[Advisors] Let community re-think community

Sun, 06 May 2012 21:27:41 -0300

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3419184464_2503045
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Which has everything to do with the nature of democracy and people. And
nothing particularly Canadian.

On 12.05.06 3:01 PM, "James Van Leeuwen" <jvl@ventus.ca> wrote:

> Being 'less bad' than the Greeks or the Americans is utterly irrelevant t=
o the
> issue at hand.
>=20
> This isn't about beating ourselves up.
>=20
> It's about holding ourselves to account for what we are indisputably
> accountable for as democratic citizens.
>=20
> It's our government, and we get the governments we deserve.
>=20
>=20
> JvL
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 2012-05-06, at 11:03 AM, Gary Kenward wrote:
>=20
>> Re: [Advisors] Let community re-think community
>> As compared to say the US (have you followed the republican primary)? Or=
 the
>> Greeks?
>>=20
>> Regardless, the first step is to stop beating ourselves up over what we =
are
>> not.
>>=20
>> Gary
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 12.05.06 1:32 PM, "James Van Leeuwen" <jvl@ventus.ca
>> <x-msg://1163/jvl@ventus.ca> > wrote:
>>=20
>>> It says that Canadians still don't have the emotional and intellectual
>>> maturity for substantive discourse around morals and values.
>>>=20
>>> It says we need to grow up.
>>>=20
>>> James
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 2012-05-05, at 1:22 PM, Garth Graham wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> > On 2012-05-05, at 12:19 AM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>>>> >=20
>>>>> >> Garth asks:
>>>>> >> What kind of a society do we want? =8A  I think the very essence of =
the
>>>>> challenge we Canadians face today is that we have so many conflicting
>>>>> visions of what we want our society to look like. =8A  What we lack is
>>>>> sufficient moral capital to bind the nation into a common and cohesiv=
e
>>>>> society with a meaningful purpose and a coherent vision for itself.  =
=8A
>>>>> Without an appealing new moral vision and narrative to bind us togeth=
er,
>>>>> collaboration and cooperation across groups will be next to impossibl=
e.
>>>> >=20
>>>> > James, I congratulate you on risking discussion of values when, from=
 my
>>>> experience, the tolerance of Canadians for matters philosophical is pr=
etty
>>>> limited.  The first and only time I dared wade into that debate about
>>>> narrative was in June of 1994 (see attached report of a workshop on
>>>> electronic democracy).  The report predicts, accurately, that without
>>>> ongoing discussion of values there would be no real basis for effectiv=
e
>>>> public policies about Canada's transformation into a digital society. =
 What
>>>> does a silence that's now 18 years deep say about the current content =
of
>>>> public policy?
>>>> >=20
>>>> > GG
>>>> >=20
>>>> > <Values debate.rtf>
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advisors mailing list
>>> Advisors@tc.ca <x-msg://1163/Advisors@tc.ca>
>>> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Gary Kenward
>>=20
>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
>=20
>=20

Gary Kenward

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

--B_3419184464_2503045
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Advisors] Let community re-think community</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Which has everything to do with the nature of democracy and people. And no=
thing particularly Canadian. 
 
 
On 12.05.06 3:01 PM, &quot;James Van Leeuwen&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"jvl@ventus.=
ca">jvl@ventus.ca</a>&gt; wrote: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><=
SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12pt'>Being 'less bad' than the Greeks or the American=
s is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. 
 
This isn't about beating ourselves up. 
 
It's about holding ourselves to account for what we are indisputably accoun=
table for as democratic citizens. 
 
It's our government, and we get the governments we deserve. 
 
 
JvL 
 
 
 
On 2012-05-06, at 11:03 AM, Gary Kenward wrote: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><=
SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12pt'>Re: [Advisors] Let community re-think community =
 
As compared to say the US (have you followed the republican primary)? Or th=
e Greeks? 
 
Regardless, the first step is to stop beating ourselves up over what we are=
 not. 
 
Gary 
 
 
On 12.05.06 1:32 PM, &quot;James Van Leeuwen&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"jvl@ventus.=
ca">jvl@ventus.ca</a> &lt;x-msg:<a href=3D"//1163/jvl@ventus.ca">//1163/jvl@ve=
ntus.ca</a>&gt; &gt; wrote: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>It says that Canadians still don't have the emotiona=
l and intellectual maturity for substantive discourse around morals and valu=
es. 
 
It says we need to grow up. 
 
James 
 
 
 
On 2012-05-05, at 1:22 PM, Garth Graham wrote: 
 
&gt; On 2012-05-05, at 12:19 AM, James Van Leeuwen wrote: 
&gt; 
&gt;&gt; Garth asks: 
&gt;&gt; What kind of a society do we want? &#8230; &nbsp;I think the very =
essence of the challenge we Canadians face today is that we have so many con=
flicting visions of what we want our society to look like. &#8230; &nbsp;Wha=
t we lack is sufficient moral capital to bind the nation into a common and c=
ohesive society with a meaningful purpose and a coherent vision for itself. =
&nbsp;&#8230; &nbsp;Without an appealing new moral vision and narrative to b=
ind us together, collaboration and cooperation across groups will be next to=
 impossible. 
&gt; 
&gt; James, I congratulate you on risking discussion of values when, from m=
y experience, the tolerance of Canadians for matters philosophical is pretty=
 limited. &nbsp;The first and only time I dared wade into that debate about =
narrative was in June of 1994 (see attached report of a workshop on electron=
ic democracy). &nbsp;The report predicts, accurately, that without ongoing d=
iscussion of values there would be no real basis for effective public polici=
es about Canada's transformation into a digital society. &nbsp;What does a s=
ilence that's now 18 years deep say about the current content of public poli=
cy? 
&gt; 
&gt; GG 
&gt; 
&gt; &lt;Values debate.rtf&gt; 
 
_______________________________________________ 
Advisors mailing list 
<a href=3D"Advisors@tc.ca">Advisors@tc.ca</a> &lt;x-msg:<a href=3D"//1163/Advis=
ors@tc.ca">//1163/Advisors@tc.ca</a>&gt; 
<a href=3D"http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors">http://victoria.t=
c.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors</a> 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
<=
BR>
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%">Gary Kenward 
 
<FON=
T COLOR=3D"#FF0000">THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THI=
S DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE>=
 
 
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%">Gary Kenward 
 
<FON=
T COLOR=3D"#FF0000">THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THI=
S DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 

</BODY>
</HTML>

--B_3419184464_2503045--