Greg Felton has gotten in the habit of making accusations that I am following him around the internet maligning him. So if he sees someone make a comment that bruises his ego, he immediately jumps on it and pins the comment on me.
I would be flattered, except that I don't care. It was fun in the beginning, matching wits, exposing to the Craigslist community who was the guy behind the trash talk, it was a piece of investigative work that I was somewhat proud of. Once I realized that Greg is not one to change his stripes and behave in a civil fashion it became pointless, so I moved on to other things.
I still like to read his lacerating commentary directed at others less fortunate as I realized long ago that engaging him in discourse is an absolute waste of time and like any old dog you soon realize that his bark is worse than his bite.
Recently however CL posters were a featured sub-segment of one of Russell Scott's podcasts and he gave Greg Felton about 5 minutes to tear up Jamie Scott.
Transcript of the exchange:
From about 57:40 to 1:02:17
RS:Jamie Scott, You have anything to say about Jamie Scott? I don't think I've seen him on there lately.
GF: Ah, no, lets hope you don't. Huh. Jamie Scott is a bizarre character. I mean he came in the last election with the truth forum...
RS: I think Jamie Scott has some good ideas I am unsure about his motives, I'll just leave it there but I think he has some good ideas I don't think they are all that well formed however...go ahead
GF:Not for...anybody I, I question him yesterday about the Truth Party and how you can't call yourself the Truth Party the truth is not something you can own. The truth is a matter of perception. Once you call yourself the Truth Party then you become little more than a tyrant. Because you have for example pravda, in Russia, means truth, so does istina and um so you have the Russians say this is the truth, the party truth, you read this and well people...I was in Russia and people didn't really believe what they read. So Jamie Scott really is half-baked um I find him quite ridiculous. But he is also rather negative factor because there are some very good people out there who want to reform politics we need reform, we desperately need reform and we can't really respect independent thinkers if they act in such bizarre and totalitarian ways the way Jamie Scott did. When Jamie Scott really had I don't think had much to say. He had maybe a few ideas battling around his head but they were not formed, they were not developed, they were not formed, they weren't really ideas, they were like disembodied notions looking for a home and so I just found him quite ridiculous and I think he is dangerous in many ways, he poisons the political environment for other people who want to start up their own political party. If someone like Jamie Scott can say well this guy is a bit of a crank I mean he got nothing in the last election he made these outrageous statements, why am I going to trust any other independent...candidate, is he typical or what? So I thought it was...I think we'd be better off without him and I hope he sort of...I hope he stays away. I just don't think he ought....
RS: I am hearing more out of Stewart Easton than Jamie Scott these days.
GF: I don't hear much from St...I don't pay much attention to the forum anymore... I found it too much of an energy suck, that's why.
RS:Greg well enough with the politics forum.
RS: I noticed that the politics forum I've noticed is kind of dead these days so...
End of Transcript
So I gotta ask? Is Jamie ridiculous? Or is Jamie dangerous? It doesn't appear to me that he could be both. I suspect you really think he is the latter for you dismiss his "disembodied notions" without addressing what they are and accuse him of being "bizarre" and a "totalitarian" and a "tyrant". Not a bad piece of work, if you worked for FOX news. I expected better from you.
I think Mr. Felton's understanding of our political system works is lacking. He seems to think that if we get a few non-mainstream candidates that don't tote the line then the perception of independents as a whole goes down the drain. I hate to break it to him but our entire political system is set up to favour parties, not independents. If he actually had partaken in the last federal election he would know this.
What Mr. Felton doesn't like is populists. He has said as much. And the list of what he deems as populist encompasses a fair number of parties/movements, well pretty much all of them except the main three parties and perhaps the Greens. What he doesn't acknowledge is even if populist movements don't get the reigns of power (and history says the deck is stacked against them), established parties will adopt populist measures if only to maintain their political legitimacy.
Let's talk about the last federal election.
I find it laughable that Mr. Felton points to the last federal election and makes statements like "he got nothing in the last election". What were you expecting Mr. Felton? Dona Cadman, whom by all accounts was a no-show for the last election, got about 13,181 votes.
All for doing nothing, because she had the backing of money and the momentum of being an incumbent. The winner of that riding Jasbir Sandhu, although not particularly articulate or impressive at the debates he showed up at, won by a over a thousand votes.
Let's look at what was spent. Shinder Purewal spent the most and came in third at $84,753. Dona spent the second most at $78,926. Jasbir spent the 3rd most but came in first, his price tag was $75,464. The range between difference spent the 1st and 3rd candidate is less than 10K, but all outspent the bottom 4 candidates many times over. Money buys elections. You can see some other factors that influence votes, such as name recognition (i.e. Green Party), but ultimately money is what gets you elected.
Jamie's performance wasn't atypical of most independents that ran.
You can see that his performance pretty much played out as was expected. As did all the independents with few exceptions. Not because he is outrageous, not because he is "totalitarian", but because he ran with little money and little support, as most independents do. Noteworthy is that Jamie did beat the Christian Heritage and Libertarian candidate which have traditionally beaten independents and more fringe party candidates like CAP in previous years.
Most astonishing is that at the debates where the Liberal and NDP candidate showed up, no one rebutted Jamie Scott's statement about how private (or chartered) banks are charging the government interest on money that could be issued interest free by the Bank of Canada. I mean, you would think that the other candidates would jump all over him, an opening like that. Not a thing. Except that the Libertarian candidate echoed his statement and the CHP candidate did as well. Response from the mainstream candidates? Zero. So you could draw the conclusion that most politicians do not have any idea how our monetary system works, or if they are in a party they just shut up about it.
I would say that I didn't see neither of you running, so whether Jamie's performance was good or bad is moot. He took a risk and engaged in the process, which is more than I can say for most. This is a great failing in our society, that we raise up our children to be afraid to fail, and by doing so condemn them to a life of mediocrity.
Let's discuss the nature of the name "Truth".
This brings back so many memories, this was the exact same argument you used way back in the day and it holds as much meaning then as it does now. To paint a clear picture, the name is irrelevant. It was something Jamie picked to encapsulate the "idea" that politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us and should be obligated by law to be honest or suffer the consequences. "Truth" seems to capture the essence of that very well, it is a logical connection. What you are accusing him of is engaging in doublespeak without ever having demonstrated that Jamie has any Orwellian intentions what-so-ever. If it helps, lately he has been thinking about "BC United", hopefully that passes your doublespeak filter, oh wait, dammit, "United" he really means "divided". Let us get back to you on this, we might have to go with the "It" party or just The "Party" party, or the "the" party.
Sorry I'm going to segue to Russell for a second, because this fits in with Mr. Felton's accusations of tyranny and totalitarianism. First, you must realize the irony that the same issues Greg takes with Jamie's choice of name also would apply to the West Coast TRUTH. Second, why exactly are you unsure of Jamie's motives? Oligarchy relies on nepotism, trappings of privilege and influence. Jamie is not rich nor does he circulate in professional circles (lawyers, doctors, businessmen, bankers). Of course you could be unsure of other "motives", if so please enlighten me.
Back to the idea that politicians should be obligated to tell the truth. I would say that this is not an isolated feeling that only Jamie Scott harbors.
Is this blogger bizarre?
Perhaps Duff Conacher LL.B in this article for iPolitic.ca is equally "bizarre".
Or maybe it is the seed of an idea that maybe, just maybe, politicians should be held to the same standard of ethics that doctors or certified accountants are held to. If a doctor or accountant lies to their patient/client they are going to lose their job and their license, we don't wait a number of years to elapse then vote them out. Why on earth is it so hard to expect the same treatment for those that make all the important decisions for 4 year blocks of time?
Are we to assume that most of the population of Canada have infantile reasoning? Can I infer that by Greg's comment that a survey said over half of the people voted for Harper so they didn't have to vote again? And from Russell's comment from a previous show that you want only smart people like Jimmy Pattison running the economy?
If that is so then it follows that as children we need to be lied to. It also follows that the current government is a bad parent. As all good parents know, if you want your children to grow up and be responsible adults you need to tell them the truth about things.