[kwlug-disc] Parliament adjourned ... bills dead (again!)?

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Tue Mar 29 18:58:12 EDT 2011


Insurance Squared Inc. wrote, On 03/29/2011 3:39 PM:
> 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.

That says the ends justify the means.

Hmmm.

>  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.

Agreed - there's no lack of honesty or integrity here.

Similarly - blaming someone for taking advantage of a tax loophole is 
just silly.

However - unethically jiggering the system seems right out. Problem: 
not everyone agrees as to at what point it becomes 'jiggering.'

> 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.

Interesting.

I don't entirely agree with your last sentence. It seems to me that 
the councillor is responsible for doing at least some level of due 
diligence.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html
- well worth reading.

> 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.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Seems to me there should be some connection to the low voter turnout 
rate, here.

>  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).

Probably a hard and very personal call to make. One thing I try to 
remember to ask myself in similar situations - will I be able to live 
with myself if I don't speak up, and {whatever} happens.

Is it any wonder there's a high fatigue level surrounding copyright?

>  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.

Were that everything were black and white, and not grey - to everyone.

Like ... everyone should use Kubuntu and not CentOS.




More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list