Most egregiously inaccurate and misleading bit over the last week

In the 'no opportunity for commenting by anyone, even those who take Mr. Di Falco's stance as 'truth' category over at The Hamiltonian, this article featuring this text:

"The second water main break within 2 weeks on Fruitland Rd. - a road that continues to be punished by a high volume of transport truck and vehicle traffic, despite it being a residential road. Street protests continue as residents fight to have the road closed and made into a cul de sac, as was initially assured."

The funny aspects for me are threefold. One, that someone reading this would take what's presented there as accepted fact (it's not, and shouldn't be taken as such); two, that Mr. Di Falco has not mentioned what he was told by professionals about the so-called effects of the truck traffic on these breaks; and three, that those people who long for Mr. Di Falco to be mayor ("...The Hamiltonian should be commended for the opportunities it has given the residents of Hamilton. I also know that if Mr. DiFalco ran for Mayor our City would be lead by a GREAT MAN, and Hamilton would become the City it deserves to be.") really don't have a clue as to his capabilities, his tendencies, his predilections. Most of the energies that fuel this rah-rah, benign jingoism are actually the result of demonizing what's currently in front of them Council-wise...which itself is the result of unqualified opinions.

*yawn*

The Big Three

I'm a contrarian.

Well...no I'm not. Not really.

Not in the usually accepted sense.

Wait; maybe I am.

LOL

For example, I had a conversation with a friend this morning that had her bemoaning the state of affairs regarding media election coverage. (When I say 'media', I'm referring to mainstream media -MSM- but also online outlets...because they're not as inclusive and esoteric as they'd love to believe they are. In fact, I'm mostly referring to The Spec.)

Specifically, that the only 'real' mayoral candidates being covered...being covered 'seriously' are 'The Big Three'. Eisenberger, Di Ianni and Bratina. Take a look at most articles; the majority of column space is taken up by this familiar triumvirate of candidates. Oh, there'll no doubt be some deft sprinkling of the 'other' candidates, especially if there's something noteworthy (read 'controversial') to use as a contrast between them and TBT.

I think what most bothered my friend was that good ideas weren't being examined by the public because so many of those good ideas were being put forward by the 'lesser candidates' and The Spec wasn't providing coverage.

The contrarian in me barging to the fore, I derailed our conversation; I disagreed entirely that this was an issue. Or the real issue.

Which I'm sure she expected, given my other beliefs about effective local governance and everything associated with it.

In a nutshell, as per normal, I believe that it all comes down to the people.

Us.

Look; I think it's reasonable to expect that 90% of the votes cast for Mayor will go to Eisenberger, Di Ianni and Bratini. And I don't believe that 'more coverage' of the other candidates would have changed this truth appreciably...even though I fully understand how people like my friend feel that the 'bias' applied by The Spec (and the online sources) has created such a situation. It's just that a) I don't think it's a particularly good application of angst, and b) it's not the real problem.

Here's a bit of a disclosure for you: mayoral candidate Mahesh P. Butani is an acquaintance of mine. We've had coffee together, we've spoken online regularly over the past few months, I immensely enjoy his company. All of our conversations have been stimulating, I always learn something...and I'm consistently inspired by his viewpoints, his thought processes, how he sees things. He has some prudent, yet innovative approaches to some of our challenges.

That out of the way, here's a question for you: Could enough of the current average voters...you know, some of the 37% of eligible residents who took the time to vote in the last election, 60% of whom purportedly voted according to 'name recognition' alone...have been sufficiently perspicacious to have understood the value of Mahesh's platform and made him into a 'contender' in this election? If The Spec had 'played fair' and provided more candidates with more coverage?

Nope.

Because the current average voter is not a discriminating animal.

To paraphrase Sy Syms, 'Our current customer is not a particularly educated consumer.'

I don't believe that you should have to 'seduce' people into political awareness, engagement, involvement. It's like having to coerce, finagle, bribe your parter into lovemaking. Ugh.

So to me, we're nowhere until people are interested enough in the local governance process on their own and effectively create the coverage by way of demand. You know, like people who are interested in certain sports or activities or hobbies. (And I reject the deflector 'chicken or the egg' discussion outright. So don't bother going there.)

To wit: if we had an engaged citizenry, one that put as much effort into choosing candidates as they do choosing their plasma televisions, then candidates like Mahesh would be given the consideration they're due...and we'd have a far better election season unfolding....with better, more informed choices resulting in better, more informed candidates being elected, creating a better, more informed City Council. (Naturally, if you've been reading my pieces addressing the idea of increasing the 'relationship of engagement' between residents and their Councillors, you'll know that the election is only the beginning.)

So if you really feel the need, go ahead and blame The Spec (and its online 'competition') for creating a very small portion of the electoral stage on which an even smaller spotlight has been shone. But I believe that we're all far more culpable in creating this particular situation than most of us are probably willing to concede.

Out and about.

Battlefield Creek West

It doesn't matter what's on the menu...

Crafting the perfect analogy is often a matter of luck. And the harder you try to make something 'work', the less the chances are that it will. Sometimes you have to settle for what's plopped into your lap.

So.

Imagine a restaurant.

It's in a great location.

The building itself is storied; a lovely old granite fixture in town.

Great external presentation, good lighting, excellent parking.

Inside, enormous effort has gone into appointing it perfectly. Simple...yet stylish. It's a comfortable setting, inviting...yet possessing its own rustic class.

Imagine that the cooking staff is exemplary. That they've been brought together by a visionary owner, hand-picked to be the artists behind a menu that is- Well, inspired.

What's on the menu?

It doesn't matter what's on the menu, for one very good reason: the serving staff sucks.

They are, not to put too fine a point on it, 'obstructionists'.

They are not the customers' representatives to the kitchen (as they should be), nor are they the cooking staff's representatives to the clients (as they are). For some strange reason, a culture has developed, a very strange mindset has been constructed where it's almost as if not only do they not do what's reasonable at other restaurants to promote success...this obstructionist attitude actually sabotages the very notion of success.

And so it doesn't matter what's on the menu.

It doesn't matter what policies are enacted, what lively approach is taken to improve business, what renovations are considered, what promotions, what advertising...

...because of this culture of obstructionism.

Until this is addressed, all efforts, all expenses are pointless.

When I read the great feature over at The Hamiltonian 'Hamiltonians Conduct Job Interview with Mayoral Hopefuls', while I was heartened by some of the responses regarding how to improve the city's business community profile, I was still shaking my head.

Because my impression is that Hamilton is not currently 'Open For Business!' and cannot possibly considered to be so be until the obstructionist culture of 'the serving staff' as been properly addressed. (Interpret this as you will.)

So though it's flawed, doesn't fit the bill perfectly, I stand by my analogy...and welcome any and all to contribute what they're able to the discussion, so that the initiatives presented in the article actually have a chance of success.

Because for the time being, it doesn't matter what's on the menu.

Cogent, Uncredited, Timely Thoughts (*not mine*)

"I'm inclined to think elections are overrated. If you vote for a candidate once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn't really matter much *who* you vote for. Once politicians get inside the Bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing, substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding.

As for what makes a good politician, I think it comes down more to temperament and broad intellectual framework than to a specific set of political beliefs.

A smart, patient, well-educated, open-minded, intellectually humble councillor will generally follow a sensible process of getting informed and land on a sensible policy that does a good job of leveraging the facts of an issue and bridging the hopes, fears and contradictions of the electorate and the various interest parties.

Here are some of the pitfalls that render councillors incompetent:

* Ambition - voting to maximize upward political mobility

* Megalomania - voting from an over-inflated sense of self

* Anger - voting to punish enemies

* Fear - voting to avoid risks

* Partisanship - voting along party lines

* Dogmatism - voting along ideological lines

* Laziness - phoning in votes instead of engaging the issues

* Stubbornness - refusing to cooperate with others or compromise

Left isolated from the outside world, just about anyone will fall prey to one or more of these pitfalls, which is why it's so important for citizens to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b) keep up their end of that engagement between elections."

Always intriguing...

There's some discussion going on over at Raise The Hammer regarding the appropriateness of incumbents campaigning during commonly-regarded 'regular business hours'. The article can be found here.

I've commented there already, specifically noting the strange take that so many people have about the 'unfair advantage' of incumbents in any election.

Which, not to put too fine a point on it, ignores the elephant in the room: the voter.

If you have an incumbent who's been doing a great job, executed their responsibilities wonderfully, regularly managed to produce exemplary performance throughout their term...then there's no problem, right?

But if you have an incumbent who's not been doing a great job, has not executed their responsibilities well, has performed poorly throughout their term...and they still get re-elected...

...then whose fault is it?

Not the incumbent's for being either arrogant or self-delusional to have run for re-election.

Not the 'system', for allowing this to happen.

It's the fault of the average voter.

Imagine if you will, an employer that continues to either hire or keep on employees who are crap performers.

Because that's pretty much how this situation is framed: the voter is the employer, the Councillor is the employee.

So. What to do?

Take a look at my editorials here labelled 'Civic Engagement'. They address the notion of increasing the 'relationship of engagement' between residents and their City Hall representatives.

The eventual goal is to have people far more involved in their local governance. Not just in the sense of increasing voter turnout (because is there really any accomplishment in increasing voter turnout from 37% to 90% if voters really aren't making informed decisions, but taking a lackadaisical attitude about who they're going to be putting into office for the next four years,people who will be looking after huge parts of their overall quality of Life?), but in actual involvement. It would be reminiscent of the way that good parents do what they do to be good parents; their participation in how they're governed locally would simply become an ongoing aspect of how they live their lives.

And of course, having this 'lifestyle' in place would mean that people wouldn't be bitching and complaining to their hearts' content every four years, because the things they're currently bitching about never would have gotten to that point. See, just as when you parent properly, or you manage people in the business world properly, we'd avoid so many 'bad situations' -crises, if you will- due to the fact that regular engagement with the people in the thick of things would mean that there wouldn't be a 'when the cat's away, the mice will play' paradigm in place.

Now, if all this sounds like so much 'airy-fairy' stuff, and you don't think it's either practical or possible to construct such a wildly radical setup...then please tell me what it is about the current way we do things that provides such -contrarian- hope? Other than the winning-the-lottery-type notion of occasionally electing some really, really good people (with no qualification process in place, no real vetting extant, no way of knowing beforehand whether or not they're actually going to meet expectations) to essentially save our asses.

Because really; wasn't this idea of 'fresh blood, fresh ideas' floated last election, and the election before that, going back decades, when we've voted out the incumbents and heralded the arrival of the green-horned liberators? Whom so many are now urging we turf?

As I said, intriguing.

Out and about.

Autumn continues its arrival...