Tag Archives: debate

Procrastination’s Weak Rebuttal?

It may be time to toughen up the exterior a bit, so it reflects more ideally the fires burning within. I can’t say that many of the posts here have been very much of the aggressive nature, but is it now time? Rage, rage, rage.

It started with innocent chatting over warm drinks that must include honey, but then it somehow it came around to some heated debate about the merits of a blog with procrastination as its title theme. I was urged to changed the title because it automatically predisposes readers to have a certain expectation when they visit, and usually those impressions are not overly positive. And if the focus is on the writing, on a variety of creative and current event topics, then it all gets consumed under that overhanging shadow of procrastination. Writing that has nothing to do with procrastination would get unfairly interpreted under that rubric.

Furthermore, they say, we would waste too much time trying to pigeon hole or slot writing into some relation with procrastination when the topic had no business even being in the vicinity. In addition, we would have our hands tied and be forced to write about procrastination every odd post even though there is no reason to. (I guess they wouldn’t approve of this current post I’m crapping out right now) And this would take valuable time away from other more important writing. Then they went on a psychological bent: It’s as if even when there are no procrastination issues, we purposely seek them out and create procrastination problems for ourselves!

By this time, I was the only one finished my drink with honey because the others were too occupied expressing their views. If the drink wasn’t warm enough to begin with, I am sure I was easily able to reheat it to the boiling point within my intestines. However, by the time the steam was able to make its way back up my system towards my mouth, it all dissipated into the form of mild voice that asked weakly, ‘So what is wrong with this procrastination rubric?’

Oh, and then the chorus came! All together in tremendous chorus! The chorus came raining down in unison! They said people often don’t go too close to the actual writing because they are turned away by the monstrous label. They fear being bombarded by a big group of postings in high pitched voices lamenting and commiserating about how so and so didn’t do what, and how such and such didn’t get what done, and a whole bunch of it’s okay, it’s okay, you’re okay, I’m okay, it’s all okay, you’re human kind of discourse.

Finally, I stood up. I stood up to them, or maybe just stood up in front of them. And said confidentally, “I have to go to the washroom.” Must have been the drink mixed with honey. Instead, I went home and browsed through all the posts to try to spot themes of ‘I’m okay, you’re okay…’

Maybe I should tone down my aggressiveness?




Filed under Procrastinator Diaries (Pat)

Debating about Debates

Just to continue the election discussion (with ready eye on differences between Canadian and U.S. system) started from a previous post along with links to other related stories and comments, I would like to add some more comments about Elizabeth May (leader of the Green Party) being excluded and then included in the television debate.

In another article from the Globe and Mail, it quotes that “Mr. Layton and Mr. Harper said they objected to her presence because, on occasion, she had expressed support for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. Allowing her into the debate would effectively put two Liberals on the stage, they argued.”

Do their reasons for excluding May, if true, seem a bit absurd and illogical, especially in a democracy? Are we not free, in a democratic country, to express our support for the party and leader we so desire? Are not leaders also free to agree with ideas and members from parties not their own? If there are, in fact, ‘two Liberals on the stage,” then maybe the other leaders should think long and hard about why those ‘liberal’ policies are attracting support and consider counteracting those ideas or buidling upon them and suggesting how their own parties can do a better job.

Indeed, in these build up to elections, so much, too much time is spent on arguing about procedures, how to play the game, rather than the substance of the game itself. It’s no wonder many Americans find our system odd when we have such heated debates on the participation of Elizebeth May, yet just automatically include the Bloc Party (whose only interest is in protecting French rights) as one of the players in every election.

How about in the States? Do these issues arise? Or maybe it’s worse in that only 2 parties are ever really in the debate? Or is actually less about the Party but the Presidential candidates? Other than Nader in the past, does any name even have any recognition beyond the 2 main parties?

Patrick Law


Filed under News