From: Vincent Cate <vince@offshore.com.ai>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:46:41 -0800 (PST)
To: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Anguilla is not Marxist!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970308231018.27226E-100000@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970309003132.31226J-100000@online.offshore.com.ai>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> I merely observed
> that your Minister of Finance did choose an educational institution
> notorious for Marxist ideology. The Minister may have undergone a radical
> change in his ideas since then (AS I SAID IN THE TEXT THAT I POSTED TO THE
> GROUP!).

You still assume that he was, at least at one time, into that and only if
he had changed could he now be normal.  This is so bogus.  What makes you
think he needed to undergo radical change?

> I did not blame him for the phone monopoly, merely pointed out
> that government in Anguilla does not seem much into the idea of
> competitive bids, generally speaking. You can hardly object to this
> statement, since you said as much to me yourself! 

Ok. I don't remember talking about competitive bids.  Not sure what
Anguilla would be taking bids for really. 

> > The current minister of finance is not at all responsible for the Cable
> > and Wireless monopoly.  It was the previous government that set them up
> > and the current government is not happy about it. 
> 
> Well, this is more relevant--but what do you mean, "not happy"? Is there 
> a policy statement, a public remark I can quote?

I don't have one, but I will see if I can get/find one.  

> Sorry, but I think your reaction is a bit unreasonable. I'll certainly
> rephrase my text if you sincerely feel it suggests that Marxism thrives in
> Anguilla. 

It just seems bazar to conclude that our Minister of Finance is at best a
reformed Marxist without any more evidence than a name of a school he went
to and a monopoly phone company setup by the previous government. 

> But I thought the context made it clear that the country is just
> a sleepy little British colony with zero corporate/personal taxes and some
> bad habits left over from the Brits--such as a government-owned radio
> station and a horrible phone system. 

There are also 2 local private radio stations, 2 local private TV
stations, and a private cable company with 40 channels (local adds but
little local programming). If you only talk about the government owned
radio station you make it seem like this is government is controlling the
media or something.  It is not giving an accurate impression. 

The UK and USA also have government owned stations.  So what?  As long as
private ones are not supressed, I don't have any trouble with a government
owning its own radio station (and I am a devout Libertarian). 

   -- Vince