Home ›

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: MEE TOO

by Graham Kenyon on 01 Jun 2009
in

Far, far away, high in the rolling, jungle-clad hills of the Golden Triangle  north of Chiang Mai in the farthest reaches of Thailand is a small village.   This village appears to be of considerable inspiration to the rulers of our  Mountain Kingdom, so much so that there is talk of a sister city, yet another  to add to our sisters in Zimbabwe and Moab, Utah.  The name of this village  is Mee Too.

Mee Too is renowned for the reputation it has gained by picking up the causes  and initiatives of others and carrying the torch for them as if it were their  own.  Mee Too has discovered over the years that there are warm and fuzzy  feelings to be had with very little effort by simply endorsing the passionate  opinions of others.  The issues may have little if any relevance to their own  community, and generally little thought is given to the potential  implications of where such issues might lead.

How easy it is to ‘earn’ a reputation for doing the right thing by simply  espousing political causes and organized campaigns without having to do the  work.  And there are so many of these causes: power projects on mountain  rivers, genetically modified foods, nuclear energy, stem cell research, the  oil sands, the fate of blue whales, even nibbling on the heart of a dead  seal.  What could be next?  Oh the power of voting for such causes with the  deluded assumption that they represent the views of the community as a whole;  so intoxicating; so warm and fuzzy.

Unfortunately Mee Too is a declining village in a declining province in a  troubled country.  Its economy is decimated by the decline of its major  industry, the growing of a particular plant said to have wondrous healing  powers.  The Golden Triangle is losing its lustre.  Yet the rulers of Mee Too  continue to be distracted by various and sundry causes, for now they have  this reputation amongst those who seek to change the world in various ways:  Mee Too is with us, Mee Too will support us, Mee Too will do as we ask.

Perhaps the rulers of the Mountain Kingdom should reconsider such a  relationship.  Moab is certainly harmless enough and certainly has relevance  to our community.  Zimbabwe has its problems, but at least it serves as a  reminder of what can happen when rulers assume absolute power in representing  the presumed views of the populace.  Whereas Mee Too is a diversion,  seductively sucking you into believing that supporting the cause celebre of  the day is actually doing something useful for the community rather than  focusing on the job you were elected to do.

Yours truly,


Graham Kenyon

Rossland

Comments

me too again...

by Kathy Moore on 11 Jun 2009 at about 18:37.
Point of clarification...while I supported the motions under discussion I did not put them forward nor did I vote for them- Of course, my disclaimer is very weak because I would have voted for them if I had been at the meeting (however I was out of town). And, a small reminder, while decisions of council can't always reflect the will of all citizens, there were plenty of Rosslanders who applauded our actions.

Me Too

by Graham Kenyon on 11 Jun 2009 at about 15:40.
I am pleased that my 'literary efforts' elicit the odd chuckle here and there. I confess that the suggestion that the bigger picture may be more sharply focused at the Council table than down here amongst us ordinary plebs had me chuckling too. Councillor Kathy has once again submitted her personal opinion in her customarily earnest letter, but that of course is my point. Kathy, apparently with the assistance of the West Kootenay EcoSociety, may have been successful in convincing three of the five councillors present to go along with her personal opinion, but that falls far short of any inference that her view represents that of the community as a whole, which is what the motion and communication to government will undoubtedly suggest. Councillors are elected to manage the affairs of the city in its best interests, not to use their position as a platform to further their own interests or support the interests of other groups who are similarly inclined, no matter how they might rationalize them as relevant. If Rossland is to be taken seriously and listened to by senior governments I suggest we would be better served by choosing our battles. Anti-IPP and GE-Free may be rousing slogans, but they will be viewed as simply parroting the organized campaigns of others, notably others of alternative political persuasions - coincidental I'm sure but nevertheless a consideration should we seek government support on matters that really are of critical importance for Rossland. When seeking to negotiate with the Arabs one would be well advised not to begin the conversation by declaring one's alliance with the Israelis. Graham Kenyon

Mee too, too

by Kathy Moore on 04 Jun 2009 at about 19:44.

Graham has once again submitted his personal opinion in a creative and humourous letter to the editor. I do get a chuckle when I read his literary efforts however, in my opinion, there is relevance to the statements of support that council has written.

Municipalities all over BC put together resolutions that frequently address broader concerns than just what is happening in their own backyards in an effort to communicate to the provincial government. As some have noticed, small rural communities have an hard time getting the Prov gov to listen even when we shout in unison but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. 

The issue of independent power projects, and the loss of local control that Provincial approval of these projects represents, effects everyone whether you have one in your back yard or not. The Provincial government is allowing large projects with significant enviromental impacts to be developed without adequate safeguards and without meaningful public input. This is not a sustainable model for resource management or governance for that matter.

While we don't have a river in Rossland that is the subject of an IPP a majority of council felt it was important to voice our concern about the loss of local control. There are those on council who feel strongly about protecting water rights, many of these rights have been eroded (no pun intended) over the years by the Provincial government.  Municipalities historically had the right to designate watershed boundaries to preserve their access to water. Once requested these protections were granted and respected by the Provincial  government. Over time, these rights have been severely curtailed, much of the erosion of protection was to benefit economic interests- mining and timber which provided jobs and many, many benefits. But , at some point, one has to recognize that if we don't safeguard our resources (water is the one in the spotlight here) the rest of the conversation just doesn't matter. At what point is it relevant to speak up? Only when its your water being taken? How about if it is your neighbors water? Not relevant?

On another issue, but one I think illustrates the point, council put together a resolution for the AKBLG which asked the provincial government to reconsider its policy on the distribution of "surplus school lands". The current policy severely effects what can happen to school properties and it doesn't give the local community many options. Now, perhaps some would ask why did we formulate that resolution? None of our schools are being closed this year, are they? No, they aren't but sometimes if you wait  to address an issue, you have waited too long and you are stuck with the unappealing consequences of your inaction. 

So yes, Mee Too is a lovely mythical village somewhere but Rossland is our lovely village and council is doing what we can to keep it that way. Of course we focus on the day-to-day issues but we look at the bigger picture too. No, we aren't distracted by these issues but we see relevance in them that perhaps some of our constituents don't. Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree.