MP stabbed Bermuda in the back? Many would have been overjoyed had the economy of Bermuda collapsed under the PLP as was touted by the UBP. However, that has not happened, actually the economy of Bermuda has continued to grow under the PLP.

As was stated by Cynic, you probably would not have voted from Dr. Brown or any other PLP politician anyway and you are now simply looking to hold on to something to justify your not voting for them in the future.

Limey,

How many times have you stated that the past should be left in the past? You want those of us who have addressed the past racist pratices of the UBP, or those that formed the UBP, to move beyond that, and most of us have, yet you still want the press and the public to focus on comments Dr. Brown made in 2003. We are now in 2006, three years removed from 2003 when Dr. Brown made those comments. When are you going to take your own advice and look at the track record of Dr. Brown rather than focus on a negative comment?

Maybe this is simply you showing your own bias against the PLP. Although you can't vote, you would not support the PLP if you could, but you want to do what you can to influence those who can vote to share your perspective.

When some point out your obvious bias you express your disagreement with it but here is simply another example of your distain for the PLP and you know most posters on this site will agree with anything negative you have to say about the PLP.

Ah well, its your blog and you can run it as you see fit.

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 10:16]

"Its funny because what I firmly believe is that those people like D'Olivier that say they wouldn't vote for him because he may stab the country in the back etc, probably wouldn't have ever voted for him or anyone PLP anyway...this just gives them an excuse to not cast that vote."

Cynic, you presume too much on what little I've written. Are you comfortable voting for a person who has brazenly betrayed a party's trust? Past behaviour is not an indicator of future behaviour, but that's one hell of a red flag that Dr. Brown threw up, and if he's capable of doing this before, he's capable of doing it again.

It's part of a politician's job to be accountable to the voters who voted them in. Limey's questions are well within his job spec to answer, we just need someone to pose the questions. No one's preventing him from doing his job.

[jake on 18.04.06 at 10:19]

"Thankfully, you don't speak for me or for many other Bermudians."

I am not purporting to speak for Bermudians, I am speaking about them. Nor was I giving you my personal view (or defining yours for that matter) on Dr. Brown. I was simply telling you why he is not worried about questions from Phil or reporters, because he is judged on his job performance.

...and he is doing a great job.

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 10:24]

"D'Oliver,

When has any PLP MP stabbed Bermuda in the back?"

(sigh) Please read what I actually wrote: "...because you never know if he's going the stab the island in the back they way he stabbed the party leadership after the election."

Never said the PLP has done it, never implied it. I'm critical of the person, not the party. Your assumptions about me are also amusing, but irrelevant.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 10:35]

D'Oliver,

You are indeed correct, my apologies for mis-reading your post.

However, did he stab the PLP in the back or was it a case, that he and others in the PLP, and many of the electorate, wanted Jennifer Smith removed from office? He was not alone in getting removing Jennifer from office, so he alone should not be singled out, correct?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 10:38]

Sorry again, you did not say PLP but party leadership. The last question, however, still stands.

The thing is, a leader should always be prepared to be challenged for that position, at anytime. Just becase there is a current leader does not mean that others have no desire and will to lead or that others will not challenge.

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 10:44]

jake,

You're basically giving your view on why Dr Brown isn't concerned about these questions. Your opinion. You don't actually know, unless you're a mindreader.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 10:57]

Funny you should bring this up Limey. I too question the questioners. When I read the interview in the RG all I saw was a puff piece promoting the fact that Dr. Ewart "Sugar Daddy" Brown is gearing up to run for the top spot in the PLP leading up to the next election.

He's showcasing all the things he's accomplished in the past three to six months. I have no problem giving him credit for getting certain things done but the real questions should also dig a little deeper as to what the true cost his "campaign" really is to Bermuda. And not just monetarily speaking.

Take for example the fact that he's finally brought JetBlue on line. And what is the budget they have for their advertising program? Considering the fact that they have to advertise anyway and they've already got a large amount built into their budget already I'd like to know what the hand-out to their bottom line was. No wonder JetBlue people readily say they always break out in a big smile when the good doctor shows up.

And how about the TNT deal. $1 mill is it? I think I could start up a decent little getaway business if I had a guaranteed mill to fall back on.

Globalhue? Mega-millions per year shoe-in without having to even put up some competitive ad campaign to start? And no local representation?

When Dr. Brown becomes the Premier will he have an MRI in competition with the hospital? Will he hold his seat on the hospital advisory board and collect fundings from various players who want in?

No plantation questions? Is that because that's where he's stock-piled the sugar cane that he's using to sweeten the deals that ultimately he will use as proof that he can get the job done?

If Bermudians feel this is the best way to move forward then fine but just remember which wolf we gave the keys to the chicken hutch too. I for one just want to know which side of the fence I'm standing on.

[D'Olivier on 18.04.06 at 10:59]

"However, did he stab the PLP in the back or was it a case, that he and others in the PLP, and many of the electorate, wanted Jennifer Smith removed from office? He was not alone in getting removing Jennifer from office, so he alone should not be singled out, correct?"

He should definitely not be singled out. I don't recall at the moment who the others were, I only latch on to him for the "We deceived you becuase we had to" quote, and I have the impression that he actually led the revolt (please correct if me I'm wrong).

I agree that leaders should always be prepared to be challenged, but to depose a leader straight after an election they've won is pretty crass. Effectively, they subverted the voice of Bermuda's voters. The majority of voters voted for a PLP platform with Jennifer Smith leading the party, and when winning the election, instead of a Smith government that you were voting for, you get a Scott government. You can't exactly go back to the store and say "Can you return my vote? This isn't what I signed up for...."

What the PLP should have done is wait 2 years, THEN kick out Smith, and a year later call an election so that you can gain a mandate. I guess a few people were impatient. I'd like Dr Brown to answer those question: Why couldn't you wait for 2 years? Do you regret the decision now?

[Cynic on 18.04.06 at 11:10]

D'Olivier,
I understand what you are saying, however, there is no Smith government or Scott govermment, thre is a PLP government. This is not a Presidential structure, but a Party structure. Our leaders, whoever they are have the ability to direct discussion and influence, however they cannot make any decisions absolutely and without collective approval. It might have been more seamless for them to wait 2 years to change leadership, but many people (not just those 'rebels') felt a change was necessary. Personally I was fine with Ms Smith in charge, but if they really wanted a switch they could've waiting until October at the Leadership Conference. Either way, its all old news now. Just as you all champion the UBP for becoming a new party and you seem to think it has shed its past and become revolutionized, is it also impossible for the PLP to have learned from that situation? I think it is entirely possible that in retrospect many feel that it didn't go down in the best way, and therefore they will ensure that any leadership challenges will be handled in a more appropriate manner. Do they need to be crucified over and over again for the same thing?

Regarding Dr Brown's involvement, from his interview yesterday he said he did not lead the revolt, but he was part of the group that felt change was necessary.

Regarding people not 'getting what they signed up for'...similar to what I stated at the beginning of this post, you vote for your preferred Party. Any government (PLP or UBP) has the right to change leadership at any time. We do not vote for a single leader. Sir John Swan resigned, and we got Dr Saul, and then Pamela Gordon. Those that voted UBP in 1993 then also didn't get what they signed up for when they got 3 changes in one term. But that is how our system is structured.

[Rossini on 18.04.06 at 11:27]

SmokingGun, you need to get your facts straight or is it that you refuse to let the facts interfere with your bias ? I'll deal with one thing you mentioned.....why shouldn't the Hospital have competition ? Or are you one of those people who think its ok to have to wait three weeks for something in 2006....or perhaps you;re on of those who think Dr. Marshall is hard done-by because he's been told that being the hospital cardio man and running his own cardio business might be a little tiny conflict....I'm sure you long for the good old days when The Minister of Transport owned a car dealer that supplied all government cars...well I hate to break it to you but those days are over.

[stuart J Hayward on 18.04.06 at 12:00]

I believe one of the reasons Bermuda hasn't developed a cadre of local aggressive or even assertive reporters is linked to our political past. Until 1998, the only government we had was the UBP and its ideological predecessors. The RG was linked (by ownership, directorships, management and major advertisers) to the political leadership. Until recently, reporters who might have been inclined to ask tough questions of government leaders would have found themselves at odds with their employer. In general, embarrassing questions just were not asked, nor were embarrassing answers printed.

The relatively recent change in government has for the first time in Bermuda's history put a shoe on the other foot. We are in the midst of a major shift in the distribution of power — certainly political, and to a far lesser extent economic. However, the power of the press is still largely aligned as it used to be. If it wasn't for the pain of being smack in the middle of it, we might find the dynamics entertaining, even fascinating to watch.

Another reason is our traditional politeness, though I believe that also has roots in our race/class history. Some of us locals feel an instant dislike for the harsh questions as phrased by some non-local reporters.

Whatever the reasons, I agree that many of our political and business leaders get an automatic get-out-of-trouble-free card. They should be asked tough questions and be pressed to answer them. I’d like to know the answers to the question Limey has posed.

And for those who may wish to harp that I'm picking on the RG again, nix it. The RG was and is the Island's only daily print medium. It was and is a dominant player in Bermuda's news gathering and dissemination. Its role is worthy of attention, investigation, question and comment — at least as much as, if not more than, the PLP or UBP. I don't claim to have the definitive view but I am confident that many in this community share my views on the paper.

For the record, I recognise and sometimes point to with pride the RG's ability to assemble a credible mix of local and international news into a single issue for a community the size of a small town. And they do it daily with barely a hitch. I recognise that they have the same bottom line focus and struggles of others doing business in Bermuda.

The RG is a fact of life in my community, one I can't ignore. We could do far worse. My intent is solely to have us do better.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 12:04]

Actually Rossini I'm perfectly happy to hear you feel something as blatantly obvious as car dealers running the ministry of transportation and getting the contract for government cars is a gross conflict of interest.

Now about the hospitals. Hmmm... I'm an advisor to the hospital board and I'm a top government official/decision maker. My advice is "do not meet" the markets needs by supplying adequate medical coverage so that the waiting time is only a few days and emergencies can be fitted in properly. Why? Cos' I see a need in the market as well and the islands too small for the two of us if you get too efficient.

Nah I don't see any conflict of interest.....

[novote on 18.04.06 at 12:16]

Guilden,

"No Vote,

"He's ruthlessly ambitiouos, manipulative and egotistical."

Can you name a politician who does not fit this description? The nature of politics is to attract votes and very few "low profile" politicians have been successful.

As far as your comment about Dr. Brown not being a likeable person, is that from a personal of political perspective?"

You're probably right - EB is just more brazen than most....particularly here in Bermuda.

My perception of EB's likeable-ness is based purely on his public persona. I don't know him personally.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 12:16]

Stuart Hayward says,

"I believe one of the reasons Bermuda hasn't developed a cadre of local aggressive or even assertive reporters is linked to our political past. Until 1998, the only government we had was the UBP and its ideological predecessors. The RG was linked (by ownership, directorships, management and major advertisers) to the political leadership. Until recently, reporters who might have been inclined to ask tough questions of government leaders would have found themselves at odds with their employer. In general, embarrassing questions just were not asked, nor were embarrassing answers printed."

I agree with this entirely. I have said this on numerous occasions. I guess the next demand from bloggers will be for you to prove it.

[Rossini on 18.04.06 at 12:18]

does the term Quango mean anything to you SmokingGun....clearly not. I get it now....you're one of those who blame today's rain on the government because you'd planned a barbecue. Do you honestly think that the racial discrimination and poor management of the hospital is tolerated by Dr. Brown ?! I think even you must acknowledge that if he were given half a chance Dr. Brown would take some joy in fixing the hospital. A little history lesson on just why Dr. Brown took so long to return to Bermuda might enlighten you. Furthermore, address the issue man, Dr. Marshall was employed by the hospital in a certain capacity, being paid to provide a certain service there and competing directly with his employers privately in the provision of those identical services.....smoke from your gun is in your eyes if you don't get that one.

[tilti on 18.04.06 at 12:34]

I realize that it would by definition involve the asking of plantation questions, but if Bermuda had something equivilent to the BBC's HardTalk, once a week, I would tune in each and every week. After all, aren't prominent public people able to defend the decisions they have made that have affected th entire country.

If Bermudians really think that the RG is biased, it would be an amazing way to see an unedited, no holds barred discussion with everything laid bare.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 12:41]

Tilti,

I would love to see a HardTalk show in Bermuda. We need some local reporters of the calibre of Tim Sebastian.

[observor on 18.04.06 at 12:44]

Rossini

You're right. Now we don't have any competent and immediate cardiac care in Bermuda because the hospital doesn't want to employ someone who also has a private practice that provides related (albeit not the same) health care services. I just hope neither of us have a heart attack anytime soon :-)

[observor on 18.04.06 at 12:46]

We already have HandBag talk every Sunday night ... Sorry ... I couldn't resist

[JJ on 18.04.06 at 12:52]

Onion wrote

" I would love to see a HardTalk show in Bermuda. We need some local reporters of the calibre of Tim Sebastian"

I would too but the result would merely be EB evoking the "Plantation defence" to almost everyone of the Limey's-type questions.

[Full Fullish on 18.04.06 at 13:08]

I have been in correspondance with Dr. Brown several times since he's had the tourism portfolio. I personally feel he's getting the job done, or at least attempting to without hairbrained ideas of the past. At the very least he is WAY better than anyone that has had this position in the past 10 years or so, and I've gone so far as to tell him so. I do not the back to the plantation comments however, and I don't think it should be a trade off for a job well done.

As far as the RG article goes, I consider it a PR devices, newspapers run them all the time for either people or business, and as such I doubt it was engineered to do anything but promote Dr. Brown. However, when something more serious comes up, I feel our reporters need to gain a bit more testicular fortitude. The MON as of late looks like it has been, IMO.

Darby needs to be as clear cut and to the point without mincing words as he was on the phone interview last Thrusday regarding the Middleton case.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 13:13]

Rossini - I think you will find in many cases (especially in the US) where a doctor will have a private practise and still be affiliated to a hospital. I'm not 100% up on what Dr. Marshall's situation is but I would assume if the hospital felt the doctor was double dipping and getting rewarded for it then sure there would be a conflict of interest. Especially if he had any kind of say in how the whole thing is set up.

As far as fixing the hospital I'd be happy if Dr. Brown stepped in and fixed the hospital. But I would question how he would do so whilst also offering competing services.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 13:14]

JJ,

No he wouldn't. Anyone who goes on HardTalk knows he will face tough questions from the outset. If all politicians, or at least a good few, agree to go on such a show, someone like EB would not back down from it. The reporter will have to satisfy viewers that he or she is a tough questioner for everyone, regardless of race, ilk or political background. A reporter with the intellect and calibre of Tim Sebastian is not disposed to reduce his cross examination to "plantation-style" questioning.

[tilti on 18.04.06 at 13:20]

onion, I would add that why would the interviewer have to a reporter in the strict sense of the work? Could a local lawyer who is abreast of local situations and maybe aided with a researcher to provide the basics do a proper job in the role? I'd think so.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 13:22]

Cynic & Guilden,

I would like to turn the tables on the situation. If say, a white Bermudian politician had made such remarks, that black Bermudians find offensive, BUT had the work ethic of Dr. Brown and "got things done:, would you be singing the same tune? I doubt it, you two would probably would both look for that individual to be ousted from his/her position due to their reacist tendencies.

[Rossini on 18.04.06 at 13:22]

SmokingGun, if Dr. Brown became the Minister of Health he would have to divest himself of all interest in his private firm; that's clear. You hit Dr. Marshall's situation on the head..."affiliated" is an interesting word....I used employed.....deliberately.

[SmokingGun on 18.04.06 at 13:29]

Rossini - then if that's the case I too would question his moonlighting.

[Uncle Elvis on 18.04.06 at 13:31]

You know what?

This is a legitimate question. It's not biased against the PLP or any of that garbage.

Phil asks, basically, "Here you have someone with some skeletons in his closet, a guy with some meat, a guy people want answers from, and he gets the softball questions?
Why is this?"

Look at it objectively. Dr. Brown would be a GREAT interview for an ambitious reporter.
Take out party affiliation, take out names, etc. Look at Dr. Brown from an outsider's point of view, what he's done, the things he's been involved with. Accomplishments, yes, but he HAS been less than forthcoming on a few of the more... interesting things he's been linked to/things he's done.
There's a gajillion really good, really hard hitting questions you could ask him.

All Phil was asking was, basically: "Is it that politicians are scared of some of the questions and refuse to answer, or is it that journalists in Bermuda are pussies?"

A valid question, if you ask me.

[JJ on 18.04.06 at 13:32]

"someone like EB would not back down from it".

But he did. He refused to answer a journalist's questions which he viewed as "plantation" style.

Are you saying if it was actually Tim Sebastian or someone of his ilk asking the questions that EB would go on such a show? I think you are dreaming.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 13:38]

Titli, I don't mind if it wasn't a reporter. A lawyer would do.

Double Standards,

Let's analyze the gist of what Dr. Brown said. He said a vote for the UBP was a vote for a return to the plantation. My guess is that white Bermudians were offended by the insinuation that a party that most white people support is synonymous with slave ownership.

So what would be the reverse of this? A vote for the PLP is a vote for all international business to leave? A vote for all tourism to leave? A vote for the economy to go down the tube? A vote for us to become Third World?

Guess what. They have already been said by UBP leaders for 30+ years. It is just that in 1998 people stopped believing it.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 13:42]

JJ, do you not watch Hard Talk? It is a talk show where guests know from the outset that they will be grilled. You don't come on the show unless you are prepared to take tough questions. No-one can claim that they were caught off guard. If such a show existed locally and politicians, including EB, would likely put themselves forth provided the host proved himself to be equally forthright with everyone.

[JJ on 18.04.06 at 13:54]

in Onion's defence, he is not getting off topic. He is merely answering another poster's question..

Onion, yes I have seen HardTalk. That is why IMO there is no way EB would agree to go on such a show. He wouldn't even answer a pussy cat of a reporter's questions without resorting to obsfuscation. ( i.e the Plantation defense).

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 14:06]

JJ, the other day Brian Darby interviewed Randy Horton and then the Marshalls after the Golden Eye judgment.

I cannot remember what he said, word for word so I stand to be corrected, but when he spoke to Mr. Horton it was like, "So what are you gonna do now?"

When he interviewed the Marshall's it was very much in the leading fashion as Limey described above.

"So you must be awfully relieved now to have this behind you, I'm sure it must have been stressful for you and no doubt now you can move on and, boy you you must be so happy etc etc etc"

I started to wonder if Brian owned a share of the property.

If the reporter, lawyer, interviewer presents himself as unbiased and is equally forthright with everyone, unlike in the example above, EB will go on the show. He is a bright enough man to deal with the questions. That's just my opinion.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 14:29]

For the Deputy Premier to believe that he is too high and mighty to answer questions which he describes as being "plantation questions" is absolutely disgracegul. He is accountable to us, as it is our money that he is spending on various initiatives stemming from his ministry. But maybe you like being told half truths and don't mind how exactly your hard earned money is being spent. Maybe you don't mind that when a reporter asks a govt. official a valid question on govt. spending, policy or how a contract was tendered and awarded to a specific firm, that he/she responds by basically telling you it is none of your business. But that is you.

[silencedogood on 18.04.06 at 14:29]

A valid question, if you ask me.

Posted by Uncle Elvis on 18.04.06 at 13:31

Maybe the RG is biased towards the PLP? Ok, I keed, but really it just shows that the paper can go soft on anyone or dig for dirt depending on their interest. Everyone please cite this thread the next time people get on a RG rant.

Personally if I were Dr. Brown I would not eschew the plantation defense in favor of the Chewbacca defense. Works every time.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 14:41]

Uh, Double Standard, you asked a question.

"I would like to turn the tables on the situation. If say, a white Bermudian politician had made such remarks, that black Bermudians find offensive, BUT had the work ethic of Dr. Brown and "got things done:, would you be singing the same tune?"

I answered it by citing the fact that UBP leaders, some white and some black, have made similar comments over the course of 30 years. Despite this blacks kept voting for them for 30 years.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 15:08]

Double standards, who are you talking to in your post and exactly what comments are you referring to?

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 15:16]

you

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 15:19]

No, not me. Unless there is some ghost writer on the blog.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 15:20]

You justified Dr. Brown's comments by saying the UBP had does the same thing in the past. Well he did it so I can do it to, is the same pitiful argument that you, Guilden and every other PLP supporter put forward when the PLP are criticized for their actions. It is a tiring and a childish justification, especially for individuals that are supposed to be acting in the best inetersts of this country and its people.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 15:24]

Double Standards,

This was my statement:

Let's analyze the gist of what Dr. Brown said. He said a vote for the UBP was a vote for a return to the plantation. My guess is that white Bermudians were offended by the insinuation that a party that most white people support is synonymous with slave ownership.

So what would be the reverse of this? A vote for the PLP is a vote for all international business to leave? A vote for all tourism to leave? A vote for the economy to go down the tube? A vote for us to become Third World?

Guess what. They have already been said by UBP leaders for 30+ years. It is just that in 1998 people stopped believing it."

I have adjusted the text size on my window to extra large but I still cannot see where I said that if the UBP did it then the PLP can do it?

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 15:27]

"So what would be the reverse of this? A vote for the PLP is a vote for all international business to leave? A vote for all tourism to leave? A vote for the economy to go down the tube? A vote for us to become Third World?

Guess what. They have already been said by UBP leaders for 30+ years. It is just that in 1998 people stopped believing it."

Those two paragraphs then I must have interepreted incorrectly. If so I do apologize. But if you read carefully what you wrote it can easily be translated into the argument I cannot stand that seems to flow from this government everytime someone has a legitimate criticism of their actions or policies.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 15:32]

Double Standards,

Please show me where I implied the UBP did it so the PLP can do it. Actually that maty be difficult as Limey has deleted all my posts.

I do not think either Onion or I ever stated that we agreed with or supported Dr. Brown's statement. We were, however, pointing out that the UBP did used race as a way to remain in power and even with this blacks still voted for them. Therefore, you initial argument has already been prove wrong.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 15:36]

Also, please do not link me with anyone who uses the "they did it, so we can do it too" because that has never been my position and never will be. So unless you see me actually using that to support my arguments please do not place me in that category.

[Onion on 18.04.06 at 15:37]

No problem. You asked a very good question. My response was basically to say that such phrases/tactics have indeed already been used by the other side in politics.

[Linda on 18.04.06 at 15:40]

Dr. Brown has certainly done his job well, but I still wouldn't vote for him, because you never know if he's going the stab the island in the back they way he stabbed the party leadership after the election....
I have to agree with D'Olivier; yes the minister has done a lot of wonderful things towards pepping up tourism. However, I'm reluctant to believe everything out of his mouth. Afterall, so far he hasn't even enforced the controversial GPS law. He speaks of knowing which cabbies are working, but this will only apply to those who have complied with his law and installed the equipment. He forced it through legislation, but now for some reason he's gone soft. I'd like to know why.

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 15:42]

Guilden,

Perosnally I was not talking about all blacks. I was actually referring directly to yuorself

[Double Standards on 18.04.06 at 15:46]

Let me clarify. I believe, after reading your previuos posts, that if a white politician in this island was quoted as saying something in the same context as Dr, Brown has in the past, that no matter how much good work he did for Bermuda and its people he would still not be fit enough for office. That is my point.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 15:55]

Double Standards,

Which previous posts are you talking about?

You say you were referring directly to me about what using the "they did it so we can do it argument"? If that is the case please show me where I have used it. In fact, I have publicly taken the PLP to task over the use of race. Therefore, using race is not acceptable by any political party.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 18.04.06 at 16:28]

Double Standards,

To let you know more precisely how I feel about racism and the use of race see my post below, from the thread, Honest Talk.

"Thank you all for your comments but race and racism to me is one of the most disgusting and vile things and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it whatsoever.

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 15.12.05 at 21:02"

[Git on 18.04.06 at 17:38]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (DISCLAIMER: a hackneyed phrase used to refocus digressing conversations. No reference to plantations is expressed or implied)

In measured defence of t least our broadcast journalists, almost every local newsacast has one or two interviews where - if it were not for 'leading questions' - there would be no interview. Painful pregnant pauses abound. Particularly when, during 'human interest' pieces, the mic is thrust in front of someone who is uncomfortable with it.

I think it is a technique that they have to employ in more instances than not, just to wrap the story. In that sense I think 'leading questions' have become almost second nature to some of our more 'seasoned' correspondents.

Having said that, when the interviewee is articulate - or a politician - whichever comes first, there should be no need for the tactic.

[Conspiracy Theorist on 18.04.06 at 19:11]

This is the kind of "interview" that leads to leadership fights, and a leadership fight right before an election bodes well for the UBP. I am not about to believe that the RG is being fair as this was such a poor example of journalism. There is a reason - better believe it.

PS: I find it hilarious how people harp on the leadership deception in 2003, when Grant Gibbons' ouster was being denied by party officials for months. Weren't the people lied to about satisfaction with Gibbons' leadership as well? Isn't there a question about race being a major reason for Furbert's election? The PLP isn't the only party that puts on a show - if anything, the UBP have proven masters of showmanship.

[novote on 18.04.06 at 20:29]

Conspiracy Theorist - you may be right that EB is positioning for a leadership challenge with this interview.

As regards your comments about political parties displaying showmanship, you are correct that the UBP and PLP have both done this.

However, I defy any reader to present me with another example of a political leader in any country anywhere at anytime taking their party into an election, winning it and then being deposed within 24 hours.

Had the PLP not been able to identify a compromise candidate in Alex Scot, the Governor would have been forced to call another election immediately.

What a farce.

There is showmanship and there is outright dishonesty!

[The Limey on 18.04.06 at 20:45]

For the record, I think Dr. Brown is one of the most capable members of the PLP. He does get things done, I do find him charismatic, and I like the speed with which he has responded to enquiries I have made of him. I also have no problem with him being openly ambitious - he is perfectly entitled to covet the role of Premier.

However I can't say that I trust him. His ethics have been called into question more often than those of any other MP. Though no illegal activity has ever been proven, the recurrent accusations of sleaze have tainted him. What bugged me about the RG's interview was that it didn't seek to understand why Dr. Brown is apparently unconcerned about this suspicion with which he is regarded - including by many in his own party - despite wanting to be leader of the country.

Rossini

Given Bermudians’ generally easygoing nature I could understand the lack of aggressive interviewers if most journalists were Bermudians. But many are expats, from countries which do have an aggressive press. That’s why I wondered if the lack of pitbull journalists is because no Bermudian politician would submit themselves to such an interviewer. Stuart’s alternative explanation is plausible, but surely after eight years of the PLP things should have started to change? Perhaps the media are overcompensating for the regular accusations of bias from the Government? I don’t know.

Guilden

How many times have you stated that the past should be left in the past? You want those of us who have addressed the past racist pratices of the UBP, or those that formed the UBP, to move beyond that, and most of us have, yet you still want the press and the public to focus on comments Dr. Brown made in 2003.

The difference is that I am referring to what a specific individual said between three years ago and several weeks ago, while you are referring to the actions of an organisation between eight and thirty years ago. I would consider equally relevant any comments made by Michael Dunkley since 2003, and equally irrelevant the words and deeds of the PLP prior to 1998.

[Conspiracy Theorist on 18.04.06 at 21:06]

"However, I defy any reader to present me with another example of a political leader in any country anywhere at anytime taking their party into an election, winning it and then being deposed within 24 hours."

Surely you aren't proposing that this is the very height of political deception, now are you (looks at Bush and Blair)? This is the Westminster system - warts and all. The 12 did what they thought was needed to retain power for the sake of doing the will of the people, and they did it democratically, within the rules of the laws that govern us. Their intent and reasoning was clear and ethical. The way you are complaining you'd think that a bunch of communist guerillas took over a democratically elected government by means of a bullet.

If you didn't vote PLP, you have absolutely no right to complain in the first place. But even if you did, get over it. There are far worse examples of political deception even in Bermuda.

[novote on 18.04.06 at 22:49]

Conspiracy Theory:

"Surely you aren't proposing that this is the very height of political deception, now are you (looks at Bush and Blair)?"

No. The only inference that you can take is that I think that the PLP was - I quote -"outright dishonest".

I do happen to think that the circumstances and political consequences of this dishonesty are somewhat remarkable and almost certainly unique.

I didn't suggest that any law was broken. Indeed I felt that the Constitution held up pretty well in circumstances that I doubt any of its authors ever imagined could arise.

"This is the Westminster system - warts and all. The 12 did what they thought was needed to retain power for the sake of doing the will of the people, and they did it democratically, within the rules of the laws that govern us."

True. I think, however, that they revealed a great deal about their integrity. The electorate will of course get an opportunity in the not too distant future to decide whether this kind of behaviour should be rewarded.

"Their intent and reasoning was clear and ethical."

Not by any ethical standards to which I would subscribe.

"The way you are complaining you'd think that a bunch of communist guerillas took over a democratically elected government by means of a bullet.

If you didn't vote PLP, you have absolutely no right to complain in the first place. But even if you did, get over it. There are far worse examples of political deception even in Bermuda."

I didn't vote. (See my pseudonym!) Indeed I'm not permitted to vote. However, I have a massive personal stake in Bermuda, and I'm perfectly entitled to form and articulate a view on the honesty of the people that have been elected to govern this country.

There is further more nothing to prevent me from expressing these views in whatever forum I choose.

If it has the effect of influencing a few people to my way of thinking, all the better.

I believe that about 20 well positioned votes in the last election could have changed the outcome....so, you see...I have an incentive!

[The Limey on 19.04.06 at 08:20]

This thread is about two things:

1. The lack of aggressive interviewers in Bermuda
2. Ewart Brown

Some commenters have sought to turn this thread into a discussion of the UBP. That's not what this thread is about. If you want to talk about that instead, try this thread, or one of the umpty ump other threads that talk about the UBP directly here.

[jake on 19.04.06 at 08:38]

This is beginning to feel like a stitch up.

I am less concerned about a perception of arrogance (born no doubt of his achievement) than I am with the willingness of commenters here to trash him on unsubstantiated grounds.

He must really be doing something right.

Vote PLP!

I will be.

[Cynic on 19.04.06 at 08:40]

Here here Jake!
I second that!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 19.04.06 at 09:44]

Limey,

"Is he concerned that this lack of trust may prevent him from ever assuming the Premiership, which he so openly covets?"

Surely you jest. YOU and some others may not trust him but YOU and some others do not make the decision as to who will be Premier. That decision is left to the party.

May I just ask why, if Dr. Brown is doing positive things under his portfolio YOU and others do not address these rather than constantly looking for ways to place him in a negative light?

I would hazard that if one took a poll of the electorate regarding the alleged pay-to-play matter, most people would have forgotten about it.

As far as the Club Med issue, there are few governments around the world that give the public a blow by blow account of the negotiations that occur between it and the third party. The deal did not work, why are you again looking for dirt you can "fling" over this matter?

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 09:58]

One thing I've picked up around Bermuda over the past few years is that Ewart Brown is almost universally mistrusted. Lots of folks think he's done a decent or good job in his portfolios, but it almost always comes with a caveat that his ethics and integrity are questionable.

[Rossini on 19.04.06 at 10:03]

Limey, the missing link in your rationale is the ability, or the lack thereof, of the journalists in question. Their expertise is limited to throwing up the cost of something. Everything they write about concerning a government initiative has the theme of the cost. Rarely anything about the merits of the initiative, never a critical analysis of the issue and certainly no comparitive pieces researched on how the initiative may have been played out somewhere else in the world. Dr. Brown announced his entertainment initiative for the summer and the first line in the gazette was something about the $600k its costing. If the media were of better quality then the politicians would be too. Let's be clear, the inarticulate Wayne Furbert (and I admit he's not alone) wouldn't survive a day in another country as a Party leader.Listen to the poor speaking and bumbling of some politicians in their debates and then read the coverage the next day and one would have the impression that an orator of class had delivered a body blow to their opponents.Forget this ridiculous local obsession with the decorum in the House and Senate why not focus on the standard of debate !? As Dame Lois said "this isn't kindergarten up here folks". A vigilant, well researched, fair media inspires the same in politicians.

[cynic on 19.04.06 at 10:07]

Guilden,

Its because anything positive, or anyone associated with this government that has done anything positive cannot be left as such...there are members of society that have to try to throw a negative twist on things.

They will continue to try to bring down Dr Brown at any and every opportunity, while giving him little to no credit for the positives he has done. Any compliment that is given will always be backhanded and followed by a 'but'.

[stuart J Hayward on 19.04.06 at 10:12]

Ahah, Sleepy is at it again.

One thing I've picked up around this blog (and elsewhere, as his writing style is almost a signature) is that Sleepy is most likely to contribute when there's an opportunity to smear someone's character. In political circles, he might be labeled a "hatchet man".

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 10:18]

Rossini, the inarticulate Bush succeeded in winning two elections.

Being articulate is desirable I agree, but I'd take less articulate but honest any day.

Bush doesn't meet that threshold for me, he fails both tests. Furbert strikes me as honest but a poor speaker.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 10:18]

Bermudians, black and white, have an inherent mistrust of anyone that comes across as too confident. If you are too confident you must be arrogant. EB exudes confidence and the average Bermudian's response is "Well who he thinks he is? Talking like he's all that."

The trace of American in his accent does not help him in this respect. Bermudians have never connected with the American style of politician. Too slick. Oh my goodness and he's a businessman and he wears nice suits? Something's up.

But seriously, EB went to one of the top high schools in Jamaica - a school that produced prime ministers and top businessmen in the region. Confidence is a trademark of Jamaican society. This was compounded by going to Howard U and then practising in LA amongst some of the creme de la creme of African American society. Of course confidence is going to rub off on this man.

How much of our perceptions of EB are jaded by cultural prejudices? Is it not that we are more comfortable with the British style of minimalism and understatement in our politicians that has been bred in us since Bermuda was colonised? just a thought.

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 10:22]

No hatchets. There's a new bladed weapons law.

[Martin on 19.04.06 at 10:52]

Guilden's question to Limey:

"May I just ask why, if Dr. Brown is doing positive things under his portfolio YOU and others do not address these rather than constantly looking for ways to place him in a negative light?

I would hazard that if one took a poll of the electorate regarding the alleged pay-to-play matter, most people would have forgotten about it".

Limey will no doubt respond, but let me just give you my thoughts.

It is always easy to highlight the negatives. What one needs to be careful of though is allowing the positives to gloss over the negatives. What do we want...a man who gets Jet Blue to fly here plus other positives BUT is tainted with shady dealings? Do we simply say..."Ah well - he was good but not straight"?

I don't think so - and I would suggest you don't either.

Maybe your comment that most people would have forgotten about pay-to-play is indicative of how things are done in Bermuda? If it is, that seems to suggest that you can do what you like - people will forget and - as long as it doesn't affect me personally then it's ok.

That would appear to be a license to rape and pillage and - worse still - be perfectly acceptable. Almost a case of "silence equates to acceptance".

Of course it may be that you are simply arguing for a more balanced view to be taken on the blog. Well - some merit in that - but you still come back to the negatives at some point.

[Rossini on 19.04.06 at 10:54]

Onion is spot on. Why is a black man who refuses to cower or walk with his head down arrogant and white man who refuses to do the same things a strong leader....

[silencedogood on 19.04.06 at 10:58]

Guilden,

Why are you being coy? You know as well s anybody that the public perception of Ewart Brown will have an affect on whether he's chosen to be Premiere.

Onion,

Los Angeles is not segregated so I'm sure Ewart practiced with a few of us white folks too.

You do raise in interesting possibility with the difference in US and UK political styles. I can say for myself that's not an issue though being both familiar and comforatble with both.

I take my hat off to Dr. Brown for the job he's doing and don't think the sky would fall if he were premiere, but I too have issues regarding his ethics. Ethics can sometimes be the difference between a good and a great job.

That said, I'm at least glad progress is being made and that he is upping the standards for competency a bit, if not in other areas. He's got a long way to go to make up for his party's dismal record in office, but it's better than nothing at this point.

I may never be a vocal supporter but, provided he stops inciting people with racial remarks, I won't tear his arse out either.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 11:08]

Yes, he practiced with whites too. I should be clearer. My point is that he grew up being very used to seeing blacks on top economically and politically co-mingling successfully with successful whites (the way we all want it to be). He has not been moulded by a colonial mentality in the way that many here are moulded. He is more fearless and can hold his own in a board room with any IB CEO. He has the savvy and the exposure.

I believe that this demeanour is often misinterpreted as arrogance in Bermuda.

[Browni on 19.04.06 at 11:14]

Arrogant is defined as 'Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others'...surely a man who has experienced all Ewart has will feel superior to us 'coloinal' minded Bermudians. Therefore he must be arrogant...

:) have a nice day

[cynic on 19.04.06 at 11:18]

Onion...

Of course its perceived as arrogance. "This black man from Bermuda, educated in subpar Jamaica, attended a historically black university (Howard University) has achieved more than he ever 'should' have. How dare he! Who is he to think he can be Premier, and be confident, and self assured, and actually believe he can do the job?"

That is the view that many have, although they would never admit it.

White men who are self assured and believe in themselves are confident. Black men are arrogant. This is always the stereotype. It is bleddy ridiculous.

[cynic on 19.04.06 at 11:20]

Of all these shady dealings, why has there been NO PROOF of anything criminal? Just because Dr Brown doesn't kiss anyone's derriere then there must be something sinister...

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 11:24]

Cynic,

All the same people who say to me "prove that the RG is biased" seem to be able to get away with,

"I don't know I just get the feeling that EB is unethical, I don't know why, I just don't trust him, etc etc."

Funny eh?

[cynic on 19.04.06 at 11:29]

Onion,

Funny isn't it...

We have to come up with definitive proof when its against us, but they can just go on intuition, perception (or oftentimes misperception), rumor and innuendo...

[silencedogood on 19.04.06 at 11:37]

Cynic,

Hi! From which planet are you blogging? Here on earth we have arrogant people in all shades of color.

It's very interesting that on yours only black men can be considered arrogant despite the fact that none are.

Do you really believe what you are writing about how "everyone", implied "everyone white", thinks???

I never ceased to be amazed on this blog. I would suggest meeting more of this pale faced human group which seems to be a mystery to you.

Who is talking about arrogance anyways? I think you guys brought it up. Everyone else is referencing integrity and ethics. There is a difference between arrogance and ethics. Unless you are naive or have an agenda you can't dispute that Dr. Brown has said and done things which call his integrity into question.

I suppose I'm wasting my time--you've already declared your undying loyalty to the PLP at 8:40 this morning. Signing off.

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 11:41]

David Saul was arrogant. He's the epitomy of a honky.

[Ali on 19.04.06 at 11:46]

The general thread of most of this appears to be that as EB is 'doing a good job'we should not get too concerned about his ethics. If we only get one side of the story how do we know how good a job he is doing? What is it costing us to have Jet Blue, to operate these fast ferries, to have axed the previous Club Med investors, Global Hue,to have the good doctor jetting around the world? We need a good hard hitting interviewer to ask these questions. I guess he had better be a Bermudian though otherwise he will be 'removed' by the government, like others who were doing their job too well.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 11:50]

EB has been called arrogant by many in this country.

Limey says about EB,

"However I can't say that I trust him. His ethics have been called into question more often than those of any other MP. Though no illegal activity has ever been proven, the recurrent accusations of sleaze have tainted him. What bugged me about the RG's interview was that it didn't seek to understand why Dr. Brown is apparently unconcerned about this suspicion with which he is regarded - including by many in his own party - despite wanting to be leader of the country."

I have never heard Limey exercise this degree of scrutiny on the RG or the UBP leaders of old. Yet he is prepared to form a judgment on a man with no proof? My oh my, how the double standards are rife on this blog.

[Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 11:58]

Jesus. Generalize much?
The reason people distrust Dr. Brown is because he has been linked to several shady instances. Nothing illegal, but certainly unethical, I believe is the latest term for it.
Not one instance, SEVERAL.
Add to that the fact that he openly lied and admitted it without apologizing, after the last election.
He lied to the electorate.
He's also very openly used race as a political tool.

These are not things that you guys can deny.

These are the reasons people distrust him. It's not because he's black. It's not because all us cracker honkey motherfuckers are scared of a confident black man and think that y'all should call us "Massah".
It's simply because he comes across as, at best, a little shady. Accomplished, yes. No one is disputing that. But a little shady.

Onion,

you say "That is the view that many have, although they would never admit it."
This is pure speculation and opinion on your part, yet you put it forth as fact.
Come on. Do you really think that we're that bad? Do you honestly believe that we White Bermudians, who grew up next to you, went to school with you, sat at a bar next to you, shared jokes with you, broke bread with you... God. We have so much more in common, being Bermudian, than not... Do you really think that this is how we think? That we think so little of people?
It makes me so sad that this level of anger and rage and bitterness, justified or not, can make us think so little of one another.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 12:07]

Imagine the backlash I would get if I were to come out and say,

"You know, I think Joe Blow MP (white UBP MP) is racist. He hasn't been proven to be racist, but a lot of black people think he is. he gets the job done, but I just don't think he likes black people. Plus, he's a member of the RBYC and Coral Beach - two clubs that used to ban blacks from entering and still have few blacks in their midst.He must be a racist. "

Now let's look at the perspective of the white MP. He may think such accusations are insulting and ridiculous. He may decide not to even dignify such insinuations by addressing them in a press conference. To do so would be to give legitimacy to such groundless accusation. I'm sure all of you would say, "rightly so!"

Now flash back to EB. On the contrary his silence is interpreted as guilt. As he has not gone out of his way to make his case that he is not a crook and proven his innocence and (because you are guilty until proven innocent) we will just all allow ourselves to accept the fact that he must be a crook depsite there being no proof.

[Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 12:09]

Phil...

do me a favour and remind our friend Onion when it was that you arrived on the island.
'Cus I, too, am pretty disappointed in you for not scrutinising the UBP leaders in the bad ol' days before 1998. You bastard. How DARE you not invent a time machine, go back to the 90's, invent blogs and comment on them.

Jesus.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 12:10]

Uncle Elvis. Where did I say that?

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 12:13]

No Elvis, the point is that Limey is prepared to make judgments and accept opinions of certain politicians in the PLP with no proof, yet he demands it from me, Guilden, Rossini etc, when we give our opinions on certain organisations.

If Limey puts himself into debates such as these then he must recognise life before 1998 in order to understand post 1998. He has rarely given credence to our experience with pre 1998 Bermuda which is the context in whcih much of what happens today.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 12:18]

Uncle Elvis, the fact that Phil has only been here 2 years is not my problem. If that is a handicap for him then he has two options.

1. Stay out of the debates

2. Give consideration and show respect for those who do know this place prior to 1998.

If he demands proof from us, then practice what he preaches.

Furthermore much of what we have talked about has continued to happe since 1998 eg. RG biased reporting.

[Zoom on 19.04.06 at 12:23]

Gimme a break.

[Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 12:24]

My bad.. that was cynic. Apologies.

[youngbermudian on 19.04.06 at 12:24]

have never heard Limey exercise this degree of scrutiny on the RG or the UBP leaders of old. Yet he is prepared to form a judgment on a man with no proof? My oh my, how the double standards are rife on this blog.

Posted by Onion on 19.04.06 at 11:50

right there Onion

[Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 12:26]

No. Just no.

To use your analogy, but actually have it mirror the real world, not the one you seem to be able to see, the White MP would have to have called a black person a filthy name, had the incident looked at but deemed not illegal, then have been linked to projects not so secretly funded by the KKK and David Dukes, then have lied openly to the electorate.

You act as though Dr. Brown is completely innocent, just a hapless victim of a smear campaign.
This is simply untrue.
He, and I feel I have to repeat this, OPENLY LIED TO THE BERMUDIAN PEOPLE AND DIDN'T APOLOGIZE!
That at the very least, is a good enough reason for people to feel a little wary of him!
"...we will just all allow ourselves to accept the fact that he must be a crook depsite there being no proof."
How much more proof do you need? He not only lied, but then came out and admitted it. Add to that the fact that he HAS been linked to shady dealings and unethical behaviour.
Come on. Get real.

You talk of double standards and hypocricy. Take a close look at your posts. Read them objectively, if possible.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 13:11]

Uncle Elvis,

The example you give of him "lying" to the people doen't cut it. Jennifer Smith scraped in by about 8 votes in her constituency in 2003. The people spoke! In any event this was politcal maneuvering that is common in any political party. It is not enough to make EB stand apart and alone from the other politicicans as being untrustworthy.

Show us proof of EB's misdeeds. Not suspicion. Proof!

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 13:15]

Selling a house to the BHC --- an insider trade as he was a cabinet minister ----- without declaring it on the Parliamentary Register. Dat's a fact. And that's before you get into the sweet economics of it.

[Onion on 19.04.06 at 13:23]

Sleepy, that is not correct. It was indeed declared.

[silencedogood on 19.04.06 at 13:25]

I have never heard Limey exercise this degree of scrutiny on the RG or the UBP leaders of old. Yet he is prepared to form a judgment on a man with no proof? My oh my, how the double standards are rife on this blog.

Posted by Onion on 19.04.06 at 11:50

Phil...

do me a favour and remind our friend Onion when it was that you arrived on the island.
'Cus I, too, am pretty disappointed in you for not scrutinising the UBP leaders in the bad ol' days before 1998. You bastard. How DARE you not invent a time machine, go back to the 90's, invent blogs and comment on them.

Jesus.
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 12:09

Uncle Elvis. Where did I say that?
Posted by Onion on 19.04.06 at 12:10

I reprinted because I think this deserves a bit more attention from someone who skewers others for their lack of historical knowledge. In 20 short minutes your post was conveniently forgotten.

Onion, you seem to be constantly be throwing out these types of generalizations and speculations as fact, then question people when they ask for evidence.

If anything Limey's original post is out of a desire for proof, not a desire for people to blindly accept that point of view.

Look at it this way:

Your statements are generalizations about an entire race of people
This discussion concerns one man.

The crux of your statements are absolute conclusions.
This discussion relates to questions and possibilities.

You offer no support for those generalizations.
The fact that EB was a participant in the coup ousting JS, has made comments about plantations, had a connection with the beneficiary of the GPS laws, has relatives whose consulting companies benefit financially from his ministry on no-bid contracts, was involved in the pay-to-play scandal are all Public Record stuff.

The difference between the two seems pretty obvious to me yet you conveniently are forgetting these facts as well. It seems to me that you are making up your mind first and then tailoring the argument to fit your position which always seem to be based on the assumption that all white people are somehow out to get you. Look out! Whitey's in your closet! Cracker's under the bed!

I'm at a loss for words. Why do you hate us so much? Have no white people ever done anything nice or good for you?

[Sleepy on 19.04.06 at 13:28]

To whom?

[Uncle Elvis on 19.04.06 at 13:30]

Sorry, onion, that's bullshit.
It wasn't manouvering, it was deception.
Outright deception and lying.
All the proof I need in that instance are the words, "We deceived you..." that is an admission.
There's a difference.

As for proof of other shady dealings... peek to Sleepy's post.

I love how you can conjecture about behaviours and intents of white people, supporting your opinion with NOTHING but lay it out like it's an absolute fact, but when people say, "Because Dr. Brown outright lied to us, lied to the people that voted for him and his party, lied to the people of Bermuda, because he's been linked, however tenuously, to various shady dealings, because he bullied the taxi drivers into GPS, against the wishes of that very industry, because, as Sleepy said, he sold a house to BHC while a standing Minister... because of all this I find him untrustworthy." you come down on us for lacking proof.
You see the difference? In the latter case, they are expressing their feelings as just that. Their feelings. Your posts consistantly express your views and opinions as facts.

Oh, and by the way. The people DID speak. She won the election. She won her constituency. If you win the Superbowl by one point, you still win.
She won her seat. That's the end of it. She won. Get it?

[The Limey on 19.04.06 at 13:44]

Guilden

As I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), the reason Ewart Brown did not become Premier after Jennifer Smith was deposed was that the Smith camp refused to accept him. Unless they have forgiven him since then, it seems likely that there are still a number of PLP MPs who would be opposed to him leading the party.

Moreover, even if he assumes the leadership while the PLP are in power, the opinion that Bermudians have of him will clearly have a bearing on whether he can retain power when it comes to the next election.

You are wrong to suggest that I have not addressed the positive things Dr. Brown has done. I summarised them above, and have probably written more positive posts about Dr. Brown than any other member of the PLP. I do think he has done a lot for Bermuda. That doesn't stop me being concerned by his ethics, though.

You think pay-to-play and the lack of information about the failure of the Club Med deal is no big deal, and you explained why. That's fair enough. I happen to disagree with you. Can you not understand why I think otherwise, though? Do you really believe that I'm just flinging dirt for the sake of it?

Rossini

The cost of an initiative is a valid thing for a journalist to report, but you're right that it could be portrayed in a negative light.

Stuart

With respect, I agree with Sleepy's analysis. I have gained the same impression from the Bermudians I have spoken to about Dr. Brown.

cynic

There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. In my opinion, Dr. Brown skates the edge of it. He has said some things to me that came across as quite arrogant, but most of the time I would probably describe him as confident.

You are correct that there has been no proof of any criminal behaviour. But poor ethics don't have to be criminal.

Onion

I am sure I've explained my views on proof, before, so I'm puzzled that you keep harping on about this. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, or perhaps you disagree, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, let me try again.

I said that I don't trust Dr. Brown. I didn't say that he was unethical, or racist. I said I don't trust him. That's a fact, and you can't argue with it, because it's how I feel.

Opinions don't require proof. However the difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion lies in the reasons we hold it. That's why you'll never hear my say, "I don't have to explain myself to you" if you ever ask me why I feel a certain way. With Dr. Brown, I think I have clearly outlined the reasons why I don't trust him. You may not agree with those reasons. Those reasons aren't "proof" that my opinion is correct. What they are is an explanation of why I hold the opinion I do.

You might consider those reasons to be factually incorrect or insufficient, in which case you'd probably dismiss my opinion as uninformed. Or you might agree with the reasons, but have a different interpretation of them, which leads you to a different opinion. Either way, I'm giving you the basis on which I came to my opinion to allow you to judge and critique it. Your frequent refusal to give the reasons for your opinions prevents the rest of us from doing that, effectively preventing any debate. It gives the impression that you don't want your opinions challenged.

So asking for proof of Dr. Brown's misdeeds is missing the point. There's no proof that he's done anything wrong. What there is is a long list of statements and events that have raised questions about his integrity. It's the large number of these that is why I and others don't trust Dr. Brown, not because there's proof that he's done anything wrong.

Silencedogood,

You fall into the unfortunate category of person who feels that simply discussing a racial issue, which I might add is not brought up by me but Limey, means that I hate white people. That's unfortunate.

I maintain that on this blog a number of us have complained about bias of , eg. the RG. Our complaints have always been met with demands for proof.

When I demand proof that EB is unethical or has committed misdeeds, the truth is that all persons can do is present MON sensationalised stories without a shred of proof. I am asking that we all be a little consistent here. The stories you give have never been proven.
I can address each and everyone of the allegations you make above.

1. Was a particpant in the coup? Few party leaders in the westminster system can survive if they barely can get voted in by their constituency. Jennifer Smih's leadership was tenuous at best leading up to 2003. Coup? There was no coup. She was on her way out. EB's desire to lead the party was apparent for all to see. He never hid that. If there was a