"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Wednesday 30 May 2012

The Internet Is Great

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Tangled Web Was Woven":

Believing is not the same as knowing. You can't state as fact what you don't categorically know to be true.

You need to qualify a lot of what you write.
**************
Can  so state categorically what I believe to be true and my reasons for so believing.
Further, if the commenter will state his/her name and provide compelling evidence to suggest another explanation for the factors that lead me to believe what is true, I may revise what I  believe   and come to a different conclusion.
In politics, what is true is not always at first evident . 
Smoke screens abound. 
As in life, on the one hand this is true and on the other that is also true.
Both are true. But they contradict one another.
Seeking logic is sometimes like following a will o' the wisp.
In municipal politics, time is on one's side. If a situation  makes no sense, one  must simply watch and wait. Sooner or later a pattern  emerges and all is clear. Like life,  pieces of the puzzle simply fall into place.
People are not logical.They are not mathematical  equations.They are mostly predictable.
Having opportunity  to observe people  for a period of years, gives  one  a sense of what they are about as politicians. The pattern of the political being is familiar. Language and deportment in the fish bowl of politics  are signs and portents.
Nowadays, time can be spent  texting or twittering  while awaiting one's turn to speak .
Or one can use  time and the opportunity to  study  the human political condition.
Enough time spent on any exercise creates an aptitude.Being proven right a sufficient number of times generates confidence.
Confidence and aptitude are  useful qualities in the practice of politics.One might even say, essential for success.
.
Last night, Council spent two hours discussing the process of budget making.  Clear disquiet  with the current process was expressed. 
A specific concern was how to encourage  the public to participate.
I think the public who care, did all they could to participate, when they chose the  nine people who would represent them for four years. 
I have a contract with people who elect me. They lent me authority to participate on their behalf.  I gave them assurance I would. "Without fear or favour"
"Go there", Evelyn" they told me. " Poke into all the neuks and crannies. Find out everything you need to know and cast your vote on our behalf. Don't worry if you're the only one.Do what you think is right. Don't expect we will always agree. But we will always know you did what you thought was right. Short of being there ourselves, that's the most we expect.
Oh! and one more  thing. Evelyn. We like to be kept informed.The internet is great for that " 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

One thing that is a tad telling is Concillor Ballard's insistence that the agreement is perfect. No agreement is ever perfect and that one is particularly flawed. If he were representing Aurora's interests , he could be objective.
It is a different story when one is asked to assess one own's work.

KA-NON said...

While positioned as democratic inclusiveness, this desire to consult the public on every issue is, in my view, political cowardice.

Nothing wrong with hearing from the public on unique issues/initiatives (witness the Hydro fund), but for something as routine as the annual operating budget, asking for extended and extensive public input is an abdication of council's responsibility. I am not saying that the annual operating budget is not complicated and intricate, I am just saying that it is routine, and getting through it is part of what you signed to when you ran for council. Hiding behind "public input" on an issue is a not-so-sneaky way to separate yourself from being responsible and accountable for the results.

Accept your mandate, know your own mind, understand the issue(s), debate, VOTE, and put your name on the ballot - or not - in the next election. Then the public can participate again.

And if you think that is too long between opportunities to participate, well, you'd be right. But that is another matter.

Anonymous said...

What a lovely definition on being given the public trust actually means , pure , succinct and simple ,its what keeps us electing you time and again ,