Right.
I'm feeling in a particularly playful...and, believe it or not, non-bilious...mood today, so I'm going to push the 'Indulgence' lever to the max and respond to a prat that I've had online run-ins with before.
He goes by the name of 'Sorce'. (I say 'he' because I'm of too high an opinion of women in general to believe that it could be a gal. If that seems somehow 'politically correct' in some twisted way, so be it.) He comments at The Hamiltonian.
I've consistently found him to be... A pain-in-the ass.
Not because I disagree with what he says (I often do), but because of his...well, his delivery.
He's a prat.
But in many ways, in being so, he fits in with the schoolyard sandbox forum that the editorial 'schoolmarms' at The Hamiltonian are quite insistent on maintaining. If I had to guess his general background- Oh, hell; I don't want to spend time going down that road; I'd be here all day, and who knows what kind of bile would end up being vented. : ) (That's me, showing some reserve.)
We've had 'run-ins' before. He seems to take pride in the fact that he uses 'pithiness' as his main weapon. I've taken pride in not pointing out that he's just doing the wise thing and staying just this side of The Peter Principle in doing so.
Anyway...
There was a discussion going on over there about Fred Eisenberger's interview on Laura Babcock's 'The Lair' this week. And I opined several things- Well, why don't I just cut-and-paste it?
SorceJan 12, 2012 05:22 AM
Reply-
mystoneycreekJan 12, 2012 05:50 AM
"...but what do you expect from career councillors who keep hanging on to a job that they, for the most part, cannot handle..."
Delete
Except that the Councillors are not the problem in this notion. The problem...if there in fact is one...is that people keep voting them back in.
If you're an employer, and you're really not happy with the performance of the people you're hiring...over and over and over again...who's at fault here? The applicant/employees? Or you? -
SorceJan 12, 2012 06:53 AM
I dont want you to take this the wrong way. I don't think you are an unintelligent person, but I think you are simple-minded on this issue. Until you move beyond that, there is not much point in debating this with you. But tell me. can you identify 5 root csuses of this phenomenon?
Sorce -
mystoneycreekJan 12, 2012 08:57 AM
"I dont want you to take this the wrong way. I don't think you are an unintelligent person, but I think you are simple-minded on this issue."
LMAO
I'm quite surprised that The Hamiltonian would allow this kind of comment through. (But then, I was surprised it allowed my pal Mahesh's comment through about Mr. Borrelli...my co-hort for the inaugural Town Halls Hamilton event.
Sorce, I'm sure I won't be allowed to say here what I want to in response...so I'll reply on my blog...and in-person if you're ever up to it.
So, here I am, replying in full.
First off, the fact that Sorce would lead off by saying something like 'I don't want you to take this the wrong way' is extraordinarily telling. It's like the old-school bigots who would say 'I'm not a racist at all, but...' The fact is that Sorce does want me to take it exactly in the manner he's framed it. He knows that he's about to be insulting, and isn't quite evolved enough socially...or he just hasn't got a sufficient enough grasp of either common sense or cause-and-effect...or maybe he is a dumb-bunny after all...to be able to just say what he means. Why? Oh... Maybe he's worried about his word-count. I don't know.
Secondly, 'I don't think you are an unintelligent person...' LMFAO.
Oh, yes you do.
Yeah, you do, from your little Throne of Few Words, the Great Lord of Minimalism (in both intellect and word-count...).
The funny thing is that in your 'picante-by-way-of-Twitter-mode' approach, you actually magnify your tendencies...and your limitations. And as per usual, your tack is one of a gruffness as modified by time spent with Emily Post. But the bottom-line is that you're always dripping with disdain when you deign to address most anything I've proffered...disdain that doesn't come from a secure place at all.
Thirdly, '...but I think you are simple-minded on this issue.'
Again, I think I just LMFAO...and I have uric acid staining my jeans.
At the very least (and I am being playful here, this is well beyond the proverbial pot calling the kettle- Oh, you know what I mean.
'Simple-minded', huh?
Which means, if memory serves, that my IQ is somewhere between 71 and about 80 on the traditional scale. Idiot: 0-25. Imbecile: 26-50. Moron: 51-70.
Wow.
That's...astounding.
Let's see: considering I'd be hard-pressed to hold down a job, it's kinda marvellous that I've managed to editorialize with at least as much cogency as anyone in town on two different blogs. But wait a minute! You said I was just 'simple-minded' on this particular issue!
Whew!
What a relief!
But...hey... Does that mean 'selective simple-mindedness'? 'Situational'? 'Issue-specific'? This would have to be the case, because otherwise, I'd never be able to even conceptualize providing this response to you in the way it's being fashioned.
Wow.
I guess this makes me kinda an 'simpleton-savant', huh?
Fourthly, 'Until you move beyond that, there is not much point in debating this with you.'
Damn; just when I'd gotten my gluteals reattached...and a fresh pair of clothing to wear.
Dude... Seriously. You're so far out of your league, it ain't funny. (The humanitarian in me has risen up to make that declarative.)
But I'll give you top marks for condescension...and patronization...and addle-pated chutzpah.
The funny thing is that you're The Hamiltonian's Great Brain Commenter.
You're the 'source' for wisdom, the great font of All Things Dripping With Pithy Insight.
And in this regard, I'm reminded of the old SCTV skit with John Candy, 'Hey, Gorgy!'
Finally, let's get to the meat of the matter.
I will maintain until the cows come home that the great burden of responsibility for 'bad government' lies with us.
The people.
With just over 40% of eligible voters casting ballots in the last election, and if nothing had changed since the previous one in 2006, almost two-thirds of these casting according to name recognition, then you'd be hard-pressed to 'debate' with me that it's otherwise.
Of the available voters, less than 15% voted for a man who ran a campaign on a 'platformless platform'...and a good portion of these...given the demographic breakdown...did so not as a result of the kind of time and effort they'd put into where they're moving for retirement, but as a result of feeling comfortable with the idea of this longtime radio personality running the show.
So that's the background. Attached to this is my assertion that if we're dissatisfied with councillors repeatedly being voted in...usually resulting in calls for 'term limits', then we need to remind ourselves that nobody assigns them their posts. They're voted in by the public. And the last time I checked, nobody had a gun prodding their temple when they filled out their ballot.
So I maintain that if there's a 'problem' with incompetent, inefficient politicians being (repeatedly) elected, we need look no further than who's doing the 'interviewing', who's doing the 'hiring'.
Now, you were looking for '5 root csuses (sic) of this phenomenon'. I'm assuming that you're referring to how councillors get voted back in. Specifically, why people keeping voting back in people who others question the capabilities of. As you put it, '...career councillors who keep hanging on to a job that they, for the most part, cannot handle.'
(I almost feel like asking you to provide examples of people on Council...and it would have to be those who are 'career councillors'...who cannot handle their responsibilities, who are incapable of executing the duties for which they were elected. Almost.)
OK. Assuming that we are actually talking about councillors who are incapable of representing their constituents in a manner befitting reasonable expectations...
1) A lack of real attention to performance. (ie, 'laziness'.)
2) Cutting way too much slack, due to a self-constructed comfort level. (ie, 'laziness'.)
3) Voting according to 'name recognition'. (ie, 'laziness'.)
4) Getting what they want from the councillor. (ie, 'selfishness'.)
5) Genuinely and sincerely believing that the incumbent has been doing a great job and deserves another term. (ie, 'deluded'.)
*6) Fear of change.
*bonus root cause
Again, this is all based on the assumption that we're talking about people who really should not be returned to office...and yet are...over and over and over again.
And therefore, the people who are returning them should know better.
And yet we never hear of them being taken to task. Why is that?
(Now, if you're going to argue that the incumbent has too great an advantage come election time, then I might be willing to entertain that notion. (But only perfunctorily.) But again, I'd still haul in 'the voting public' to answer for itself.)
Oh!
I've just seen that Sorce has 'responded'!
Such a character!
Such a choice rejoinder, that last bit. Kindasorta like someone who hands out an assignment as they wander off...?
(Addendum, 12-01-25: I'm pretty much convinced we're dealing with a retiree. He's crotchety, he doesn't tend to type much...and he takes great joy in disseminating his hard-won 'wisdom'.)
(Addendum, 12-01-25: I'm pretty much convinced we're dealing with a retiree. He's crotchety, he doesn't tend to type much...and he takes great joy in disseminating his hard-won 'wisdom'.)
