DemocracyVille
After a newscycle in which our Premier managed to blame both the Coast Guard and the Feds (who have been screwing things up for 'decades', at least according to her) while simultaneously stating that she didn't know if the recent Federally-mandated closure of Coast Guard base on provincial land had anything whatsoever to do with what she was babbling on about, perhaps we really should be asking ourselves the question noted in the header, above.
So, with that in mind...
If you are interested in exploring the issue on this decidedly Not-Sudbury Saturday night (at least in Lotusland) Dean Burnett had an interesting piece on the subject in The Guardian recently.
Here are a couple of chunks from his lede:
Politicians. Their reputation is very poor. In fairness, this is largely their own fault, but it would be foolish to assume every politician is like this. If they were, the whole infrastructure would collapse before you could say “can I claim this on expenses?” Still, everyone assumes they’re despicable, so always assume the worst.
Politician enacts a bad policy? They’re a terrible person. They change their mind and reverse it? They’re weak and not fit to lead. Politicians promise improvements (cut taxes, increase spending)? They’re obviously lying. Politicians promise to do something unpopular (raise taxes, cut spending)? A cast-iron guarantee it will happen. It’s a lose-lose situation, so why do they bother? Many politicians are clearly in it for themselves, but there surely are plenty who really do want the best and just put up with the negative opinions they get.
So, for the record, not all politicians are idiots (although your definition of idiot may vary). But plenty are. The US seem particularly afflicted with them; Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, these people were/are contenders for the presidency. And the archetype George W Bush WAS the president. For 8 YEARS. The man whoseidiotic musings managed to sustain businesses had a nuclear arsenal at his command...
{snip}
...What’s going on here? Logically, you’d want an intelligent person who understands the best approach and methods for running a country in the best possible way. But no, people seem drawn to demonstrations of questionable intellectual abilities. There are a wide variety of ideological, cultural, social, historical, financial and other factors involved, because politics incorporates all of these things, but there are also some known psychological processes that may contribute to this phenomenon...
There is something to keep in mind though, that Mr. Burnett does not go into in any depth in his piece.
Which is that, when it comes to Wizards and Patrons at least, some idiots are more useful than others.Politician enacts a bad policy? They’re a terrible person. They change their mind and reverse it? They’re weak and not fit to lead. Politicians promise improvements (cut taxes, increase spending)? They’re obviously lying. Politicians promise to do something unpopular (raise taxes, cut spending)? A cast-iron guarantee it will happen. It’s a lose-lose situation, so why do they bother? Many politicians are clearly in it for themselves, but there surely are plenty who really do want the best and just put up with the negative opinions they get.
So, for the record, not all politicians are idiots (although your definition of idiot may vary). But plenty are. The US seem particularly afflicted with them; Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, these people were/are contenders for the presidency. And the archetype George W Bush WAS the president. For 8 YEARS. The man whoseidiotic musings managed to sustain businesses had a nuclear arsenal at his command...
{snip}
...What’s going on here? Logically, you’d want an intelligent person who understands the best approach and methods for running a country in the best possible way. But no, people seem drawn to demonstrations of questionable intellectual abilities. There are a wide variety of ideological, cultural, social, historical, financial and other factors involved, because politics incorporates all of these things, but there are also some known psychological processes that may contribute to this phenomenon...
There is something to keep in mind though, that Mr. Burnett does not go into in any depth in his piece.
OK?
________
And, just in case you would rather have the musical version of a real Sudbury Saturday Night fill your earworm-riddled cortext this evening instead...You might want to partake in BOTH....The Original and this hepped-up Canuckistanmikitavillian cover version.
.
3 comments:
One lawyer's opinion...
Shelley Chapelski, a partner at Bull Housser, who specializes in maritime law.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/legally-oil-spill-response-appropriate-maritime-lawyer-1.3029124
Legally, who is in charge?
There are two organizations: Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. Transport Canada organizes the overall framework of oil spill response, but when there is an incident it is the Canadian Coast Guard.
What role does the province and the city play?
It's a matter of shipping and navigation, which under the Canadian constitution, falls within the federal jurisdiction. Other than being claimants if they suffer damages per se, the city and province do not have a direct role.
Thanks very much for the info Anon-Above; it's most helpful.
.
Nice to have that legal information. thank you.
Now to the questions of elections, because people don't have memories and other political parties don't remind people of what the Cons and Lieberals have been doing. There is also the small matter of money, however, given social media, that should not be the problem it once was.
Post a Comment