babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Progressive men? Is there such a thing besides Siksay? ;)
IMV, the most centrist woman, has the capability of being more progessive, than so called progressive men, when push comes to shove politically. It is my opinion that they call themselves progressive until they get a taste of their own power. Examples of course being Farnsworth, Gregor and Dix and the rest of that clique.
In fact, I would call myself NDP centrist, though perhaps many would not.
And I would have voted for Jinny Sims.
See kropotkin, you have to learn that things like this are not about any sort of principles, but about getting people to vote NDP no matter what.
If I say I'm thinking of strategically voting Liberal, I'll be told to stick to my principles and vote NDP because strategic voting is unprincipled and wrong.
If I say I'm thinking of voting Communist, I'll be told that they can't win and I should strategically vote NDP because some right-wing assclown might get in.
And then when there's talk of coalition, the contortions get so confusing that I can barely keep up.
Interesting. Then who would you vote for because in a related thread you said that you had no respect for people who do not vote or spoil their ballot?
I would never tell you to stick any of your principles. But youll get no sympathy from NDPers or CFS if and when the Liberals slash core funding to provinces for PSE even more than they did when in government last tme.
And voting strategically is typically a Liberal Party piece of advice to those who can be convinced that there is a glint of daylight between them and the Conservative Party. As an NDPer, I will always suggest you vote with your heart and mind. It's the democratic way regardless of the realities of our obsolete electoral system
Sounds like the NDP messaging is finally beginning to work.
Funny you ask, as in that post I had at first stated my alternative choices, then edited it out.
It would depend upon who was in my riding running. It would not be Green Party if Sterk was still the leader. It would most likely be Western Canadian Concept, as my first choice, or Communist Party if there was someone running.
But we are thinking of taking a 4 year sabatical in Nova Scotia :D, so the point could be mute.
And if the WCC (whose leader is Doug Christie, a holocaust denier - and somehow Jane Sterk is worse?) and Communists don't have a candidate in your riding?
Last provincial election, I only had the "choice" of Liberal, Conservative, or NDP. What if you were in that situation?
I spoiled my ballot because I had no choices. Only three candidates; an incumbent Liberal, an unethical NDP'er and a Green candidate suffering from an untreated mental illness. (I am serious about the Green candidate it is not a joke it is true IMO) If the right to vote has any meaning how was I supposed to vote, for the unethical alternative or the crazy alternative. I wrote bad worse and crazy besides the candidates names because I had no place to even put a protest vote. People voting for unethical politicians because they are in one's preferred party is IMO a major part of the problem with all parties in our system.
That IS afirmative action. That's what it's all about. Oh, that and playing the gender card on anyone who opposes it (even women)
I would vote NDP.
What do mean unethical Kropotkin?
She lied during the nomination battle about her background and past and appropriated other people's work as her own. But the central party got their candidate of choice and she lost because none of the activist women or men would work for her. The outside troops she used to round up all the senior citizens who wanted more women in the Leg didn't campaign because their task was to defeat the leftie and after that this woman was on her own. The whining about no volunteers was touching but interestingly all the volunteers from the other camp (the vast majority of whom were women) worked on other NDP campaigns. A winnable riding done the sewer because the cabal wanted their candidate and just like BD they figured that volunteers are slaves that should take any shitty candidate the the party has to offer.
So, so much for what you said about Adrian Dix and Gregor Robertson not getting your vote
I do not blame you then, no wonder there are changes being made to staffing and others.
Side point but the NPI and the Waffle were not really comparible. The Waffle was a purely socialist-Marxist coalition aimed at deposing Lewis and taking the party even further to the left (was the seventies) hoping I suppose to ride on the post-sixties radicalism. The NPI was based on a broad range of activist groups, mostly to the hierarchies left but not in all ways and not in al cases, and their focus was more specific in trying to alter some less than democratic party structures to invite other progressives in --not exactly "big tent" that way either, which seeks mostly to attract the centre-right.
They also didn't lose by that much either, they received 37% at the convention, which is pretty good for a first time run, but broke up soon after with nothing much in common to sustain it after a new leader was chosen. I think it could be revived again though I don't know if the party should be so closely linked to activist groups at its base now, that part may be a mistake for both sides of it.
The average NDP member is somewhat to the left of the average NDP voter, thats true, but the average NDP voter is little better informed now than others, with little counter-communications strategy aimed at grass roots, and sadly the party hierarchs are now to everyones right on most issues. At one time the party used to speak to the left to its members and somewhat to the right to the wider public and try to operate somewhere between the two, but now they seem to want to operate to the right of both. I suspect it began with the idea of "professionalizing" their election strategies, not seeing how rightwing the media would get, to be fair, but I think thats where this growing gap may have started. Leaders limited to communicating directly to spin doctors, caucus, senior bureacurats, financial backers and media.
"professionalizing"
Interesting observation, and perhaps what is wrong with society over all.
People are indoctrinated to believe that "professionals" know what is best for society. That they don't has escaped from from people's awareness.
Stupid professionals. What do they know? I can make up better medicine in my garage than I can get from the doctor (besides, man, don't you know that marijuana cures, like, everything on the planet, aside from short term memory loss.) I don't know why people go to dentists to get their teeth filled, how can those professionals know better than me? And you know what? Next time I'll represent myself in divorce proceedings. And next time the NDP has a campaign, they shouldn't hire professionals with credentials but should rely on fringe groups in Vancouver constituencies to start the revolution, photocopy fliers and handbills, organize sit-ins at the Art Gallery, maybe an evening with Norman Chomsky, and a bazillion public forums in church basements and gymnasiums across the province. Don't even try to communicate with the media. Get guys with sandwich boards. Yep, that ought to work out better.
Sarcastic non-wittery aside, some professionals do, some don't, need I example the financial fiascos occuring because people let "professionals" manage their money? And numerous other equivalent acts by "professionals" that are devastating to people's lives? Think a bit eh!
Abdication of complete personal responsibility into the hands of "professionals" does everyone a diservice, not just the person doing it.
Give it a break big daddy.
Professionals run the Roman Catholic church which has been sexually abusing children for how long?
Professionals helped Madoff swindle 65 billion
Professionals sent Arar to Syria for torture
Professionals ran the last BC NDP campaign
Need I go on.
The word professional is one of the most abused words in the dictionary.
Yes they have their place in society like any other group, but to infer they are something special, better than others, that they have cornered the market on wisdom is a crock, and you know it
As someone who is studying in a professional field, I think that although professionals (which really can be at times just a skilled worker to the extreme, who sometimes has the old-school AFL mentality of being worth more than the rest of society because of posessing a particular skill) are necessary for certain things (we're always going to need doctors), there are some serious problems with professional education and culture. I think a large part of it has to do with living in a capitalist society, where the capitalists require a certain ideological discipline and a focus solely on things like efficiency, profit, and raw cost-benefit analysis as opposed to debate on the actual ideological goals of project X in the people they hire to make certain decisions and run certain things that they individually don't have the knowledge to do. And no doubt some of it has to do with a lot of individual professionals being elitist pricks - just because they made it through a rigorous education they think they're smarter, better, and more deserving of certain things than everyone else. Jeff Schmidt's Disciplined Minds is a good read on the subject of the mindfuckery of professional education. Although, I don't think hating on professionals in general is the solution or a particularly accurate representation of the problem - the problem is in the role of a professional in capitalist society, and the training and selections process which is necessitated by that role.
That said, there are probably certain types of professionals that aren't necessary, and I don't think professional advertising execs and campaign strategists bring anything really positive to society in the same way people like doctors do.
How about those Drs doing illegal organ transplants?
Thanks remind
I just don't agree with putting any group in society up on a pedestal, although I do admit to having a soft spot for certain educators and musicians.
Jim Rutowski Carole James former SPEECHWRITER was just promoted to Chief of Staff of the Leaders Office. I interpret this as a vote of confidence from CJ and the likelihood that we are going to see more of the same as the last 4 years. How would you interpret this ?
I would say that CJ has to take responsibility for her own inner circle, the one's who write her speeches and help her plan strategy.
Thats an good point too, I think the heart and soul of corporatism is based on faith in professionals. Professionalism as a concept is easy to defend when were talking doctors, lawyers or engineers, and any high skill job which demands "professional" conduct could be described as such, but when were talking management or communications, wheres theres no real parameters to measure success or failure, few justifications for their necessity except they sell, and no ethical committment to public service, beyond the "client" perhaps, it really amounts to another blind faith. One which tends to lead towards behaviour thats only responsible to its in-group. This would be worth a thread or two in itself.
ETA: And yes, even traditional professions like doctors, lawyers and engineers tend towards protecting their own and narrowing their social responsibilities towards their highest paying clients.
"Jeff Schmidt's Disciplined Minds is a good read on the subject of the mindfuckery of professional education."
I got to read that one. Or is it I gotta? ;)
Really what happened was a shift to create a "professional class" of people, who are beyond the hoardes of humanity, no matter their capabilities and best practises applications, in people's conceptual frameworks. They remain, for the most part, unquestioned as to their actual abilities and conduct because of the general labelof 'professional".
In reality, perceptions of skilled peoples should be based upon actual capabilities, be they R&D, or applied actions, and are best practises, in their skill set mandate, being followed/applied.
"Professional" is an empty label and nothing more, in today's world.
But, but.....I'm a professional political commentator.
I think Bill Hicks said it best on marketing and advertising professionals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo