[kwlug-disc] Parliament adjourned ... bills dead (again!)?
Insurance Squared Inc.
gcooke at insurancesquared.com
Tue Mar 29 15:39:33 EDT 2011
On tech forums we have the discussion we're having, about 'integrity'
and 'honesty', with the implication that doing what it takes to get the
job done somehow breaks those standards. They don't. But that's why
people on tech forums don't get anything done in a political
environment. It's why I don't get anything done politically :).
it's not lower one's standards. It's figuring out the environment and
working within it. It's about how people work and why they vote, and
what causes politicians to respond when they have many competing concerns.
I had a local councillor tell me about the pressure they had to spend
money on a historical project - money they ended up spending due to
clear concerns raised by a group. The group was so wrong, they actually
used photographs of the wrong place to justify their claims - and didn't
even realize it. The project went through IIRC, and the councillor's
response? Where were you (me) to object to their concerns? Absolutely
nobody objected. Now, here on this forum, many of us would probably
assume that it's the councillors job to stand up to these people and do
what's right - right?
Except that's not what the councillor felt. He felt it was his job to
address concerns raised by residents. And heck, it IS his job. They
raised the concerns, laid out a plan, presented them, and he addressed
them. That all seems honest and dealing with integrity to me.
Here's another example. In our last election I was at the center of a
bit of a storm. I stood up and vocally opposed an issue - pretty much
the only person to do so publicly around where I am. I believe many
people agreed with me. Today, that same issue is being presented to the
current gov't, and they're already taking action on it...because it was
again presented vocally and concisely to them. Who presented the
opposing view,rallied the troops and presented the politicians with an
opposing view? Nobody. So ahead it went. (In my defense, I considered
it but felt that I'd already made my stand on the issue and that
anything further was just bad taste). In any event, the issue is being
lobbied and petitioned, and whether or not the issue is 'right' (clearly
some people think it is), it's moving forward.
On 29/03/11 03:17 PM, Chris Frey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 01:53:48PM -0400, Insurance Squared Inc. wrote:
>> Don't confuse issues and reason with who's going to win an election.
> That's fine. But I'm not willing to give up reason and honesty either.
> Otherwise, I would lose more than just an election.
>> Get votes behind it and scream loudly.
> Ouch. :-)
>> I was speaking to my sister over the weekend about the the upcoming
>> election. She named a politician, said she 'didn't like him'. Nothing
>> to do with policy or qualifications or history or party. The next thing
>> she complained about, the politician she didn't like would be the one
>> with a policy to fix her complaint. Doesn't matter. She doesn't like
>> him. That's how 35 million Canadians with votes work.
> If she truly had no other reason beyond "like", then she shouldn't be
> Sound harsh? Maybe. But would you want such a person on your jury?
> "I don't like him. Lock him up and throw away the key!"
> It's the same here. A political vote is in support of a person or group
> that will wield life and death power.
> And in that light, reason and honesty are the only thing I want running
> the country.
> We (including me) should be ashamed of ourselves. We have the political
> system that we asked for.
> - Chris
> (who is venturing way off topic for this list, and will try to restrain
> himself to just the "fake debate", if it continues) :-)
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
Insurance Squared Inc.
Follow me on twitter to get all my life insurance marketing and search engine optimization tips. Follow username 'waterwheel'.
More information about the kwlug-disc