It certainly makes me wonder...

I sometimes don't publish what I write. Either it doesn't come out right, or the timing's off, or the piece isn't 'appropriate'. This doesn't happen all that often...which is why I tend to publish as much as I do, to which some wags might respond 'Too bad these occasions don't happen more often'...but it happened last month.

I began writing a post entitled 'What's Our 'Starting Point'?' And then put it aside.

But then the article 'Struggling With Decision To Give $1.2 Million To Sex Offender' appeared this morning over at Raise the Hammer. By longtime RTHer (and Associate Editor of same) Adrian Duyzer, it's...it's...

Well, in an email, I referred to it as 'Candidate for 'Most Ill-advised RTH Article in 2012'.

I'm not going to deconstruct it. I'm not even that interested in going to the bother of presenting some of its more picante points. I'll leave it to you to take a look for yourself...and draw your own conclusions.

Instead, I'm publishing that truncated post of mine. Not because it has anything to do with what Mr. Duyzer has to say about Denis Vranich, but more with the general state of discourse in the city. (For the record, the article is not that much of an anomaly; all one has to do is read the Comments sections at RTH or The Hamiltonian or The Spec to see the default setting I allude to, one that I'm quite convinced is connected to our 'legacy malaise', and prevents us from actually evolving as residents so that we can capably take our place at the table, local governance-wise.) 

Understanding that it's dangerous to make assumptions, to generalize...

Understanding that I wasn't joking when I referred to 'the 90%' in Hamilton for whom local governance isn't even within their sightlines...

Understanding that despite the posi-propaganda provided by the City and various 'leaders', in terms of dealing with 'how things are in terms of making things better', there's endemic frustration and cynicism and desperation...

What is our 'starting point' when it comes to even just talking about issues in Hamilton? 

Does anger fuel everything?

Is there any topic that we can discuss that doesn't get smothered in acrimony and nihilism? Do we have the abilities to accept situations that don't unfold as we've hoped? 

I can't help but think of a concept someone reminded of last autumn. That it's best to proceed without expectations of the outcome. To not be attached to things ending up a certain way. 


The problem is that when you feel beaten-down, when you feel disenfranchised, when you don't feel empowered (remembering that perception becomes reality), it's almost impossible to follow this advice. Needs are too great, the spirit requires bucking-up too much, there's just too much at stake to sing 'Que sera, sera!'

When you have no faith in things turning out 'better', because you've weathered serial visits by the Poo Faerie. 

When you don't feel confidence in the way in which your circumstances have been constructed, because dreck seems the only thing to descend, no matter how Pollyanna-ish your mantra.

I suppose under these circumstances, it's natural for anger to rise up when beginning an endeavour to champion a cause. And be worked up into a lather the more the issue is discussed amongst fellow-combatants. I reckon it's natural for this to magnify whatever latent distrust a person has. 

Therefore, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise when something (edit) immediately gets injected with...well, what comes off as hints of vehemence. Hints of recrimination and redressing longstanding differences. Getting one's kicks in, because this is going to be the time we show 'em.  

M Adrian Brassington