Politics corrupted by Media

I’ve never considered this before, but last night’s Agenda gave a compelling argument for the reason politicians are unable to respond yes/no to a yes or no question. The problem is with transparency. The media’s ability to capture every word and every motion of a politician also allows them to butcher the phrases, take the meanings out of context, and provide a totally different slant on the politician’s response. Essentially, even your most trustworthy news sources are injecting their own bias into the story, making them no better than your political comedians. Opposing parties have caught onto this notion – attack ads.

So in order to reduce these negative outcomes, politicians are forced to stick to their party platforms and policies to maintain the credibility of the party. This of course means that politicians cannot honestly answer questions nor can politicians applaud opposing parties for fear of political suicide.

Is there a solution?

More-on Ontario Politics

So I finally got around to reading the orange platform… If I’m like many other left-leaning supporters I could be attracted by the many short-term gains offered by this party. Sure there’s a stereotype depicting the average Ontario worker that apparently can afford living in suburbia but can’t afford the added tax on gasoline or electricity. Sure minimum wage could be higher, but does increasing it really mean that everyone will remain employed with those positions. Sure there are over-paid CEOs but in a competitive market, we need to offer high wages to attract quality; if we cut their pay, they will leave and we’ll be left with the bottom of the barrel to fill these positions. And sure, our taxes are lower than those from the neighbouring U.S. states but this is incredibly narrow-minded to think that they’re our competition; if we want to attract these multi-national corporations to invest in Ontario, we’re competing with the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China).

Like the Blues, the Orange interpretation of change is backwards thinking and undoing the progress the Reds have made with respect to changing the mentality and idealogies of society. I acknowledge on a right/wrong scale, we’re not heading true to the right. But if you consider a circular spectrum where heading up or down is equivalent to spending money but standing still, I’d say we’re headed somewhere in the vicinity of NNE or SSE with the Reds, but at least we’re heading in the right direction.

…

I’ve pretty much reached my political fill for awhile. Many politicians acknowledge that there is a negative connotation associated with the profession; however, although they may be genuine with their willingness to serve, the system corrupts all who enter. After watching the Agenda last night, Steve Paikin is incredibly clever in asking yes or no questions, but when they get diverted by irrelevant drivel, it tells me that politicians don’t know how/refuse to collarborate and they are horribly inefficient. This gets rather disappointing especially with history-related questions. So, does the political system really serve our best interests?

Blue is a sad colour

Don’t get me wrong, I thought Tim Hudak gave a good performance on Steve Paikin last night – he was well spoken, appeared credible, and seemed sincere. Of course he has also developed that political knack whereby a yes or no question receives anything but. So sure, I suppose I could accept the Blue Leader, as an individual, becoming the next premier; however…

I do not support the Blue platform – they call it change, but it’s anything but. Really, I’d consider it totally backwards thinking. So, we as a province are faced with a challenge: will we put our money where our mouths are and start accepting responsibility for our growing environmental concern or would we prefer the short term relief offered through cancelling {HST on electricity, smart meters, …}. And don’t get me started on efficiencies – politicians have no idea what this means. Sure they exist, but unions so heavily protect these inefficiencies that to remove them requires privatization and competition – I don’t think the Blue are so bold as to start unloading public sectors for private enterprise. Blues definition of finding efficiencies is equivalent to cutting services – I can accept this but can you?

In terms of dollars and cents, Blue and Red seem to have the same numbers more-or-less, so it comes down to idealogies. I think we as a province acknowledge the needs of the GTA and most of us Ontarians are affected at least occasionally by its infra/inter-structure. As a collective unit, would we then support their demand for greater public transportation, or would we rather see those dollars go into highway expansions. Personally, I feel that although an automobile offers independence, it is horribly inefficient. I’d rather see it as a luxury than a necessity. That of course means that our public transportation needs significant improvement – does anyone else acknowledge that in order for Ontario to have a ghost of a chance in winning an Olympic bid, we first need to have subway access to Pearson Airport?

It really comes down to personal choices and living within our means. We need to accept responsibility for our actions so if you’re one of those individuals with a spouse, 2.2 kids, and a house with a white picket fence in urban sprawl, then you better accept all the luxuries that are attached to this lifestyle and be prepared to get taxed accordingly. So yes, it’s a question of whether you think you’re entitled to this lifestyle or if you are one of the privileged that can afford it.

Not that I fully support the Reds, but at least they seem to have more of a philisophical shift that will be necessary for future generations – our population is increasing after all so it’s inevitable that we can’t retain our isolation and independence.