Another comment. Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: B LYMBURNER To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:23 PM Subject: RE: Some questions Ed: You suffering from an apathetic audience? I suppose I would tend to add my agreement to the points you raise in the subject post. Unfortunately, I reckon that many politicians view the electorate as a bunch of "beer swigging dolts" whose imagination is only captured by a cute quip or a "stage performance" ( and given the recent turn-outs at elections and less than brilliant leadership we seem to keep putting in office, they may be closer to the truth than we might like to admit). It is probably safe to say that former bureaucrats and dwellers inside the "beltway" may have a little more interest in things political - but I'm not sure that "interest" will accomplish much in our liberal democracy where there is easily a "tyranny of the majority" (despite our continual ambivalence(minority Gov'ts) of electing tweedle dum and tweedle dee. One imagines that what begets change in such a dull environment are crises and theatrics - where the 4th estate are obligated to to do some honest reporting in uncovering some aspect of "truth". I'm not sure the theatrics of the climate protestors will accomplish much other than marginalizing some wavering support for action, yet I applaud their efforts in trying to force some relevant discussion about a subject where Canada should be demonstrating some world leadership. Our party sytem of gov't unfortunately rarely allows intelligent consensus development -and therein lies our fate of simply muddling through on important issues. I also expect that many politicians are not interested in making waves, that come from taking leadership action. Like the boys on Wall Street who just wanted to keep the punch bowl filled with elixir(while they filled their pockets with cash by inventing exotic derivatives), our present leadership is probably calculating "pensionable time" while Rome burns. Now there's a cynical attitude for you! I appreciate your seriousness on these subjects. But do make room for a little humour and circumspect on our lot in life and our place on the planet.We are fortunate, in a way, to be able to rant about such subjects. Just my 2 cents and a toast of wine to our freedom of speech. Hope the ankle is able to kick some butt! take care, Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Some questions Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:18:22 -0400 I posted the following a few days ago and got no response. I'm posting again because I think the question I raise at the end of the original posting is an important one. Ed We tend to see societies like Canada and the US as liberal and democratic and responsive to the general public. But is that how they really operate? Are political parties really open and responsive to the public at large or are they corporate entities doing what they have to in order to promote themselves in seeking and maintaining power? Do they really hold the interests of the public as primary or do they largely behave in their self-interest? When they show themselves to the public, are they showing their true and honest selves, or are they behaving like soap adds on TV? Hey, look, there's Harper playing piano and singing a Beatles' song at the NAC. Gee, he's a nice open guy after all, not someone who's closeted away from scrutiny at the PMO. IMHO, it's no better than selling soap. And one also has to think about the complex linkages that exist between the political and corporate sectors. Lobbying, getting the political sector to do what the corporate sector wants, has become a major industry -- invisible to the public but enormously powerful. Consider health care reform in the US, beneficial to the general public but potentially very harmful to the health insurance industry. So send in the lobbyists to make sure it doesn't emerge as something that threatens corporate power and profitability and doesn't do much for the public either. Who really governs us? And what really is ethical behaviour when it comes to government and the corporate sector? I think the question is particularly relevant in light of the recent invasion of the House of Commons by young people who were very concerned about the lack of a firm government stance on what to do about climate change. Given that the December conference on this issue and the government doing little more than politely trading insults with the opposition during question period, were the kids right in invading the sacred space of the politicians? I tend to think they were. How else could they get their point across? While the politicians regard the House of Commons as sacredly theirs, who really does it belong to? Might not arrangements be made to let members of the public in to make their case directly instead of making them have to shout from the gallery and be dragged out? And I know the committee system exists, but it too tends to slow, cumbersome and exclusive, used most often to shed darkness instead of light. Ed encore
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
