Dear Editor,
When I browse through the newspapers and or listen to the other news media all kinds of thoughts pass through my mind. One of them is: Are our men proud to have sons or are they proud of their sons. Another thought is that there is something fundamentally wrong with compulsory education as opposed to being able to be elected to Parliament without an education. A child is compelled to remain in school up to a certain age, whereas he/she could be elected to Parliament without any kind of education.
The ladies should not take me wrong, but when I read 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2 I am convinced that men should take their rightful place in the household. From my experience on the job, I know that a whole lot of misunderstandings in the households have come because of the difference in income. A reason for that is that, of late, when it comes to who has the better education, the women outnumber the men.
I believe that someone will react by reminding me that one of those reasons is being the difference in salaries. Point taken, but not well taken, because that is never a valid reason for not pursuing an education. Hence the reason for my question in the beginning of this letter.
I know that without the basics in education you cannot do anything. I was told at one time that the prison leadership wanted to start a GED for the prisoners, but could not get it off the ground, because the average education level was at 4th grade level.
The basics are always necessary. If one can afford a phone and one cannot read the instructions how to operate the phone the phone will be of no use to that person. And so it is with almost everything but prayer.
I believe if one wants to occupy the position of head of the household one has to be able to be and live up to the task. Because my father sailed, and he wanted us to know who was in charge when he was not around, when we wanted something he would always ask us “what did our mother say?” Depending on that answer he would take his decision.
But he always told us that if you want to be head of the household, you need to earn and deserve it, because it came with responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is to be able to assist your children with their education. “I do not know” was never an answer that my father gave us. Instead he would refer us to the dictionary to find the word, read the meaning; after, we would discuss it. But to be able to do that one has to equip oneself with the tools.
I strongly believe that our men should adjust their priorities and start again doing what it takes to at length be able to stand up and say, “That is my son.”

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,
I try to keep informed of the publications of this eminent French philosopher-social activist, and was taken aback when I recently came upon this book published two years ago, (Plon: 2016). When I read it recently in its second edition, I understood why, contrary to his earlier works, this one was not trumpeted by the media in France, and nowhere else. It was, as it remains today, 230 pages of Picric Acid (TNT) and a wake-up call to the citizens of France. But given the speed, the power and profusion of propaganda nowadays, patriots everywhere, and nowhere more so than in the USA these last months in 2018, should pay heed to this very live burning worldwide issue, and to this author’s urgent call for vigilance.
A “Letter to the Editor” cannot do full justice to this kind of book, but at the very least, I will have tried. The text is a mixture of autobiography, philosophy and political discourse, all intertwined. Onfray is using the lark-mirror, “le miroir aux alouettes,” metaphorically. His main topic is hypocrisy, deceit, luring, baiting and trapping: the ensnaring of people – not of birds. He quotes from a hunter’s handbook that informs: “The lark-mirror is the doom of the lark that can’t resist the strange attraction the mirror exerts on it. The fascinating power of the mirror on the lark is limitless (Le miroir aux alouettes, Préface, édit. Pluriel: 2017).”
Research on the matter suggests that the eye (the sight) of some birds, the lark in particular, is highly sensitive to the rays of light from the bits of mirror on the rotating or spinning lark-mirror. The larks, usually in flocks, fly close by or onto the lure where they are ensnared in a net, or killed with shotguns. Bird lovers must bear in mind that, like swarms of locusts, flocks of larks can decimate a farmer’s crop if they are left unchecked. Some French folks are very fond of their flesh, seemingly delicious morsels prepared with spices in a heavenly sauce. Today, trapping/hunting of the bird is a matter of fierce debate. One cannot access any “recipes for larks” online: the Internet police, the World Wide Web (WWW) enforcers may have seen to that.
This is my belated reaction to Onfray’s book subtitled “Principles of Social Atheism”. I have found no serious review of it online, in French, in Spanish or in English, but my search was not exhaustive. The author also espouses what he calls “positive anarchism”. Atheism and anarchism can evoke irreverence; religion bashing and violence: the smashing of things and heads. But Onfray’s atheism is nonviolent and respectful of all religions. His “social anarchism” calls to mind Thoreau’s civil disobedience: a refusal to submit to what he regards as injustice, tyranny. As for his declared nihilism, it is that of Albert Camus, the world acclaimed, the celebrated 1957 laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature.
The Lark-Mirror is packed with edifying-explosive material: eight chapters and a conclusion. Chapter 1: “Hitler Is Not Dead: Semantic Dereliction” argues that France is obsessed with its post-war history. “One cannot research and discuss issues without being labeled a Nazi, a Fascist, a Racist, an Anti-Semite, an Islamophobe (...) There is a mythology created by the Communists (...) The true Resistance was a minority, less than one percent (...) There is semantic dereliction, words no longer have meanings (...) The dereliction of an era goes hand in hand with a dereliction in language: words have no meaning when everything else is meaningless.”
Chapter 2: “Philosophy Is a Combat Sport: The Rank-Smelling Arena” holds that “philosophy has a double linage: Socrates and Plato. Socrates speaks to everyone in the public square; Plato’s logic is aimed at the elites, the rulers (...) Socrates lives his philosophy for which he is accused of corrupting the youth, condemned to death, and dies in prison (...) Plato teaches one thing, lives another, and he dies at a banquet [At the ripe old age of 84] thus inaugurating the famous saying of a lot of Platonists: ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ (...) Socrates philosophizes in the street, Plato in the academy, his school.” Follows Onfray’s illustration of how and why he is more in the line of Socrates than in that of Plato, and because of this, he “is viciously attacked by the intellectuals and political leaders of the Left who are, in fact, Liberals.”
Chapter 3: “Anatomy of a Scapegoat: Genealogy of the National Front” is a savage critique of the National Front, and of François Mitterrand’s checkered past in l’Action Française; of his relationship with Jean-Marie Le Pen; of his jealousy and dislike of General De Gaulle; of his ‘clinging to power by all means necessary,’ of his liberalism (espoused in 1983); of his treason [selling out] of the Left and of the principles of the French Republic [The Fifth Republic established by President De Gaulle]”.
Chapter 4: “The Decrepitude of the Old World: The Custom-made Suite of the General” contrasts “the high ideals and probity (words and actions) of De Gaulle” with “those of Mitterrand who accused the General (In a book) of wanting to establish a permanent coup d’État” [...] Onfray argues that “the Left and Mitterrand were Liberals who never cared for De Gaulle. They lived on the Right, thought on the Right, placed their money on the Right, slept and dreamed Right, but they spoke Left (...) When Mitterrand converted to Anti-Gaullism (in 1983), the [so-called] Left rejoiced.”
Chapter 5: “The Taste of Voluntary Servitude: On the Beautiful Word Sovereignty” is a strong advocacy for a French nation-state. “After near a quarter of a century, this ideology [that of Maastricht 1992-2016] has demonstrated its incompetence. It is time to admit that it has failed.”
Chapter 6: “The Machine that Makes Morons: Media Propaganda” is a master lesson on the origins and nature of modern propaganda as it relates to education in France, to French politics: “the deliberate manipulation of the media by a very small number of men who select candidates, so-called representatives of the people.”
Chapter 7: “Neither God nor Master: Can We Still Be Atheist?” is a riveting review of his position on religion, on the Christian and Muslim faiths, in particular, in response to numerous accusations and press attacks on him over the preceding years. (...) “In Europe, moraline [Nietzsche’s satirical pharmaceutical term] has replaced morality (...) There was a time when the inquisitors had their men of arms and their jail houses to stop people from thinking, nowadays, it is journalists who are the enforcers; these are nasty times for someone [Himself] who, since adolescence, has decided not to kneel in front of anything or anyone. But all storms must pass.”
Chapter 8: “Hummingbird and Lark-mirror: Gulliver’s Principle” “At least, I’m doing my part,” says the hummingbird to all the other creatures of the forest who keep insisting that the drops of water [from its beak] on the flames that are consuming the jungle, is a waste of time, and will not change anything.” Here, Onfray invokes “the wisdom of First Nations’ mythology [Pierre Rahbi’s firefighting colibri, and of Jonathan Swift’s Lilliputians [who overpowered the giant Gulliver],” in an appeal to the individual, the ordinary French citizen, to “beware of lark-mirrors,” and to unite in an effort to put out the fires that are consuming the Republic: “A hummingbird theory is required, a hummingbird noria [waterwheel]”.
In his conclusion (”Positive anarchy: Praise of the anarchist order”) Onfray quotes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s (1809—1865) famous description of what it means “to be governed,” and he briefly reviews his own “peaceful anarchy.” He singles out for praise John Holloway’s “Change the World Without Taking Power” (2002), and more importantly, Montaigne’s friend, Étienne de La Boétie’s “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” (1576) ─the book that inspired and nurtured Proudhon’s “anarchism.” I will wager that, for Michel Onfray, his storms may have abated some, but that the fires are still burning intensely today, in France and in a lot of other places.

Gérard M. Hunt

Dear Editor,

I must have missed the origin of this situation, but I read Andre Bosman’s plea for the St. Maarten government not to demolish buildings which were erected in St. Peters without the necessary permits at the St. Maarten Agricultural and Development Center.

It definitely does not matter to me who commented on this situation, Bosman or whomever. If this is founded I find it a reasonable plea.

I am also an advocate that no one should take the law in their own hands, but there is more than enough visible proof in St. Maarten in which similar or more serious situations were handled in a different way. There are always ways to handle things that were done out of context.

Minister Lee just petitioned government to be lenient with work permits (Immigration laws) in connection with the urgent necessity for tradesmen. Which wording I did not agree with, mainly because given the history of our immigration law enforcement.

A very hard-working St. Maartener, Denicio Wyatte, erected some buildings in the hills much needed for the progress of a project which actually should have been promoted and when necessary subsidized by government, but is targeted.

When I think of the term “cause and effect” I ask myself what would cause more damage, the effect and consequence of demolishing those buildings or having them inspected and if necessary repaired to the requirements in the necessary building permits?

We all know of the amount of illegal things that are going on while being ignored by government. This past Wednesday Minister Lee pointed out how so many businesses (companies) are non-compliant (taxes) for a while now.

Again, Wyatte is a St. Maartener and should be able to make a mistake in St. Maarten and given the opportunity to correct that mistake. My opinion is that if there Is goodwill on the part of government, those buildings should be inspected, if necessary, made to be adjusted in accordance with building requirements, and Wyatte dealt with in the appropriate way. Again, what is going to cause more harm, demolishing the buildings or destroying the project?

The heavy equipment owners have enough on their hands right now. This is the time to demonstrate maturity. My question is, did the Council of Ministers put heads together and approve this decision? Is this not again providing ammunition for the Dutch?

This, in my opinion, is a case which those who are vying for independence should pursue because this is combating eventual independence. Bosman has just proven again what I constantly point out. All the way from Holland he is using as it were a plea to show up our government. He knew about it and waited till the eve of the day in which this order should be carried out and made sure that it was published. Again complying with their motto “I will get you one day.”

 I hope that a prior agreement was made with Wyatte, unknown to Bosman. “I told you so” usually comes after something negative happened. I could never understand waiting for something negative to happen and then responding with “I told you so.” From a child I thought that was evil. I would gladly accept for someone to explain to me why that kind of behavior is reasonable.

Probably I should let him come clean (because I know they also follow my letters to you) and ask Mister Bosman if he really has St. Maarten at heart (he always has remarks to make of us) and knows anything else which in his opinion could be helpful to the St. Maarten people, to extend us that courtesy and let us know.

Gloating is not a thing of God. It is better to give than to receive. ’sLands wijs ’slands eer.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

For many years now I have been writing letters to you as a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter of St. Maarten. If you consult your archives you will notice that what has been said and the little that is done by our people in government nowadays is what I have written about several times in the past. A little late now but it is still a good thing.

I told a gentleman once that the politician vying for a seat who wishes his opponent “good luck” is a hypocrite. “What do you want him to say then,” was his reply. I believe that “may the better man win” sounds more genuine. Because it does not matter what the situation is, when there is not enough to go around, loyalty goes out the door.

So, on reading from Miss Silveria Jacobs that after the hurricane several attempts were made to unify parties in the interest of the greater community and together stand our ground, I thought “naïve” or “cunning.” If the schoolchildren say that there was outside influence in throwing down the last government, the schoolteacher at least must have heard that. I use the word “naïve” because why would MP Silveria Jacobs still expect parties to come together when – with the aim on toppling the government of Sint Maarten – has become the reason for forming a government. The formation has to be of such that there remain one or two weak links.

I continue to say that members of government continue to govern as if they are still in an Island Council setting. By now they should know that every MP is an individual and is open to lobby other members to get policies made, and eventually put into law. I will continue to say that civics has to become a subject in which the MAVO students have to do exams. It is the basis of law, which by now everyone knows is the essential necessity for St. Maarten.

When we were growing up and going about our usual way, sometime during the day our mother would say to one of us, “You didn’t pray this morning, because if you had said your prayers, you couldn’t be doing the things you are doing.” We are constantly reminded to say a prayer for guidance of our leaders in government because of their difficult task ahead. But too often do I have to say, like my mother did, “They didn’t pray this morning.”

I read Elco Rosario’s letter to you and he is reminding us of what so many of us are constantly saying – that our people in government do not take sufficient care of the people. If such was the case I believe that the people would rally around PM Romeo-Marlin and tell Bosman to shut up and clean up his mess in Holland first before trying to tell us that we cannot voice our opinion. If he gets away with that, then, yes, we are doomed.

If the sentiment of the people that the action of the judicial force is purposeful, I believe that PM Romeo-Marlin, just like everyone else, has a right to voice her opinion and it can be dealt with and also the consequences.

It seems as if “puppet regime” is going around in the head of Bosman. If the Dutch are so keen about what we are doing, I think it is time that they live up to all their promises and when their hands are clean then they can venture to correct us. “Verbeter de wereld, begin met jezelf.”

I was taught that two wrongs do not make a right. If there is a pattern in behavior one has a right to voice their opinion about it, whether it is personal or in general. The saying on the unity monument that Elco translated says “Steuned op eigen wieken met de wil elkander bij te staan.” Assist and cooperate. Not impress on. So, to the Dutch also I have to say, like my mother use to tell us: “You didn’t pray this morning?!”

Russell A. Simmons