My apologies (heh) to all of my loyal followers for the space of time since my last post. Some personal and professional issues kept me away.
In that time I came across the CBC’s write up of Gerald Keddy’s apology. It seemed very relevant timing regarding article we looked at from The Walrus. Not that I want to change the theme of this blog to a rant about the shallowness of apologies, but I thought it was an interesting alternate view on the same topic.
What makes an apology meaningful? If Keddy really means that these unemployed are really “no-good bastards,” should he recall that or perhaps be asked to further explain his words. As a politician, is he doing his job and reflecting the sentiments of his riding of South Shore-St. Margaret’s? Somehow, even with and apology, I do not think that Keddy has stopped thinking these negative sentiments regarding these unemployed.
Would we be better off if our government representatives actually said what their constituents thought? Would this be a truer reflection of the public? Especially if it is not directed at a particular cultural, religious or racial group. You cannot see a disparaging remark directed at, say the homeless or teachers in the same context as Indo-Canadians or Jewish Canadians. That is not to say that an MP should drop a potentially insulting remark, put her hands up, shake her head, and back away stating “I’m just saying what my constituents are thinking.”
Or is this opening a door of regionalism and demographic exclusion, as with the areas of Quebec that passed municipal laws about wearing “masks” on days other than Halloween? Or, as a more accurate example from the above point, areas where unions have been disallowed.
I guess I am hashing out how our representatives could better represent us, or each riding of us. If we were able to safely admit our emotional reaction to situations, perhaps a closer investigation wold be held as to why these emotions are occurring and then use this information to fix the perceived problem. In the case of Nova Scotia, admitting that there is a misunderstanding of why these people are unemployed, or, better yet, why they do not want to work on farms could lead to the fixing of the problem and help get Keddy’s “no-good bastards” work.
With the false smiles and other plastic expressions that simply mirror party policy eradicated and emotions able to be more safely expressed, perhaps our politicians would be freed up enough to get something done for the people that elected them into office.
The world is a tragedy to those that feel, and a comedy to those that think.
What passes for political drama in Canada is comical. Why would anyone really take Keddy’s comment literally? I mean, how would he even know if the unemployed panhandlers were indeed bastards? Why would he differentiate between the bastards and unemployed panhandlers with properly married parents? And clearly he intended to insult all unemployed people and not just the ones that sit on Halifax streets? I repeat, why would anyone take his comments seriously?
Because we live in a world of “gotcha” journalism and politics.
What a marvellously enterprising reporter! Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward should take notes from this guy/gal. Rounding up a couple of panhandlers to get their comments was a brilliant addition to this scandalous story. Instead of asking the panhandler the obvious question of why he won’t work for a farmer, he asks him how he FEELS to be called a “no good bastard”. Surely a Pulitzer Prize in journalism awaits. But wait, should Keddy seek an apology from the panhandler who returned fire? Keddy does not sit on sidewalks, and he is probably not even a bastard! (At least not in the biblical sense) So how can the panhandler credibly call Keddy the same?
OK, sarcasm aside, do you think the opposition should just not respond to stupid comments? Would it be more effective? Because I think I get more annoyed listening to the Liberal’s manufactured outrage and the NDP’s emotional hysteria.
My dad had a poster in our garage above his workbench that read “it’s never wise to argue with a fool, because listeners can’t tell which is which.” Politicians would be wise to shut up sometimes. It would make them sound smarter.
Shutting up certainly would have make Scott Brison sound smarter. Brison is the kind of idiot that gives other idiots a bad name. His comment about the Conservatives kicking people when they are down should be taken very seriously given that he was elected as a Conservative three times and ran for the leadership of the party. Of course, that was before he crossed the floor and tipped off his Bay Street buddies that the Liberals were about to tax income trusts, which led to the RCMP investigation that cost the Liberals an election. But no worries, as he then threw his hat in the ring to be the Liberal leader. Anyone this intent on being a “leader” should probably go back to high school and run for school president. But he shouldn’t be running his mouth.
The irony of Peter Stoffer’s “If I may be completely frank ” comment, is hilarious. You want to be frank? Frank? In Canadian politics? I think you are in wrong profession, dude – kinda like the basketball players that want to be rappers, and vice versa. But seriously Peter, you’re crucifying Keddy because he was frank about his feelings, so why should we give that privilege? And I know you are upset. I mean, really upset. Well, no actually, it’s “really, really”, upset, but please, stop the drivel. Chin up. We need thoughtful opposition in this country, so pull yourself together.
Clearly Keddy should have kept his frank thoughts to himself (if only so we didn’t have to listen to the opposition howling) but I see no injustice. The apology is meaningless because there really wasn’t any harm done, in my opinion. The panhandlers and Peter Stoffer had their feelings hurt. What they really need is therapy, not an apology from Keddy…
To sum up, I don’t really care what any of these three representative idiots think per say, and I especially don’t care what they FEEL. I only care about what legislation these idiots actually pass into law. And I sort of trust that our unelected civil servants heading up the “real” government are skilled enough to manipulate these elected morons into doing the right thing. The legislation to allow migrant workers is needed so Canada can get her crops off the fields before they rot. Who cares how Keddy misinterprets why Canada is doing it?