Currently I am away at the Atlantic Debating Championship Tournament at Acadia University in Wolfville, NS. I am away from StFX and the pressures of the ongoing campaign. I am not, however, away from intense discussion on just about every topic, including our current elections. There are members from other Student Unions here and others with thoughtful insight.
When it comes to Nova Scotian universities' collaboration and understanding is an important thing. ANSSA is a great example of this. So when I talk to people here about our campaign it is interesting to hear what they think about our Union.
When I think about theU I think about all the complexities and intricacies. I think about the good - the services, the connection. I think about the bad - the inequality, lack of ethics, and corruption. I also think about how both experience and a moderated scope is necessary to really have a concrete vision of theU's future.
When I read about and witness C & M's ideas, there response to this blog, and the general progression of the campaign I see organization and thoroughness immediately. However, when I take a step back and think I see something completely different. When it comes to organization C & M have carefully organized themselves to look concerned for student ideas while hiding the fact they need student input to have any clue as to what to do next year. When I think of their thoroughness I think of how they have covered their tracks to show only a moderate understanding of how theU works.
If it weren't for student input C & M would be no where.
Now student input is important, but I think C & M would be oblivious to many of the problems that need to be addressed in theU if it weren't for that input - which is a problem. Additionally, there are many more problems that both students and C & M are unaware of which will hit any inexperienced and uninformed candidate when they get to office. I am talking about learning curves, logistical issues, and organization that is required to thoroughly complete any of the objectives one would want to see through.
I think C & M are very smart. I think they have smart people working for them. I think all of these people are smart enough to turn ignorance into a concern for students. Either way, this concern is important, but will do nothing if these two can't get past the first leg of running a million dollar organization - something that is daunting for the most experience of Union members.
*The views expressed in this post are entirely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of StFX's Students' Union.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Who exactly do you think you are?
"When I think about theU I think about...the inequality, lack of ethics, and corruption."
Really? Corruption? Lack of ethics? Do you realize you're now legally liable to be sued for slander for making such unsubstantiated claims? Expect a lawyer's letter in your school mailbox sometime this week, Brian.
"C & M have carefully organized themselves to look concerned for student ideas while hiding the fact they need student input to have any clue as to what to do next year."
Really? Hiding the fact they need student input? There's no way these guys could maybe...you know...actually care about what their constituents have to say? What gives you the right to suggest they have anything but the most sincere intentions when engaging the electorate? Anything more than your own personal bias or your lack of willingness to bring anything of value or insight to this blog?
"...they have covered their tracks to show only a moderate understanding of how theU works."
As the most experienced pair of candidates in the race (yes, Mr. Cauley...even more experienced in union activities than...gasp...YOU who has held how many executive positions and served on how many Union and administrative related committees? Please, could we have the final tally?), do you think maybe someone else is in a better position to make this assessment than you?
"If it weren't for student input C & M would be no where... I think C & M would be oblivious to many of the problems that need to be addressed in theU if it weren't for that input."
Do you? It's nice to hear what you 'think' while you report on an election you admit you're not even present to witness. But how many times have you sat down to talk about the issues with the candidates? How many days have you been away from campus? How many times have you tried to engage the candidates on the issues yourself? Please, tell us! How often have you talked to Pat and Scott or Matt and Julia personally about their plans for the union? I mean, as pretty much the only contributer to this 'election blog', you certainly would have a reason to do that...apart from being...you know...a student.
I'm sure they're willing to sit down with you...how many times have you done it? Asked to do it? Taken either camp up on their offers to 'talk about the issues'?
When I read this blog, all I can see is a bitter, bitter little boy who wishes he was able to deliver the level of engagement and drum up the kind of support both camps have been able to so far. He's writing for controversy and 'hits' instead of providing the neutral viewpoint we expected from this Union sponsored mouthpiece. Instead of bringing fair and balanced engagement to readers of TheU.ca, he's bringing loaded yet unfounded comments and criticisms into a race he's not even present to report on. I'd sooner have Neil Stephen writing. At least I'd know I'm getting something of value for however much I paid him out of my Union fees this year...even if it's only entertainment.
StFX deserves better than Brian Cauley and this farce of an 'election blog'. Much, much better.
We should all be very, very ashamed to be a part of this 'fair and balanced' charade.
If I had anything to do with The U...either as a current member or as a candidate...I would be in serious discussions with my lawyer. Factless, baseless commentary like this cannot be allowed to stand. It makes a mockery of The U, this election, and, saddest of all, our votes on Election Day.
If The U is going to claim to be providing coverage of this election, they should at least have their correspondents present on campus for the campaign.
P.S. - Will Cauley ever be able to submit a post that actually makes proper use of the spelling and grammar rules established for the english language? Do we really let people like this write for The U?
Oh wait...riiiiiiiight.... now I remember.... we hire them year after year...
How much is Cauley being paid to post here anyhow? Does he have any interest in looking at the issues, or is that not in is contract?
From Cauley's bio on the front of this blog:
"A member of X-Debate and an avid photographer, Brian will capture the Connors/Matherson campaign in detail."
That's funny...I haven't seen a single picture or 'detail' here yet.
Can't TheU.ca do anything right?
Instead of talking about the issues of the campaign and about the candidates that are putting their limited time and lots of effort into engaging students, this is the THIRD post on this StFX Decides blog that's done in poor taste, takes personal character swipes, and distracts students from the REAL campaign. "Ovaries" anyone?
Now people will spend the day talking about how much of waste of bones this blogger is, instead of anything remotely connected to the campaign.
Good job, U.
Is this really how we're going to improve the way TheU communicates with students?
When I look at the U logo, it reads, "for Students, by Students." Therefore, it only makes sense that any potential candidates for the president/vice president position get thorough understandings of the current major issues that students have here at St. FX. I do not believe "ignorance" is the correct word for how Connors and Matheson are running this campaign. For the first time, there is a three week campaign. Connors and Matheson could have created their own platform, but, instead, smartly decided to take advantage of the longer campaign by building a platform on actual current issues. What better way to build a platform then to get input from the students that they want to represent? The Union currently has a problem with receiving input from its student body that it is supposed to represent. They have not done anything to find out what the problems students have with the union in order to fix them. I think that successful candidates for the President/VP position should do as much as possible to figure out what it is the students want and need from them. There is no better way to do this than by gaining student input at the very beginning, rather than writing a platform on their own. Scott and Pat are actually smart enough to take the time to deal with the students at a face to face level, multiple times, and build a platform that is for them, or for "U" Is that not what the union is supposed to be about? They are representing students, they are not ruling students. Having the conviction to consult students is representative of Pat and Scott's leadership.
P.S. Why aren't both writers writing for both campaigns?
All I can say is wow.... Brian, your baseless, tasteless claims are almost as atrocious as your spelling. As a member of the Xaverian Family who considers themselves community minded and involved I am embarrassed that this post is even being read in a public forum. I would be more concerned however if it was actually taken seriously.... thank goodness for that!
This campaign deserves better, these candidates (notice correct spelling) deserve better, the English language deserves better.
P.S. Tip for a future blog: research helps the credibility of a post and its author... reduces ignorance.
"P.S. Why aren't both writers writing for both campaigns?"
Good question.
Brian its great to read your points of view on C & M's Campaign. I Agree with you on so many points of the finer interworkings of "TheU".
When i think about theU, i think the same things...But im jaded. C &M will have to face a great learning curve if elected. I say these things and im a friend of theirs. I feel that they will strive to eliminate many of the problems that jaded people like me see with TheU.
I have complete faith in their abilities to face the task of running TheU.
I really enjoyed your blog and look forward to hearing more of your thoughts and views. A few references to what you see being the problems with "the inequality, lack of ethics, and corruption" would be nice. Id really like to read some and im sure lots of other people would too....but i guess thats more of a job for a council to tackle.
Good luck and take care.
In response to the first comment
Perhaps, if your going to complain about someone's use of language then it might be an idea to for you to use it correctly yourself.
Slander is spoken
Libel is printed
but since you have such command of the language then perhaps you would grace us with your banal wit and write for the blog yourself. The door is open
"If you don't have an affiliation with any campaign and are interested in writing, please e-mail su_comm@stfx.ca"
but wait, it seems likely that you are affiliated with the Connors & Matheson campaign and therefore could not write for the blog. So I guess you'll have to content yourself with offering asinine commentary, based on false assumptions, that provides only empty rhetoric.
from the wikipedia article on defamation:
'"Defamation" is the general term iused internationally, and is used in this article where t is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.'
Specific to Canadian Law:
"At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[15] Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame."
Post a Comment