@ I_am-peo, JosefK, BC Order

Your posts are no more relevant than they were before you changed handles.

I am with Tangler on this

I am with Tangler on this one.

Skywalker, if you are addressing me

... say so.

Tieleman is not simply adding information, he takes 'pleasure as a political strategist in attack ads that change the course of elections, demolish enemies...'

My first comment addresses the quintessential underpinnings of Mr Tieleman's political persona as evidenced through his own words.

Sorry if I have to illustrate the absurdly obvious to you, but I suppose loyalty to a 'brand' fertilizes a lot of self delusion. As for the MSM (is that anything like a mainstream political party and its rhetoric??) and 'shooting the messenger' comments you made, try a mirror.

Tangler

You label the ads as "something as insignificant as a media war between Clark and Cummins." I disagree with you.

The ad by the BC Libs gives significant information on the direction of the Libs campaigning. It's a fascinating example of the advice they are getting. Remember that Gwynn Morgan was Harper's advisor and at least until recently worked for Christy. The parallels in the tactics for both are strong. 1. Attack ads early on. 2. Advice to election candidates NOT to meet at public forums during campaigning. 3. Constant pushing of the oil card as economy builder/vote getter.

This is meaty stuff for political science enthusiasts, not just NDP or Conservative supporters. CKNW couldn't get enough of it; so me thinks you are way out of line. Also, it is a tactic of opponents to pretend they are supporters of a party in order to score more points in their criticism of that same party. Hmmm, me also thinks you're not much of an NDP supporter...

Incredible advertisement...

Vison Vancouver has the Mayor saying he is "proud of the mess in city hall".

Mike Klassen has released a leak of the ad on Twitter: http://t.co/xjw2zDDw

LOL!

Tangler in a tangled web of woe

Ah the Tangler - an old foe - or friend?

Here's what the Tangler said way back on July 28, 2009 about the HST protests:

"After all, it's not like any sort of protest campaign - no matter who organizes it - will divert the Campbell Clan from its course of action. The objective must be to defeat the BC Liberals in the next election ... not score useless points in the short term."

Hmmm - quite the political analysis - and a totally failed one, as it turns out 2 years later. The Campbell in the Clan is long gone to greater service in London. Scoring useless points apparently had quite an effect.

And talk about "diverting its course of action" - why, I believe the HST has just been defeated by a democratic binding referendum.

And yet - the Tangler criticizes Skywalker and I and for lacking the "inability or unwillingness to go for the throat"!

Really? A 3-term premier down and out? A hated tax in its death throes? A BC Liberal Party led by a premier with one caucus supporter?

I'd say the only thing Tangled is your failed logic. But your secret identity is becoming clearer!

@Tieleman and his attack add

Nice going for the throat in responding to tangler. Quite the attack add. I think we should go over your 4 points to see if it was a wise thing to do... I guess that by whipping out some 2009 wrong prediction of his you are implying that your predictions are 100% bang-on right ? Or else you'd never go for this ad-hominem.

Public Affairs Bureau

It seems that several of the posters on Tyee, like 'Tangler', are paid employees of the Public Affairs Bureau (PAB) - the BC Liberal's propaganda division that is paid for by tax-payers: at last count, more than $40 million per year for 200 'moles' who pretend to be Joe Citizens when they appear on call-in shows or write comments.

We need a law that all PAB moles declare themselves each time they make any public declaration. Better yet, let's abolish this slimy bunch of trolls permanently. This is NOT how a real democracy should function.

Incidentally, the PAB budget is more than the cost of BC operating its own PST tax department ($30 million) but no squeals here from the Smart Tax gang.

rainy day in tahsis

Negative ads... positive ads...drones paid to pretend to be who they obviously are not... I'm seventy-three and increasingly bummed out by what I see as the americanization of all things political in this province... has anybody remembered "The little boy who cried wolf"? Flood me with bulldung long enough and I won't hear you should you happen to tell me a truth...and while obscene amounts of money are poured into propoganda, we have one of the highest child poverty rates in the nation. Maybe if the back room pooh bah's would stop listening to their own self-congratulatory blether they'd hear what the public says and thinks. Most of us do not TRUST any of the political parties. Guys found guilty in court of what amounted to betrayal are heading up parties which once looked as if they might have social conscience... you think all of us have forgotten that? Or maybe you think we didn't notice at the time?

We want our ferry back, we want BC Rail to be ours, we want BC Hydro and BCIC back the way they were supposed to be... and we're staying away from the polls in droves because we don't believe any of the parties will bother to deliver any of what we want.

If these withering wits are going to employ ad campaigns could they at least hire some people with skills? They're hiring losers who couldn't turn out good copy if they stayed up all night trying!

You don't need a negative ad to attack the Liberals. Just tell the truth! Those arstles will provide all the negative fodder against themselves that anyone would ever need.

It's pouring down rain in Tahsis. Tielemans' article is a good one , it just doesn't go far enough. Give us something to chew on, Bill, please, everyone else is feeding us pap.

unfortunately negative ads work too well

Much to the dismay of many here on the forum (myself included) the simple fact is that attack adds are effective for way more cases then this article tries to box them in. Look at how the federal conservatives have ruthlessly attacked the last 2 liberal leaders and how effective that was at cornering them into a defensive mode right from the get-go.
We can say all we want about how bad attack adds are, fact of the matter is that we are a minority who thinks that. The majority clearly doesn't care or accepts the adds at face value, as evidenced by recent elections that were won with the help of such ads.

A Lot of Scurrying

Oooohhh ... did I poke a stick into the party nest? Did I have the unmitigated gall to suggest that the party elite like Tieleman (people who have consistently failed in their quest for more than a decade) might want to focus on real issues?

It's hilarious to see that the first tactic is to dismiss my opinion as that of a secret agent of PAB or a troll. My Gawd! There is a sinister devil in our midst! Attack, attack, attack!!

White blood cells have more intelligence.

Tieleman: Congratulations. You helped to get Campbell out of the premier's office. Whoopy. Give yourself a hearty pat on the back. But as I said, way back in July, 2009, the objective is to get the party out of office - not just some dimwitted but well-connected politician.

Let me put it this way Bill: The HST was a hill. You (actually, the other Bill) captured the hill. Now, how are you planning to win the war? Ankle-biting won't do it.

@Tangler, istvan, igbymac, elbillug AND anne cameron!

"The reason I remain an NDP supporter is because of the party's continued (albeit increasingly vague) commitment to issues of social justice. Without that commitment, I wouldn't have much use for the "gang that couldn't shoot straight"."

Tangler, having been there, done that..., and I sincerely sympathise with you and at face value appreciate the three amigo correctives! Having said so, I run the risk regarding incognitos as made known by Vox.Pop who bemoans the presence of citizen pretenders and in so doing calls the kettle black.

Anne, I simply underline your plea writ large, as democracy can truly only be conducted by real people connecting with real people.

To elbillug's further reasoned initial observation "the simple fact is that attack adds are effective". Sure! as in burning a barn down is easier than building one and at one level throughout too much of history it does produce short term gain which eventually must still be paid for by the remaining citizenry.

And how can the beginnings of a mere 2 or 3 working together lead to growing the pie instead of burning it for short term gain? Please see my further comments under "Harper gov't hires $90,000-a-day consultant to trim federal spending".

One would hope that the electorate are smarter than that!... Not

I despise attack ads due to their meanness, especially the ones done by the federal Conservatives on the last couple of federal Liberal leaders. They just make me think that the sponsoring party is just sleazy and low brow. Criticizing Iggy for being an intellectual, for living outside of Canada and questioning his patriotism? Come on!

However, I did like the Christy Crunch ad since it contained humour, and that lessened the mean factor. In both recent cases, both sets of ads by the NPA and BC Liberals point to the sponsors being so desperate that they will use sleazy tactics that muddy their dubious reputations even further.

anne cameron

I wonder how far your distrust extends when you say, "Most of us do not TRUST any of the political parties?" Is it fair for me to conclude this presumes both the Party of the government, and the Party(s) vying to become the government in waiting? And, specifically, are you distrusting of the Party entity or of the politicians themselves?

@Eduard Hiebert

I can assure readers that I have never been, never am & never will be a mole for the BC Liberal Party or employee of PAB - I have too much self-respect to lose.

@igbymac and tangler

Here I am still waiting for something to counter the information presented by Bill or to add to it regarding the hypocrisy of the government to use an attack ad that focuses on the very flaws which they themselves exhibit. I thought you could both come up with something better than an attack on Bill because he thinks that attack ads work - which they have been proven to do - and something better than a swipe at the only party which might replace them.

So not being a rabid loyalist of any party but one that can't abide the lying liberals, my comments on your positions seem to have provoke some defensive responses.

I am still waiting and looking in the mirror isn't working.

You don't warrant a direct reply, Skywalker,

... but only because you don't address the line of thinking I've put forth.

So stop patting yourself on the back for eliciting a 'defensive reply' from myself. My 2nd post was just another attempt to get the reader (you specifically) to look beyond what Tieleman was writing and more closely at why he was saying it.

My final plea for your understanding, as follows:

I go from the premise that all the people who 'control' government are liars, or at best noble con-men. If you do not agree, your conclusion may vary from mine.

But if you do agree with that premise, then in would seem to follow that the controlling sect of the government-in-waiting, the NDP Party, is filled with people of a similar calibre.

We know Tieleman is a political advisor to the NDP Party. As such, he is a controlling member of the government-in-waiting. So what does that mean?

Well, there is always an underlying ethical concern whenever Tieleman writes an article due to his positioning. Which hat is Tieleman wearing -- Is he the journalist trying to inform the public about the charade that is the BC government? Or is he gleefully rubbing his hands together saying and doing what he can to get his Party and himself into a more dominant position of political power? (I am leaving aside the crazy meme of our times that the Party is there to represent the people at large.)

Of course there is some truth in what Tieleman 'reveals' to the public waiting, as taught, to be shown the 'truth' from above. But my point was never concerned with the veracity of what he was saying, only with why he was saying it.

As I've said elsewhere recently, the issue here, the real story coming to light in this particular article, is not what Tieleman is writing and trying to have the reader accept, but what he unwittingly reveals about himself (professionally) in doing so.

There is an inherent conflict of interest within the two occupations - investigative journalist and political strategist for the government-in-waiting, is there not? Tieleman, and mostly likely unexpectedly, reveals this fact quite nicely in this article. I simply pointed that truth out.

But carry on, Skywalker. Tieleman is bringing us all the news about dirty politics. (/sarcasm) Unfortunately there is no other kind of politics so this is, in fact, no news at all. From where I stand this article illustrates simply another example of dirty politics unto itself - Tieleman operating at cross purposes as the noble conman.

Re: igbymac to anne cameron

Without quibling about shades of meaning, the short answer to all your questions is an emphatic “yes”.

On the bases of supportable facts, I provide the following sound reasoning. Regarding federal candidates and parties, please see item 3, page 3 of the federal election Nomination Paper (form EC 20010) which in effect stipulates that regardless of how many thousands of Canadians might endorse a candidate, such will not be listed on the ballot as a party candidate unless and until the nomination paper is "signed by the leader of the party". How does this effect the candidate's nose?

And please do not give me some argument that this is about the need for party discipline process. What does holding such a hammer over candidates have to do with democracy or party discipline?

Please note further, each province that I have reviewed has some variation on this federal emasculation of a candidate's ability to exercise full citizenship rights as an elected party member. In Manitoba a duly nominated party candidate not endorsed by party can not even run unless an Independent!

Nor am I against a party system! Simply exposing an anti-democratic and dysfunctional party system, green party included. Though I will be quick to grant there are significant degrees of dysfunctionality among them, with Harper's at the top of the heap and Bob Rae, despite his pleasant smile, not that far behind.

To Vox.Pop re @Eduard Hiebert

Please reread mine and yours.

You wrote: “several of the (anonymous) posters... are paid employees..., 'moles' who pretend to be Joe Citizens”. Hence my attribution of a “citizen pretenders...” as you too, for your reasons, choose to hide behind a mask.

Whether you now protest too much or not I do not know. Taking your assurance at face value, extending your argument would mean you would have to find it unacceptable that the BC liberals have been granted a seat over-allocation bases the votes received. Should you wish to move from talk to walk in addressing this systemic anti-democratic situation, please see my earlier reference in this post to vote123 by which you and your democratic friends can rectify this anti-democratic result.

Does this article provide a sound analysis of an attack ad

I will first temper what I say by acknowledging that I did find the article and forum did give me new and constructive insights!

This notwithstanding, within context, an “attack” ad by definition is an aggressive and hostile act. The article seems to be unaware of the difference between passive/aggressive and assertive behaviour. By extention then, within a democratic forum, acts of aggression or war at the extreme, regardless of how effective they are in having your way over that of another, are ever justified.

Put another way, not all hard hitting ads are attack ads. Attacks are usually based on half-truths where the intention is not to achieve a higher truth but achieving my way over your way. That is, an exercise of might makes right and a direct refutation of ways democratic which subsume an egalitarian law based orientation which in short had can be represented by genuine “majority rule, but minority rights”. Acts of aggression, including Harpers ways and means deny both tenants of democracy.

To igbymac re: Skywalker

After posting my last, I saw yours and agree with nearly all except "Unfortunately there is no other kind of politics so this is, in fact, no news at all."

Via a straw-vote preferential vote123 pre-election poll, you, together with your democratic neigbhours have the democratic power that you and not any party or party leader has the last word in who will be declared your local elected.

A paper secret ballot method is described at
http://www.eduardhiebert.com/ereform/v123p.htm
An early online method is available at www.vote123.ca

As a means out of your dead end vantage point, I invite your thoughtful review.

Bill Tieleman returns fire

Tangler and igbymac have attempted to defend their comments, rather weakly. My response is simple. I give money to the NDP, not the other way around, for starters. Check Elections BC records.

I am not a full-time journalist for either The Tyee or 24 hours newspaper. I am a paid columnist with strong opinions. I am a political strategist, communicator and researcher with many clients. I have a background as communications director in the NDP government of Premier Glen Clark in 1996. I have been involved in many campaigns. That's why I write a political column.

I hope - and would be surprised to hear otherwise - that readers understand my perspective, especially here. I strive to be fair but never to be objective.

My reporting on the Basi-Virk/BC Legislature Raid case has been praised by many different and respected journalists and commentators, which I greatly appreciate. You can ask anyone involved in the case if I reported their perspective and ensured fairness.

I always approach columns with my own personal views and express them. The NDP, both provincial and federal, has not been spared criticism where I felt it warranted, despite my general support for their policies.

So - I am not an employee or dependent of the NDP, despite Tangler and igbymac's fondest hopes. But sally forth again with another volley and this time try to improve your aim! ;-)

Your reply still troubles me, BT

I give money to the NDP, not the other way around, for starters. ... . I have a background as communications director in the NDP government of Premier Glen Clark in 1996

So is this the picture, Bill Tieleman: You not only help finance the Party but you have only ever done charity work for the NDP, for example as its communications director in 1996, as well?

And there is no need to explain away your critique of the NDP, Bill Tieleman. Nobody is going to confuse your loyalty to brand NDP for making a number of democratic dissenting comments.

@ Bill Tieleman...this must be in error...

Surely you didn't mean to write this: "I strive to be fair but never to be objective."

I think you need to think about 'that' statement again.

igbymac - Not sure what your problem is - Tieleman says he doesn't take money from the NDP - meaning the 'party'. Working for the government (which was an NDP government but NOT THE PARTY) in no way violates that principle.

Tieleman says he doesn't take money from the party and nothing in his record - or his period of public service - indicates he has.

Taking a salary from a government in power is NOT charity work.

Surely you can understand the difference.

Grasping at a straw.

"You not only help finance the Party but you have only ever done charity work for the NDP, for example as its communications director in 1996, as well?"

Carry on Bill! Your comments are always worth the reading time.

Electoral success or Good government?

The problem with negative campaigning is that whoever is elected to be dictator for the next four years will feel that he or she has a mandate, an obligation, to do everything he or she said he or she would do despite the opposition’s complaints. Further, our newly elected dictator will feel that he or she has licence to do anything that the opposition imagined or suggested he or she would do even if he or she hadn’t even thought of it before the opposition brought it up.

Attack ads and negative campaigning may lead to electoral success—but does it lead to good government?

G West ...

G West, I never made the exchange of money an issue; Tieleman did. I sought clarification.

Of course being an insider to the NDP Party and then taking on a contract from the government lead by that Party is a conceptual distinction from being an employee of that Party. I know for a 'fact' that when connected people with the Liberal Party then get contracts, for IPPs for example, there are no questions asked. (/sarcasm)

But the exchange of monies is a red herring to the substantive issue. The concern will forever remain: which hat is Bill Tieleman wearing? The inherent conflict of interest between his different occupations is worth mentioning, and noting.

Bill Tieleman is first a political person whose ideology follows. I take no issue with that, per se. But when the Left in BC (where the majority of voters believe that the NDP occupy that space) is always seeking its bearings, ideology can be lead astray by the politics.

I know from my reading that the Franks and Skywalkers of the crowd support politics over ideology. There are others who appear to be looking for something more, and this is why Tieleman in my view falls short as a populist activist despite his contributions on many fronts.

And my warning to others is not taking aim, despite Tieleman feeling hunted.

At least..

..we know exactly who Bill is and his background. We know nothing about igbymac. If we did we might be able to question his/her motives and know a lot more about his/her credibility. But here we are debating not the focus of the article but something akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. One's politics is based on one's ideology. Much of the debate on the Tyee is based on the different visions of these two. The fact is Ideology isn't worth S#@t unless one is prepared to engage in politics.

So what exactly has got your knickers in a twist. Is it that Bill writes stuff that hold the liberals to account or that you can't do the same for the liberals? What exactly?

now that's funny, Skywalker

on a couple of fronts.

You tagging me as a liberal (thought I think you mean Liberal).

And your absurdity that "ideology isn't worth S#@t unless one is prepared to engage in politics".

Keep them coming!

Yes it is...

...you avoided all the rest. But here is an excerpt.

"The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things."

OK . Now what is it exactly that you are in a twist about with Bill?

Skywalker, avoided the rest of what ...

some excerpt you never posted up?

Give it a break, lad. If anything, you have it 180 degree off: It's not that ideology is meaningless (to a person) without politics, but that politics is meaningless (to a person) without ideology.

I'm sorry you if you cannot accept my observation for what it is about the inherent conflict of interests residing in Bill Tieleman due to his numerous occupations.

Perhaps the comedy of the discussion is best reflected in G West wanting so desperately to believe that Tieleman made an error, or mis-spoke, when he wrote "I strive to be fair but never to be objective". I suspect you, Skywalker, agree it was a mis-statement, which is fine.

But from my reading of Tieleman, he is deadly accurate in saying exactly what he did, as he did. He tries to present the facts fairly (as he does), but he is making no effort to be objective since he is, quite admittedly, a political columnist.

Its just that the social-democratic troops following his lead (like yourself perhaps) are occasionally lead off course of an ideologically Left position by not noting this truism of his work. That IS my point. It is not to slag Bill Tieleman, the man, only to give one guidance in effectively reading his work.

Dispute the facts as seen.

What else is necessary unless your intent is to distract from the "strength" of the comment. I prefer to read hard-hitting stuff because that is exactly what they other players are doing. People like Bill, Andrew McLoed, Rafe, Nikoforuk do that. Politics is "...a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments." I think Webster's definition is much the same. I don't separate politics from the ideology. And as I said earlier ideology isn't worth beans if it doesn't manifest itself in politics and now you seem to agree.

There are enough people writing pablum and it doesn't cut it. Everyone has a "conflict" as they all have biases, even you. Focus on the comment (issues) because your biases are also showing. We all know where Bill is coming from. You are anonymous.

I'm tired of the dumbfuck accusations

... if someone doesn't understand a post because of the verbiage, or thinks the the point of view expressed isn't quite close enough to the red-underwear party line, then out come the accusations:
- belongs to the BC Fiberals
- employed by PAB
- friend of Ezra Levant/Walter Block/Joseph Goebbels
- right-wing fascist

Can we all just please take a step back before we fly off the handle in reply? I'm seeing more and more insults between contributors that I know are on the same side of the legislature. There's no need for some of the napalm and phosphorus I'm seeing, so cut it out!

If you don't understand a post, SAY SO. Don't just assume that we've been invaded by brain-dead used-car dealers in white shoes and belts from Peachland Retirement Home - them and their blue-rinse wives. It's getting tiresome.

Skywalker -

If you can conclude that I agree with your absurdity that one's ideology must manifest itself in politics to have meaning, then you are not comprehending what I stated.

Ideology has numerous applications, no doubt confusion can arise. But an individual's ideology need not be encompassed within politics to have meaning. It's politics that cannot exist without ideology and still have meaning.

I'll dismiss your opinion on what is the 'hard hitting stuff' aside from saying there are systemic problems the politics refuse to address. You keep focused on the politics -- where both sides are claiming the higher moral ground despite behaving similarly (eg attack ads) -- and I'll address what I see as the overarching, systemic concerns.

As for your anonymity comment, try a mirror. Its almost beyond comprehension that you do not recognize the substantive difference in accountability between a person publishing an article for public viewers and poster on an anonymous message board.

Whatever you say or don't say in rebuttle, my non-reply is by no means to be taken my tacit admission of your allegations.

@igbymac

I disagree. Strongly.

The implication in your words was clear.

Tieleman WORKED for the Government - he did not, and has not, worked for the party.

In fact, he's very critical of some party officials (think the current president of the NDP) who are taking money for their work with the party.

The implication contained in your words was unmistakable - Tieleman is not in a conflict of interest with respect to how he earns his daily bread; nor was he in a conflict of interest when he was employed to do a specific job of work by the Glen Clark government of the time.

It isn't a question for debate - it's a question of simple empirical fact.

Furthermore, there is something very sleazy about someone hiding behind anonymity who uses that cover to cast aspersions on folks who have the beans to make their points out in the open AND put them up for public comment.

I'm with zalm on this one.

I'd like to hear Tieleman's explanation for the one statement he wrote that I mentioned earlier (and which I believe is simply the result of a typo) but that's all.

I don't agree with everything Bill says or does, but he doesn't deserve to be attacked as a money-grubbing shill for hire taking charity.

That's both a slander on Tieleman AND a misuse of the term (and the uses of) charity.

G West, always full of assumptions,

and even when you are corrected by the author, you refuse to take the correction and move along.

The word I used was 'occupation'. I never mentioned financial remuneration. See the first definition of the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupation

Any inference or implication you, G West, draw is due to your own desire to read only what you want to read, not to listen or inspect what is written.

Must I show you again that I asked a question seeking clarification from Bill Tieleman regarding his dealings with the NDP Party or the NDP government. Why? Because I did not know and needed clarification as to what he was exactly saying. He brought up money, he opened the avenue of inquiry, and so I did just that. It's called setting the record straight.

A 'conflict of interest' can arise whenever one is engaged in multiple occupations or has multiple interests, and an interest in one occupation could potentially corrupt the motivation for an act in another. Technically there has to be some expectation of impartiality*.

My gosh, G West, its laughable that you insist on twisting my words to suit your beliefs as in this statement: "but he [Tieleman] doesn't deserve to be attacked as a money-grubbing shill for hire taking charity".

Words of advice: Get a grip, man. Your reading comprehension is becoming highly suspect from where I stand, primarily because even when clarification is made regarding a word which may be ambiguous, you refuse to accept any other use of the word but the one you assign. That is classic intellectual dishonesty.

* Clearly you, a member of the public, harbour an expectation, and even presume, that Bill Tieleman be objective, uninfluenced by personal emotions (i.e., inpartial). I need not say anything further.

Assumptions?

Hardly.

This is what YOU wrote:

"So is this the picture, Bill Tieleman: You not only help finance the Party but you have only ever done charity work for the NDP, for example as its communications director in 1996, as well?"

My reading comprehension is just fine.

Furthermore, being paid as communication director by the premier of the time was a job of work - subject to the rules and paid under the terms of the Public Service Act.

It was not a 'contract' from the NDP PARTY.

As for the other matter - I hardly expect anyone to be 'objective' ALL the time - but I cannot imagine Tieleman, or any other responsible critic to NEVER be objective.

Also, you'd be wise to refrain from the 'personal' aspersions and conclusions about others' honesty.

In a written forum - especially one where most people are afraid to reveal their true identities - one has NOTHING but the words to go by. You keep making personal remarks like that and the conclusions will be inescapable.

@ igbymac

I notice you write the same stuff about Rafe. You can't focus on what he writes, just on the writer.

You also wrote, "It's not that ideology is meaningless (to a person) without politics, but that politics is meaningless (to a person) without ideology." Now what in hell is the difference between those two? I have known subtler attempts to subvert a discussion so yours doesn't even come close to fulfilling the objective. What Bill's connection to the NDP is is as relevant as yours to the BC Liberals or whatever party. Bill is transparent; you are not. Give it a rest.

my last words on the matter

Geesh, G West, you are ridiculous: I asked a question (So this is the picture...?), I didn't make an assertion. Comprehend this piece of punctuation: "?"

Ever read the proverb, "Hypocritical honesty goes upon stilts"?
_____________

Skywalker. the alphabet has meaning without being able to read; one cannot read without knowing the alphabet.
______________

For the record, I have nothing against either Bill Tieleman or Rafe Mair. In fact I have enjoyed a lot of both of their works over the decades. I do not think for a moment either are inherently devilish or trying to screw people in the main. Their numerous accomplishments speak for themselves.

What I have done in both cases is present a more overarching, somewhat philosophical analysis toward their work: The inconsistency between politics and ideology (personal or political).

I realize many of you here (Skywalker, G West, Frank et al) are political junkies. You enjoy the combat between the parties and their characters.

In contrast, I prefer examining the workings of politics on any side and its shaping of our thinking - both overtly and covertly, intentionally or not.

I laid out my argument here in a straightforward manner, and even said something like " if you do not accept this premise (and the supporting points that naturally flow), your view may be completely different". I made an argument from my point of view.

Clearly a few disagree. I really am not trying to change anyone's mind, but to provide a different perspective of analysis. Nonetheless, if one mis-states or misinterprets what I said, I reply and try to clarify that point. If they do it again on the same matter, I say they are being intellectually dishonest.

Enough!

I've said my piece.

And I tried to do it politely and without any innuendo, personalization or unnecessary temporizing.

You'll find I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion any time - but I'm not likely to sit still for what appears to me to be something that is both unfair and illogical.

Sadly, I don't see what you've written as being particularly analytical either...especially in terms of the divide between politics and ideology.

But that's just me - carry on.

Better to stick to criticizing ideas and stay away from making personally critical remarks.

What's up?

Here we have several posters making insightful comment as well as two distinct groups who do battle with each other, each calling the other secretative... while veiling their own identity. Taken almost all involvement together, surprisingly in the end, more of a talking past each other than engaged with each other. This results in impasse. Is this intentional? As in by design?

Eduard Hiebert

For clarification, I've not called anyone secretive. I've said 'look in the mirror' to anonymous poster(s) accusing me of 'hiding' behind a name. And I believe that if they cared to look, they would see hypocrisy.

Second, and admittedly, the thrust of my discussion as this thread progressed has not been well presented. In my defence, a lot of my follow-up comments were in reply to semantical misinterpretations of what I had said, and later on the repeated and further dismissals of the said clarifications. Nonetheless, my arguments have been valid.

Perhaps my not intending to get into depth about the ongoing hypocrisy of governance, and of the folks who effect government, I've not been clear. Still my theme has been hypocrisy.

Now if what I make is a seemingly personal remark addressing either 1) the behavior or 2) the motive of another in order to illustrate the hypocrisy, so be it. There is no other way around addressing that issue without bringing forth this apparent conflict. It's simply hypocritical to ask one to 'address the issue' but insist they offer no supporting grounds in which to do so.

As for the impasse, of course there is one:

One camp wants to address the systemic problems with government and its machinations. The other camp wants to address one Party's superior political offerings over another. At the meeting point between these two camps we have a bystander, Bill Tieleman, being used for illustrative purposes.

How can the impasse be resolved? Well, I can say without reservation that the vast majority of Bill Tieleman's social democratic efforts have been noble, and in the interests of people -- provided one is content to operate with the system, as it is.

I am just not content.

Now, if we want to address the systemic problems, we have to look at what they are. And if one cannot see fundamental problems like hypocrisy or potential conflicts on the whole, let alone isn't interested in looking for them, we reach an impasse.

I've said enough in an attempt to clarify my position and to convey my approach. No doubt you will take from it whatever you see. Cheers.

PS. The Russian Doukhobors

igbymac: "I am just not content"

"PS. The Russian Doukhobors"? If relevant here, what if anything does that mean? Were some of theirs not the people who on ocassion were literally known to not wear even the slightest hit of a mask of any kind?

Alternatively, if there is some relevance here, I am missing the differences in shades of meaning among "secretive", anonymous,'hiding' behind a name...

Last item, AND certainly not least, you have literally voiced what is implied by most others, even if not stated as plainly as you now did "I am just not content".

In the words of a South African during the Apartheid years chastizing a dogooder reporter, "To deplore and do no more is not enough"!

What of the way forward available in your own backyard as per what is pointed to in the above?

Eduard Hiebert asks :)

The Russian Doukhobors are an example of a meaningful ideology standing beyond politics.

Your comment: "two distinct groups who do battle with each other, each calling the other secretative [sic]... while veiling their own identity".

I never complained about the systemic anonymity of the board. I did mention that an anonymous poster complaining about another anonymous poster being anonymous is hypocritical.

Your comment: "In the words of a South African during the Apartheid years chastizing a dogooder reporter, 'To deplore and do no more is not enough!'"

There is no easy way forward. (I will not attempt to address your question in this thread further beyond what I've mentioned already, hypocrisy.)

I agree with Alan Warnke

Bill Bennett didn't unite the right by running personal negative attack ads against Pat McGeer and Alan Williams---he wooed them with cabinet posts.

Gordon Campbell didn't unite the right by dumping all over Jack Weisgerber either--even after Weisgerber split the vote that cost Campbell the 1996 election.

Clark should get Weisgerber and Stockwell Day to broker peace talks, that will hopefully lead to merger talks. If it's not already too late.