This post is a response to theglobeandmail.com Round Table Discussion about Politicians
Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Canadians deserve better politicians.
It has been said that the public gets the government it deserves.
Don't blame the Politicians Catherine.
Catherine may be right, that Canadians deserve better politicians, but Canadian voters are also the reason we don't get them.
As the Round Table guests pointed out, politicians get into trouble for speaking the truth at inconvenient times.
An informed, reasonable voter surely would conclude it is completely appropriate for a politician to suggest we might have to pay more taxes to deal with the looming deficits to come. But you wont find any politician saying they will raise taxes any time soon because they would be vilified by the "deserving" public if they did. Look what happened to Dalton Mcguinty when he raised taxes in order to meet the health care promises he made. Sure he said he wouldn't but things change.
Catherine, don't kid yourself. The public is self interested and unsympathetic. We are only willing to do things that don't require much sacrifice on our part. We say sure raise taxes, on the other guy. Don't use my money to bail out those lazy, over paid auto workers. Save the environment, just so long as I dont have to pay more for gas or change my standard of living. You guys better improve health care and transportation, just so long as it does not cost me any more money.
With all the conflicting messages the public gives politicians, it is a wonder they get anything done at all. The arrogance and self interest of the populations of 1st world countries is the reason we have the political systems we do.
When we the people are prepared to do more, share more, give more, we will get a political system that allows politicians to say more, help more and inspire us as a country to act in the best interests of not only Canadians, but everyone on the planet.
Only then will we get a government we not only deserve but one we respect.
This post is a response to an article in theglobeandmail.com titled
And predictably the hatemongers come out as usual.
I thought this an outstanding, insightful and refreshing look at an issue that is rarely discussed.
John correctly noted the entrenched on the left and the right can see little else but the vitriol they have for their "enemy". As is the case with many posters here.
You may not like the policies of Bush or Clinton's philandering but I have no doubt these men performed one of the hardest jobs in the world with conviction and to the best of their abilities.
Maybe if we can get past calling this guy a NeoCon and that person a bleeding heart Leftie, maybe we could focus on trying to come up with comprises that everyone can live with. That is Obama's biggest strength, he try's to get everyone to work together.
Some people are so used to name calling and decrying the evils of the "other side" they cannot see what's really important.
How much energy has been wasted on non-issues like Same Sex Marriage? Busting people with a joint or two, worrying about what others are doing in bed? All matters between consenting adults and none of society's concern, or at least, shouldn't be.
The world would be a better place if people just got their nose out of everyone elses business! Surely there are far more important issues society should be paying attention to like say... Child poverty/abuse, HIV/Aids in Africa, homelessness, Global Warming? How "moral" is it that we pay attention to the former and not the latter?
Its time society focused on what really matters and the symbol of these two presidents coming together, no matter what they talk about, is an important step in moving towards a society based on consensus and focused on what REALLY matters rather than partisan ideologies.
This post is a response to an article in theglobeandmail.com titled
It is interesting that many on this site are bemoaning the inappropriateness of what Lam did. Some chastising him, others calling him names. Given the immature, prudish nature of the public persona towards anything sexually related, it was probably ill advised for Lam to post those pics.
But perhaps we should be asking bigger questions. Like isn't it time society stopped being so hypocritical and immature about anything the slightest bit sexual?
Politicians are held up to a ridiculous standard which is a complete fabrication and does not reflect the reality of public behavior or norms. The so call "family values" crowd hold an ideal of conduct that they try to foist on the rest of society. They are the most vocal in these situations and the most prudish yet are often the ones found in compromising sexual situations.
Isn't it time we look beyond a particular political candidate's sexual preference, their tastes and actions, providing of course they are between consenting adults. Isn't it time we focused on their deeds, their actions in the community they serve and the substance of their positions?
Some hold up Lams actions as a demonstration of lack of judgment. That is only true if you believe the picture is "dirty" or wrong and not withstanding the aforementioned consenting adults standard, who are we to pass judgment on his private picture.
It is a curious contradiction. Politicians are notoriously known for lying and breaking their word, yet we hold them to this unrealistically high, fabricated "moral standard", as if there is such a thing, that is far higher than any other profession.
These matters should be a non-issue and when society is mature enough and not immediately titillated by anything sexual, they will be.
This Post is a response to an article in theGlobeandMail.com entitled:
We still Can't Read Obama
by Rex Murphy
Rex it may be that your argument has merit. I certainly believe Obama is a complex man and maybe we haven't figured him out yet.
But why is that a bad thing?
The world just had 8 years of a man that, as you indicated, had a single mindedness about him. His goal laudable, to keep America safe, but execution proved somewhat heavy handed and often unilateral.
Perhaps its time for a more big picture, complex view of governing.
President Obama has certainly undertaken an aggressive and formidable agenda. Perhaps he and his advisers believe that now is no time for timidity. Now is the time for bold strategies that could ONLY be undertaken in times of great upheaval.
Perhaps Obama recognizes the unprecedented opportunity to move America towards a more socially balanced, fiscally responsible country that favors diplomacy over confrontation, dialogue over sanctions.
Everything is perspective. Maybe Bush was wrong, or maybe Obama is wrong. Or perhaps the world is more complicated than that and there is no right or wrong answer.
We went in one direction for 8 years and few would argue the world is a better, safer place because of it. Perhaps its time to consider a different strategy from the man in the most powerful office in the world.
This Post is a response to an article in theglobeandmail.com entitled:
Well I for one intend to have a weekend of drunken sexual debauchery, over indulgence and carnal sin.
The good news is I have an extra day to indulge due to the dead man walking Christian holiday foisted upon us.
Of course I may not be as chased and virtuous as all those pious religious types but I will have a hell of a lot more fun!
Then again, maybe all that religious crap doesn't really matter. What really matters is your actions, your contributions to humanity and your ability to positively affect the world.
Ain't religion a hoot though?
This is a post in response to an article in the GlobeandMail.com about the apparent lack of respect the Political Left gets.
What the NDP and its supporters do not seem to realize is that it doesn't really matter that they were correct about many of the problems now facing the world. It doesn't matter because many people just dont want to pay for the other guy or have more rules or less stuff, even if it is the right thing to do, according to some.
People are generally self interested, especially in difficult times. It's understandable, if not ideal conduct for a citizen.
It is certainly true there are many caring, giving people but they generally remain caring and giving only to the point that it doesn't overly inconvenience them or lower their standard of living.
I'm not saying that is good or bad, just that it is so.
Add to that the NDP's solutions to these complex problems tend to be overly simplistic and untenable politically and it is not that surprising they haven't gone anywhere in the polls.
This is a post in response to an article in the GlobeandMail.com about an Extreme Skier that died and the merits, or lack thereof, of extreme risk.
Rick C for Canada is BANG on! There are many that live long, empty, unproductive lives. They never challenge themselves, never takes risks, never venture beyond their comfort level. To me, that is not living at all.
There are those that can only see danger, fear and problems in the world and think the world is a terrible place. That is not living. Others can only point out what might happen, what could have gone wrong. The pre-occupation many have with what could have gone wrong is tedious and tiresome.
So something did go wrong this time. Does that mean we should all run and take cover, never take any risks, never be daring or bold? If humanity had done that, we would still be living in caves.
Many speak of his family and criticize his decision to take risks. How arrogant your presumption. Perhaps his kid's fate is to grow up without their father and in doing so they may find an inner strength they otherwise might not have discovered and go on to do great things. Who are we to say?
Many say life is precious. I say LIVING is precious. It is only after one lets go of one's over-exaggerated fear of death that we can truly begin to live.
Second Response:
Tasem Ebro from Canada writes: "There's that silver lining thing again! By Martin's logic children should lose their parents and discover some hitherto untapped inner strength, or something"
Tasem, no one said children SHOULD loose their parent, but one deals with the hand one is given. But there is a choice how one deals with adversity. I think it arrogant and self righteous for anyone to assume anything about another's fate.
I suspect those that read this and like Tasem, come to the conclusion that this man's life was wasted and there is no point to risking yourself, have unremarkable lives themselves. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is your choice. But just because you don't understand the choice of some to put themselves in harms way, does not mean their choice is any less valid than yours.
Our society is build on dreamers, risk takers both intellectual and physical. How would our world be different if Einstein had not pushed the boundaries of human thought, or Galileo? What about Sir Edmond Hillary, or Astronauts like Neil Armstrong, activists like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks or Gandhi?
All had the courage to see beyond what was, beyond fear and small thinking to see what could be. And the world is a better place for it.
