Despite the bombshell nature of many of the cuts suggested this week by a city-hired consultant, there is no stampede of Torontonians signing up to tell the politicians face-to-face, or in writing, how they feel about them.
I'll admit it never occurred to me to tell politicians how I feel about them. You know why? Because it's so blatantly obvious that they're destructive and unworkable, and I figured it's just as blatantly obvious to anyone who lives in the world. The KPMG study proves that there simply aren't workable cuts to be had by listing what few remaining things could even legally be cut. It isn't advocating cutting these things, it's pointing out how destructive large-scale cuts would be by saying that these important things are the things that would remain to be cut if large-scale cuts were to happen.
It really frustrates me that not wasting my time stating the obvious to politicians could be interpreted as support for or indifference to such destructive measures. And I think, on top of all the damage already being done to our city, this need to constantly be loudly shouting the obvious at the top of our lungs is also destructive to our city, because it takes away energy that could otherwise be used to think of ways to make things even better.
It's like if you had to say to every person you encountered "Please don't hurt me," and if you didn't they'd hurt you. That would be really draining, wouldn't it? You have to be totally on top of making sure you noticed every single person around you and said "Please don't hurt me" to them, plus it would preclude saying "Hi, how are you?" or "I love your shoes!" or "Can I pet your doggie?" And on top of that, it would also take up the energy you need to think "This sidewalk would be more easily navigable if the planters were flush with the curb" or "Hey, that store might sell greeting cards" or "What if I used the egg slicer to slice the mushrooms?"
Real life operates under a tacit assumption of the obvious. Of course people don't want you to hurt them. Why can't politics do the same?
2 comments:
It's a good analogy, but if we're told our silent means approval, we'd better expend a lot of energy getting loud. As stupid as that may seem to you, it's what we need to do.
In my communications with my politicians on this matter, I did point out that I had up to that point been silent because I was assuming it was that blatantly obvious, and that I would greatly prefer to be represented by people who take similarly obvious things as obvious.
It's just infuriating, because I'm absolutely certain that the amount of energy I've already spent begging this administration not to hurt me would have been enough to come up with a unique practical solution to some existing problem (plus all the useless crap you need to come up with before you arrive at something useable.) Which doesn't sound like a lot, but I'm just one person with an unrelated full-time job. There are two million people in the city, some of whose full-time job is to solve problems.
Post a Comment