I know you have your tongue firmly in cheek, Alan, but it's possible some of your readers aren't as worldly as you and might even believe that crap about voter turnout in elections on PEI. For those who were fooled by Alan's impish sense of humour, voter turnout on our Island IS usually high in elections, because there is a strong tradition of interest in politics that goes back to the days of land reform and escheat.

Some people DO support one party or another in hopes of landing seasonal work or a government contract. Of course, it's not glorified by titles such as "Lobbyist" or "campaign contributor" the way it is in larger jurisdictions - like, say, Ontario. And unlike Ontario, on the Island it's carried on largely at the personal, rather than corporate level. But yeah, it exists.

It was a good thing, I think, that the result - even with only 30% or so turnout - was so lopsided. It really does put the question to rest - at least for now. A change from the existing system (with all its inherent flaws, which are all too familiar to ANY Canadian) to the proposed system was not what Islanders wanted - period.

The two great arguments: it is not that bad and if it is it is worse elsewhere. That's the crap, Nils, seeing as you are so thin-skinned about something. But that is to be expected when commenting on PEI culture or governance with anything but pure praise is oddly but consistently treated like telling someone that their sister is ugly. Sometimes, Nils, the sister is just plain ugly.

For whatever reason, if I'm having a bad day, chances are pretty good it's a Tuesday.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned about it, Alan. I'm more than happy to put the Island up alongside anywhere else a person would want to live and let the respective merits and drawbacks decide the issue. Because every place has its merits and its drawbacks.

I just don't get the whole "everything sucks about PEI because patronage exists" thing that is so much a recurring theme in your views about the Island. Patronage does exist, and it's wrong ... but it's really not an overweaning issue for most of us.

I guess if your ox has been gored, I can appreciate some residual bitterness. But on a day-to-day basis, it's really not the giant elephant in the living room that you seem to always make it out to be. We eat, sleep, play, work, shop, and generally just live our lives in a place of surpassing natural beauty, relatively mild climate (for Canada), and people who are every bit as nice and friendly and kind and engaging (and venal, and petty, and small, too) as people anywhere else in this country.

Fact is, for most of us who choose to live here (and, as you demonstrated, it IS a choice), the Island is a very satisfactory place to be. If there is resistance to change, perhaps our satisfaction with the status quo is a part of it. And perhaps we've seen the results of change for change's sake and want an argument more compelling than "this is how it's done elsewhere."

If you asked me to, I could rattle off a dozen things I don't like about living in PEI. But I could do the same about Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and any other place I've lived. I choose not to, because that doesn't do much to add to my satisfaction or peace of mind.

I like where I live, and I think I react with the same degree of defensiveness and sensitivity when it is unfairly criticized as we all would if an American stood up and started pontificating about how Canada sucks because the metric system is a gummint plot. Without intending, he's insulting us and our intelligence, for being that idiotic as to live in a place like Canada.

So when an event happens here, and the same tired old cynical cliches surface about "it's not what you know, it's who you know" and "103 percent turnout" (criticized for voting? There's a concept!) and blahblahblah corrupt nepotism blahblah patronage blah", I do tend to react with a degree of annoyance. Don't feel bad - I do the same when a mosquito is in the tent and it finds my ear.

Sometimes the sister IS ugly (not mine, of course, but some peoples'). But you know what? In a polite society, you're entitled to feel sorry for the sister, and you don't have to date her ... but why would you walk up and tell a guy his sister is ugly? And if you do, and he punches you in the nose ... well, hands up, everybody who would blame him.

I thought not.

Well, it's all the things you don't like to talk about like politics and economics that I like to talk about so it is no wonder you will find it starting to see someone have strong opinions but you don't need to get all black and white about it. As you well know, I was quite happy with lots about PEI so your slag about that is pointless but to not understand or perhaps admit the challenges PEI faces with its democratic processes is just naive on your part and, if you are frank, really just about your loyalty and whatever you include in peace of mind.<p>So if you don't like people having a discussion or making a comment about the things that disturb your peace of mind why not just keep it to yourself. Save the offended bluster for someplace else. Jumping in to say it is wrong to make comment is the worst sort of bullying censorship. But if you ever feel like discussing the topic as opposed to be insulted that the topic is being discussed, feel free. I won't hold my breath, though, as that might put you to having to explain yourself as opposed to simply naysaying.

Whoa. Sorry. I'm not sure where all the rage is coming from, but I sure didn't mean to provoke it and I'll withdraw from the conversation at this point.

No problem Nils. I was thinking in the middle of the night that you and I were both grumbing "arse butt moron" a bit too much last evening. I know we vigourously disagree about PEI politics but I am quite glad to know that there is someone with common sense on the other side of the disagreement.

I am sorry to see the debate fade. I have not jumped in, due to terminal jet lag, but confess to a good chuckle this AM when I read this exchange. Nils' comments pretty much reflect my view of our chosen home.

Fortunately (for my blood pressure), Al's continued mean-spirited and snide 'everything about PEI is bad', no longer enter my horizon of relevance. Much like Leo Broderick with a bull-horn, I just turn off any serious consideration to the comment - even though serious consideration may be deserved.

Al's continued insulting, contemptuous and patronizing comments about our home have become nothing more than noise(to me) - not because they are inaccurate (in some instances), but rather due to the fact they are offered in a sneering and mean way. To bad really, as it is not a reflection of the man I know. It also takes away from the validity of some of the comments and the likelihood that it might encourage me to enter the debate.

I love my home, I love many of the people who have become cherished friends and neighbours, I know there are things needing change here - and change will come when there is a desire to make change. I find no need to point out the negative features of other places I have lived, or might live at some point in the future.

I find no need to defend why I love this place.

Living here is like being in a 30 year relationship with someone you love. You know your partner has warts, you know where they are, but you love your partner anyway.

OK - then let's be blunt. You are a censorer and are blinded to discussing a part of the whole by seeing it as an "attack" on the whole, on your friends, on you. It is dingbattery of the highest order <i>and</i> perpetuates the problems that elsewhere you moan on and on about. So it is also hypocrisy. Congratulations.<p>You can love the place and also recognize its faults and try to do something but, like the time I was sushed for pointing out that my children's school had a tavern in the basement, that takes dealing with bland broad brushed attitudes like Craig's. Next time you go on about the lack of a democratic vigour in your province, Craig, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you fear discussion.

OK, after a night to reflect (and to caution myself against using intemperate language), I'm back. And I do think we both got a little grouchy when really all we have is a recurring difference of opinion on one topic.

I'm going to dispute the censorship thing - both on my behalf and on Craig's. Neither of us has said you oughtn't express your opinion of PEI (and I'm guessing that would be a futile effort anyway). What we have both shown is a willingness (in my case an eagerness) to challenge your views if they differ from ours. I'd say that's the exact opposite of censorship, and I see no fear of discussion or debate on my part or on Craig's.

What provokes me to respond - and without response there cannot be vigourous debate or discussion - are blanket statements that I see as inaccurate, condescending, patronizing, and yes, insulting. I'm not usually personally insulted, but that's not the point. When you insult an entire province - sneer at its people for holding certain attitudes that they feel have served them well over time or snip contemptuously at them for allowing faults to exist in their political system that may simply just be more visible because of scale - I do feel compelled to stand up for them, because in the end I feel closer to their side than I do to yours on this particular battleground.

I'll never challenge your right - your responsibility - to raise your voice against what you see as a wrong in society. But it's also fair to ask that you not challenge my right - my responsibility - to debate that with you at every turn where we disagree.

Now stop with the dingbattery.

That is fine as long as you two drop the "it ain't bad and if it is it is worse elsewhere" unillustrated argument. I expect some will be insulted when I write these things just as I would if I wrote about the Irvings in 1970s New Brunswick, say, or Nova Scotia in the days before the <i>Halifax Daily News</i>. <p>The most interesting thing in your irritation is that it is exactly the same irritation that Larry Gorman, that poet of PEI in the 1800s until he was run out of the province, caused when he relected on the same issues of the harmful, authoritarian, company-town side of the PEI culture. Until you take on an understanding that side of the culture there you are not actually experiencing the culture as a whole, you are living the Disneyfied life of a part resident...which is pretty close to what an Islander would actually consider you to be.<p>You have to ask yourselves why comment on the province creates the anger that it does. Ask a NBer my age about his home and he or she would likely discuss why it sucks, illustrating the sort of hardship the novels of David Adams Richards writes on the life in the Marimichi. Similarly, artists from Newfoundland and PEI who comment on their homes see the bad. Find a copy of Lea McKay Jr's novel on the man-made Westray disaster called <i>Twenty-Six</i> If you come away thinking PEI is bless to never had the sorts of things McKay and Richards write about, you would simply have turned your mind off. If you come away thinking why PEI does not create art that expresses its reality in this way, you have made a start.

I'm not sure why you don't believe I have the intellectual capacity to understand that there are faults with PEI and still find it an entirely satisfactory place to live. I'd never claim it's perfect, and when I grouse to my neighbours, we can all agree there are things that we'd like to see changed (although we might not always concur on timetables or methods of change).

Part of it might be the sniping from a distance. I know you lived here, and have some insights into the Island culture, and can speak authoritatively on some topics. But sniping from outside will never sit well with anyone. A Kingston resident would bristle if someone from Ottawa made fun of his town; when I lived in Winnipeg we pilloried Dieter Brock when he left to go to Hamilton saying "Winnipeg's OK, but there's not much to do other than the Zoo". The man had lived through several Winnipeg winters and had barely boarded the plane out of town - surely someone like that can comment on the city, yes? NO - emphatically NO ... or be prepared to face against people who still choose to be there defending their home.

I also don't quite understand why, when someone has chosen to live in a place, they wouldn't be expected to answer criticism with "It's not that bad". I mean, if it WAS that bad, would they still choose to live there? Perhaps, if they were a moron. But assuming measurable IQ, you'd have to concede that someone who chooses to live somewhere does so because faults which you find unbearable are "not that bad" to him.

It's also valid, I think, to say "... and it's just as bad anywhere else." Again, it goes to why I choose to live in a place with faults that you deem unbearable. Either I CAN bear them ("It's not so bad") or I don't see how my lot would be improved by moving ("... and if it is, it's worse elswhere.") Either way, it's a valid argument for continuing to live in a place and feel affection for it.

And perhaps that what you're not understanding: that we DO feel affection for this place, warts and all. I'd want to pluck a few hairs, for sure, maybe even trim around the edges. But change its essential nature? Not so much. It ain't so bad, and if it is, it's just as bad or worse somewheres else.

By the way, if you think a Newfoundlander would smile pleasantly and agree with you if you told him that Newfoundland sucks, you need to meet some Newfoundlanders. Those people will defend their damn WEATHER.

The reason why I did not write a Newfoundlander would say that is because I know a Newfoundlander would not say that. I wrote NBer for that purpose.<p>"Sniping from away" I think is the core of your anger as there seems to be the need for some sort of cultural purity in the speaker before comment is valid. You have made your place and endured therefore other opinions are invalid. That is fine but it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of the objective facts about PEI provincial politics and culture. There is, in addition to this homesteadery need to be pure to be valid, the need to accept the unusual association of politics so closely with culture - and also personal identity - something that I have not found elsewhere. If you don't accept and participate in this construct, you can't comment on the construct. So the construct cannot be questioned. People joke about it - but Cyn and I recently agreed on a thread at her place it is PEI's cancer not its sport. This is not only about the particular loyality and dependency to this party or that party - but the cultural validation that the system is as good and (be honest as to what people really think) better....despite little or no evidence offered for that. This unique intersection between the system of governance and culture in PEI is quite facinating and is one I will continue commenting on it and invite actual discussion on the point as opposed to rejections of the right to have the discussion at all, which you are really still continuing even with your nicer comment above. Pick up the problem and think about it. Read Gorham and the others I meantion. Why are things are they are and how might they be improved? Craig might call this arrogance (a term he slings easily to all but, ironically, himself given his nickname and his penchant for pointing out the failings of others) but it is really only objective thinking.<p>I do think that the particular intersection of culture and politics <i>is</i> part of the life there and a unique one in how it plays out. The fact that you or I or Craig have friendly neighbours is irrelevant to that discussion as is the fact that, though much of the source of each your income is not there, your home is. That you are made uncomfortable and wish I would not write about what I know and experienced and continue to experience is interesting but also irrelevant. It is also something I find fairly sad and which I can't but see also as itself an illustration of the unique intersection between culture and politics there. Is there any other place that I knew about that I could not discuss, make fun of or think about? I don't live in most parts of the world. By your logic they are all off limits. That is just weird. I think your concerns for my comments if they were on Manitoba, say, would not be as deep seated as most Manitobans really are not concerned or personally insulted (as most people are) if someone has a particular view of their culture. I think that goes some way to explain why good analytical art about PEI is not created. That censorship thing.

I think if you read my comments slowly and carefully, and with an unanticipated open mind, you will see that I have not made any great effort to defend what is deemed to be 'wrong' with our home. Nor, after another read, have I seen Nils react in a particularly defensive manner.

No one, including most residents of this place, will try to deny with any great conviction, there there are things that need to be changed. Politically, perhaps culturally (although, I would feel just a bit arrogant if I was to say the culture should be changed), and any number of other areas that I can't think of at the moment - they all need change.

That many of us deem the good to far out weigh the bad, does not make us lesser for our choice.

What causes me to bristle, on occasion, is not what Al says, but how he says it.

Al commented, "Craig might call this arrogance (a term he slings easily to all but, ironically, himself given his nickname and his penchant for pointing out the failings of others) but it is really only objective thinking." Indeed, objective or just mean spirited.

As to a penchant for pointing out the failings of others - hmmmm, really?

Wait a minute! Al, you hate my province? I am crushed.

But more importantly, where is this school with the tavern in the basement?

Whoa here.
Just re-read the original post that started this thread.

And dammit - I AGREE!

What the hell is all the fuss about?

And just to sling shit around a little further - I can't see how either Nils or (God Bless him and please don't be mad at me) my beloved HB can say anything on the subject of PEI as NEITHER ONE OF THEM ARE ISLANDERS!!!

So there.

Does that mean I'll be run off the Island?

But you do! I am not being mean but you say fellow X or fellow Y is an unbearable arse on a fairly regular basis and you do reference setting dogs on Mormons. Am I wrong in suggesting you are not exactly pure sweetness and light? This is not saying you are not a fine fellow but there is a...umm... grumpiness. I admit what you say is right about me. I do like to poke fun even where the flesh is already sore. It is usually fine it seems unless I poke fun at PEI. But that is just a fact. PEI does not like jokes about itself. And I was not born to make your lives easier. So there you have it.<p>But what I find more interesting is your idea about suggesting changing culture as arrogant. Long before PEI and I met, I had wondered if there were cultures which were actually bad or good whether they suffered from degrees of badness or goodness if measured against the ability to produce a genuaine attractive presence to an outside or to express itself honestly in art or even wealth. That is something I find interesting, for example, about the North Country of New York as a really attractive self-aware area. Its differences despite largely the same conditions as you find in eastern Ontario or the Maritimes is compelling - especially to itself in all the honest writing you can find as well as the radio of NCPR. There also is a recent novel on the North Country called <i>Florida</i> by Mason Smith I would like to read. I don't use this example only to kiss up to Craig, born of the North Country, but as a place that honestly and accurate celebrates itself, most nearly to the way Newfoundland does. <p>So, if a culture can identify itself and its characteristics accurately, can it not improve on its nature by will or is it static, bound to be what it was regardless of whether it is strongly anchored or adrift. You have to have that conversation, of course, to even start on that path. Could you, say, have a real conference in PEI on the problems the community faces without a quick reversion to the "things are great and better than elsewhere" group hug?

The school was in Rustico. And non-Islander residents can't run an Islander off the Island. It's somewhere in the Old Testament.

Ah. Off to Rustico then.

<sigh>..CG called me beloved..I am off to languish in the after glow..left in a weakened state and can't reply to the thought that Al might be kissing up.

Again, I insist that nobody is suggesting you not say anything bad about PEI. Fill yer boots. But do it in the full knowledge that there will be those who disagree with you.

I don't know why it's so important to you that we concur with your view of PEI. Surely it's a subjective thing - not that flaws exist but how deeply those flaws impact the culture of a place and the quality of life that people can experience here.

I'm more than happy to let you have your own view of the Island, but reserve the right to disagree. If you don't favour disagreement and the resultant debate in your corner of the internets, you have options which include (but are hardly limited to):

1. Banning my ass
2. Not provoking a debate
3. Provoking debate, then winning me over with reasoned discourse

What you don't have is the option to alter my opinions by belittling them. That just won't work.

Frankly, I'd be sorry to see you choose either #1 or #2. As much as we all sometimes get careless with tone and tenor of the debate - and don't accord one another the respect we all feel we so richly deserve - I can't think of folks with whom I would rather argue.

"but you say fellow X or fellow Y is an unbearable arse on a fairly regular basis and you do reference setting dogs on Mormons."

I believe my words were more along the lines of he or she being an overbearing loud mouth lout. As to setting dogs on Mormons - your are again, incorrect. I would be most disappointed in myself if I was to appear as a religious bigot towards anyone's faith.

What I have said, is that by allowing the dogs to go to the door first, the god peddlers have discontinued showing up at my door. Get it right, Al. While I am respectful of anyone's faith, at times even a little envious, I am resentful of the fact they the peddlers continued to come to my door after I have politely asked them (on three occasions) to stop knocking on my door.

I am surprised at your comment "But what I find more interesting is your idea about suggesting changing culture as arrogant." I have a great deal of respect for other cultures (presuming here, that there is an actual Island culture)- and as an outsider, I am mindful of the need to respect a local custom or attitude.

At one time, I, too, enjoyed the arguing and banter. Unfortunately, belittling, mean-spiritedness and banning did it in for me here. Now, I occasionally read, and most of the times only shake my head instead of commenting about the Island bashing, relegating it to, as HB said, nothing but noise. Dropping out has made everybody happy, especially the 2 year old I hang out with, whom I hug and tell bedtime stories about Angus MacLean, Joe Ghiz, PEI hospitality and sense of place, and especially how the Island came to be <i>the center of the world.</i>

Good Lord, Craig:<blockquote class="smalltext"><i>What I have said, is that by allowing the dogs to go to the door first, the god peddlers have discontinued showing up at my door.</i></blockquote>From my perspective, I am quite happy that I <i>did</i> get that right on that as well as the lout/arse thing. a distinction without a difference if ever there was. We are not dealing in distinctions at the nanotechnological level here, Craig. And if you are not a participant in your community maybe you would find the idea of effecting change odd but that is not the place most find themselves in. It is interesting as it is sort of like what Nils is saying - are each of you are saying you are sort of not connected. Which is fine as you may both see yourselves as outsiders but, as good old Pat Martel might ask, how does that make you feel? Is actually engagement not possible if you were not born there?<p>Nils, it is not important to me at all that you agree with my views but it is odd that your response have little to do with your community - the topic - so much as disturbance to your personal comfort and peace of mind. So why would I ban you so much as invite you to think about the problem I discuss, as I have, rather than continuing to see the mere identification of an issue itself as the problem. It is up to you to not just say there are no problems as you have above but tell others why the democratic deficit is not a problem. Why do you think the entire commission and referendum was held if not to deal with a problem? Why do you think the government set up the referendum and then did a a sort of hatchet job on it. Details. If you are going to take offence at a light comment shouldn't you have to give people something to agree or disagree with.<p>So, you two email back and forth some more and come up with some specifics, OK? Tag.

Forget about that chip on your shoulder, Wayne. I'd be interested in your views on what Craig and Nils have expressed about themselves. Is it their place to seek to improve the community at the centre of the universe or are they right to shy away?

1) People who know me, even a little know there is never a chip on my shoulder.
2) “Is it their place to seek to improve the community?”. The point of contention is how one sees the best way to accomplish that admirable, albeit lofty goal. I totally agree with Craig and Nils, and disagree with the premise of your argument which indicates that in order to have the improvement of ones community at heart, one must constantly and solely nit-pick, focus on the negative, misrepresent, exaggerate, or portray as uniquely wrong?and more importantly, that by choosing to disagree with you or take issue with your portrayal, that they are “shying away”.

You are a good, interesting writer?should you sometime soon realize your material does not need the above mentioned strategies in order to be interesting or to have an impact (whether or not the topic is the place you choose to leave behind), your message will not suffer in the least. To be blunt, I contend that the masking of repeated diatribes with the veiled whimper that it is all for Islander’s and Island citizen’s own good, is pathetic. And, is easy to see through.

When Leo B is tuned out, it is because he has telegraphed his message, and as a result, he has a credibility problem, especially because his topics are extremely focused on what he sees as social injustice and his view of what is right. Really, when it comes to discussion about PEI, you are in the same boat?having only one mantra. You have chosen to only raise issues that mock the province and its people. Only when so accused do you ever respond with a comment about anything good or positive about my home. It is passive-aggressive writing, and it is so far below you as a talented writer, a well educated father with a career to be proud of, someone who can make a difference and a person who certainly has an appreciation of rural life and life in the Maritimes. If improving life here is a real concern of yours - which would come from goodwill felt towards your topic - demonstrate that goodwill and take that other road, the one you have traveled less, more often.

Thank you for inviting my opinion?for what it is worth. I hope it does not cause as much discourse as the last time it was called for, and I hope it will be seen only as a challenge to do better in the way I see as best, of course.

Your site is still changing 3 consective periods, used as a bridge in my writing, and changing them to question marks. I thought you would have solved this little quirk by now...:)

I think that querk is in your browser unless you are using an entity for the three dots instead of the "..."<p>It is sad when an invite is turned down. I wanted you to speak to the point I mentioned which is what Nils and Craig are doing by distancing themselves as they do. I don't really care what you think about my writing style or how I don't fit into your idea of what a family man should think. You see mockery everywhere and I can't help that as you had it before you ever came here and will have that fear of others not liking what you like after you are gone. But have a ginger tea and relax. I <i>am</i> interesting in whether you think that Craig is right in not engaging with the process as an outsider. Go there and it might be interesting...and maybe something you have not thought about before.

I absolutely acknowledge that there is/was a problem worthy of the commission's attention and a plebescite, and I think it's admirable that in PEI an effort was made to adjust a system of government that voters (if not politicians) in virtually every Canadian province are seeing as archaic and unresponsive to the elecorate's clear intentions.

That initiative - and the government's willingness to consider the question in mid-term and without tying it to any other electoral timetable (as was done with BC, where it was appended to a general election) speaks to me more of a democratic surplus than a deficit. While the voters on the Island rejected the specific proposed adjustments to the system (just as BC voters did), it's not at all clear that they rejected ANY change, as that more general question was never asked.

Your question "Why did the government set up the referendum and then do a hatchet job on it?" is valid only if I accept the premise that the government DID do a hatchet job on it. I don't. There were fewer polling stations, absolutely - but there were also a great many opportunities to cast one's ballot through the mail, through advance polls, and through extended hours - so I don't feel abashed in saying that anyone who wished to vote had plenty of opportunity to do so easily. If your ballot didn't go in the box, it was by your own choice.

The thorniest question is that of simple majority versus requiring 60%, which was the standard the government adopted (and which was, incidently, also the standard in play in BC). Those who supported the "Yes" side were appalled that the government set the bar so high, and cried "Unfair!".

Leaving aside the fact that the question became moot in light of the trouncing the "Yes" side got at the polling booth, I don't have any problem at all with requiring more than a simple majority to effect a fundamental, sweeping change in how we are governed. A change in the U.S. Constitution, for example, requires much more than a simple majority, more even than 60%. It OUGHT to be difficult to fundamentally alter a political system, lest some wingnuts take advantage of a sketchy turnout or some skillful demagoguery to do some real damage.

There were many who argued (and I was among them) that the 50 plus one standard for the Quebec Referendum was unacceptably low - that such a monumental change out to require a higher standard. If I felt that way then, it will come as no suprise that I don't see requiring a higher standard for the PEI plebescite as a "hatchet job". This, by the way, from someone who voted "Yes".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "democratic deficit". It's true that Liberals and Conservatives have ruled the PEI roost without serious challenge for more than a century. But it's not as if people haven't had other parties to vote for; just that those parties haven't earned the trust or confidence of the electorate. Don't blame the electorate for that - blame the parties whose platforms aren't appealing enough to lure voters from the status quo.

PEI is, arguably, over-represented in the Canadian Parliament; it has a higher member-to-voter ratio than any other province; electoral laws and enumerating procedures and security and scrutiny of ballots are scrupulously observed; voter turnout is, election after election, higher than any other province; there is far less in the way of corporate money thrown around (no doubt because the stakes are far lower for a given company); in short, our elections are no more or less corrupt than any in Canada and produce what some would say is a surfeit of representation. So ... "democratic deficit"? Not getting it, sorry.

I also reject the cliched old chestnut that the high voter turnout is fueled by an electorate hungry for patronage goodies. Patronage exists, sadly, and it's more clearly evident here than in a larger place. When you know Earl, down the road, who got his job as a flagman because he worked on the local member's campaign, the cause and effect is right in your face. It's much harder to prove patronage when a large construction company scoops up a line-item contract from Queen's Park.

I'm guessing there are some people who vote Tory (or Liberal) in hopes of landing that plum flagger position, but there are only so many flagmen. Most people who vote Liberal or Tory here do so because it's a long family tradition and they've been soundly inculcated ... or because they know the candidate; or hey, maybe even because they have measurable IQs and have considered all party positions and have made their choice.

I'm not arguing that patronage doesn't exist, or that it's acceptable. I just don't think it's an overarching issue. People here turn out to vote in great numbers (relatively, of course) because they's what they know to do in an election. There's no democratic deficit in there that I can see.

Ohh, but maybe you meant a NEW Democratic deficit. Yeah, we got one of those.

I do not consider Craig or Nils "outsiders". And, I will continue to think so, unless and until they express their interest to be considered as such.

Interesting, eh? Maybe that might give you something to think about, too.

(The ? thing will happen if you work in a text editor, and copy and paste into browser...I had forgotten this was the issue...both Explorer and Firefox).

"I am interesting in whether you think that Craig is right in not engaging with the process as an outsider."

Once again you leave me shaking my head at your inability to understand what I am saying or alternatively my inability to convey an idea. Never have I said that I think one should not engage the process - regardless of where one originates from.

What I have said is that one must treat local customs and history with respect and if one desires change, to work for that change with respect for what is deemed to be the 'way'. I have worked within the system to bring change to some areas that I think need change - shall continue to do so - but I will do so with a full undertanding and respect for those who came before me.

I think its your outside thing, Craig. I am not really trying to play gotcha but I do not get what underlies this statement:<blockquote class="smalltext"> I have a great deal of respect for other cultures (presuming here, that there is an actual Island culture)- and as an outsider, I am mindful of the need to respect a local custom or attitude.</blockquote>So if there is a culture, which there must be if you feel outside of it, why must you respect it if it is not entirely good. Keep what I am about to say in the abstract as I am not talking about PEI only (and not really about you either) but surely a person in a place must disrespest bad characteristics of their community: the ruts, the wilful blindnesses, poor choices made over and over, the particular take on history that is the groupthink. If you thought you had no place to question those things, I am sure you would think me rude as I have no interest in investing any energy in propping up falsehoods. For example I deeply disrespect the conservative party of NS from between Standfield and Hamm, the harm it did to the community I grew up in, how it treated people undemocratically, how it told people to keep their place. I would never respect that history and part of the community. Thankfully, though in part it took Westray, to a degree the culture shifted as that interest was taken on and the diversity of view and voices there is now one of the best examples in Canada of a move to a greater democratic vibrancy.<p>But in that context, before you even get to the good and the bad, it is what you mean by "culture" and "community" that I do not get I suppose and how one seats oneself outside of it if one lives in it.<p>I'll be back to Nils. I have a blog to run.

One point on the "it's as bad or worse in Ontario" Nils, when this happens, the response is this. No one walks out of a building with a contract and a chuckle. Plus when you get this you get this. You also get this which is still being worked on. The idea that things are not dealt with and done in back doors never to be heard from again is just not the case. I don't buy your "things worse elsewhere" self-comfort because it just ain't so. That is separate from your "things ain't bad".

Your question of "why must you respect it if it is not entirely good", goes to the core of our disagreement. If you need to ask that question then further discussion does not interest me.

By asking that question, I now have a better understanding of your thoughts on this topic. That is helpful.

How weird in both what you say and that <i>that</i> concludes a discussion for you. I have never met the concept that you respect the bad decisions of others as an abiding personal principle.

Bad in the eyes of whom? Yours, mine? ...and who are we to be so sure of ourselves that we are right and they are wrong. That is the issue, Al. My ability to consider that I may be wrong, right or somewhere in the middle. It is called having an open mind. (and before your eyes explode, no I am not saying that there is much room for debate for some of the negative features that you have accurately identified.)

I am finding this very interesting and again separate it from the PEI situation. I think we are describing a difference in understanding the relationship between idea and identity. Also, the role identity plays in community but that is a separate thing. You and I think each other arrogant but we may be saying opposites. You see me as the meddling arrogant and I see you as the bastion arrogant. Do you think I should not tell someone else their idea is wrong because that is undermining their individual dignity? I see it as wrong to say "do not correct me - who are you to correct me?" My idea of an open mind is that you have to accept that I can change your mind, that the mind is changeable and that no subject is untouchable by others.

I'm of two minds here - maybe I'm doubly arrogant. I agree with Alan's thought that you must challenge wrong where you meet it - the things we never challenge are the things that never change. But I draw a distinction between challenging an idea or a practice and showing that idea or practice disrespect, and I have a feeling that's what gives Craig pause, too.

There are egregious wrongs that deserve disrespect - racism and sexism and homophobia are some examples, for me. But we're not talking that level of venality and malevolence. Rather, we're talking about tweaks in a flawed system that has been resistant to change. You can effect that change while showing due respect for what has come before.

While I might believe, for example, that bootlegging is wrong - unfair to legitimate businesses, unregulated, unsafe or unsavoury or un-whatever ... I can respect the fact that, wrong as I may deem it to be, it has a long and storied place in the culture and history of this Island and therefore ought not be dismissed or sneered at.

Part of it, too, is pragmatic: if you show disrespect to a practice or idea that has a place in the history and culture of an isolated society, your odds of being able to work effectively to change things begin to plummet.

To return to your analogy: if buddy's sister is fat and ugly and dresses funny, do you just insult her and express surprise when that's not enough to make her change? Or do you offer respect for who she is and how she got that way and some kind suggestions, tactfully and gently worded, to lead her in the direction of a weight loss program and an overhaul by the Merle Norman Flying Tactical Squad?

I would submit that it's almost always best - and most wise - to show respect for people and their feelings while inistently pressing for change where it's needed.

I think that is right outside of the political realm but in PEI the political realm is awfully wide, which compounds the problem of the debate and use of things like humour. <p>But, before we go there, let me ask this. Do you agree that if the problem is serious then the need to be polite and respectful of feelings diminishes? And do you have to take the person's perception of their own feelings as the guide to where to draw the line or is a reasonable and objective standard of appropriate discourse OK?

I certainly agree that if the problem is serious (certainly some of the things that Nils mentioned in his examples of what might trouble him) are deserving of direct and objective intervention. For instance I would (and have) responded in a volatile and animated way when one of my gay friends was attacked for being gay. I have done the same when someone makes a backhanded racists comment about some of my Lebanese friends. There are some things I simply can't tolerate and won't. There are also situations that occur that do not warrant a gentle approach - for instance your roll in the wrongful dismissal case against the current government.

So I guess there are times when rudeness is acceptable.

However, the correct discussion, in my eyes, has not been about these serious issues, but rather about a cultural acceptance of a flawed system. I think the key is cultural acceptance. My position continues to be that while I can see the flaws, do not condone them nor approve of them - any changes must presented with a respect for the cultural mores that created them.

As to the political corruption that exists - Al, you and I have had first hand experience with this - where I suspect Nils may not have had his nose bloodied by the buggars. The system needs to change, but until there is a will to make the change, my efforts will be made with a respect for those that want (and have created) the system.

There are times when I stand back and shake my head when I see approval given to corrupt and dishonest government. I often wonder if there is anything more than peanut shells and buggers between the ears of what is supposed to be a media.

It is a balance of working within a system for change - hoping you can make small changes - and on occasion, taking a position that takes no prisoners.

And I am not that far from that except I like to use humour and only belittle the politically cowed part of the populace for being politically cowed. It is up to people to say no more and if embarrassing them into action needs to be part of it, I am glad to help.<p>But in PEI that connection between idea and identity, politics and opportunity, the high and the low are all so close that it is inevtiable it will be an insult to some. But the substance of the insult is correct by which I mean it is pointing out a truth not a falsehood. It is made to make people think, like any art even if it is very unsophistocated art. Which does draw me back to why there is no honest analytical art in PEI likes the novelists provide in the other three Atlantic Canadian provinces. It is not that there is nothing to needing to be honest about.

PEI is a polictical joke and an insult to democracy.

Newbie here. Sorry I missed the discussion when it was most active. Still, I thought I would add some thoughts on the subject of 'outsiders' criticizing PEI, a theme that seems to run through many posts here. I’ve recently been introduced to critical race theory and postcolonial theory. I am often struck by the ways in which Islanders have much in common with marginalized groups and colonized peoples. Of course most Islanders have never suffered from things as serious as, for example, the eviction of Africville residents or the forced placement of First Nations children in residential schools. But Islanders see tourists from wealthier and arguably more progressive places year after year ask ignorant questions and make prejudicial assumptions about life in PEI. Growing up on the Island I faced questions like: did I take a ferry to school; how hard was it to harvest Irish moss; did I have electricity and running water- the list could go on and on. And of course these questions are ridiculous to Islanders. We grew up watching Degrassi Junior High and hanging out at the mall like most other Canadians. This kind of ignorance tends to make a person quite defensive over time. Perhaps Islanders are more sensitive because we deal with it every year in July, unlike residents in other small communities where tourism is non-existent. I wonder now if these kinds of questions and assumptions are much different from racial and ethnic prejudices. For instance, what is the difference between assuming an Islander farms potatoes with an ox and assuming a Sikh man wearing a turban is a religious fundamentalist? Or assuming a young black man is in a gang? Or asking a Muslim woman why she isn’t wearing a veil?

I do agree with Alan that Islanders are often overly defensive when dealing with criticism from non-Islanders. I seem to have lost my status, treated as a come-from-away, as a result of too many years of living in Toronto. When I go home now and make a seemingly benign comment like, “I’m surprised they are doing road work in February,” invariably the response that follows is, “I s’pose in the big city they can afford to fix all the roads at once.” And forget about maintaining Islander credibility if you pull out a cell phone or wear shoes that are too fancy. But I still get defensive when I hear people in Ontario make fun of Maritimers or complain that they are supporting laziness by means of transfer payments.

It is always true that criticism from within racial communities and marginalized groups is easier to take than criticism from majoritiarian sources. Bill Cosby created controversy last year by saying the black community has to accept some of the blame for its problems. What if that criticism came from a white person? From George Bush? In critical race theory and postcolonial studies, authors often discuss the problem of judging other cultures by Western standards. Debates rage over whether Western advocates should intervene regarding female genital mutilation, for instance, or whether we need to respect cultural beliefs. Perhaps the treatment of Islanders, or the distinctive nature of PEI culture, is not as pronounced as the examples I have included here. But I think that marginalization happens by degrees- in my opinion it is not as simple as saying Islanders are white and Western and therefore privileged and the same as all other Canadians. And so I am wondering lately whether Islanders are a bit of a distinct and marginalized group within Canada and whether they deserve a degree of sensitivity when subject to criticism from those ‘from away.’ I am also wondering whether Islanders need to be less dismissive of criticism that does not come from within the community. Middle ground, anyone?

That is interesting and a great addition, RG, but note one thing. I was raised in northern Nova Scotia and am in all respects a Maritimer. The folks above who don't like humourour observations on PEI are all "come from aways" who have adopted the Island even if the Island has not let them in the last room down the corridor. It is the defence from away, the angst of the convert, that is the odd thing but one that is aways interesting when triggered.