punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

In celebration of the end of campaigning, I have one last video to share with you.  

The Search for the Next Greg Debogorski: Kris Osmond’s Audition Tape

Many thanks to Kris Osmond and Greg Debogorski. All of the segments were filmed in one take, so I think these gentlemen deserve nominations from the academy.

Happy voting!

So here it comes. The moment of truth.

Like some cyclopean shadow, I’ve been watching the candidates from the darkest corners of campus all week long, my camera attuned to their every move. I’ve been to every debate. I polished off all of the excess sausages at the Candidate Breakfast. I slipped in Henry Whitfield’s bedroom window and stroked his hair while he slept.

Okay, perhaps you didn’t need to know that last part.

Point being, I’ve witnessed a lot. I’ve formed some very strong opinions. I don’t have the time to get a tenth of them out before the voting period opens though, so I’ll stick with the one that most of you will probably find the most interesting.

 Last year I publically endorsed noted know-it-all and policy wonk Eric Snow for President.

That said, it’s probably pretty obvious that tomorrow I’ll be heading online, opening the DSU Elections website…

And voting for Greg Debogorski.

I will repeat that again.

I, John Hillman, pundit of minor note, am voting for Greg Debogorski tomorrow—and I encourage you to join me.

 

I realize that Snow has already implored you to vote anyone but Debogorski. We can all agree that “ABD” makes for a terrible rallying call though, so I urge you to at least hear me out. Pardon the length–I feel I need to make sure it is absolutely clear that I’m not making this endorsement lightly.

Eric suggests that everyone who is considering voting for Debogorski should be voting for Bailey. I beg to differ.

Greg may be a cantankerous SOB who doesn’t give a crap about whether people like him,  but…well…he’s a cantankerous SOB who doesn’t give a crap about whether people like him. The DSU has a way of beating the individuality and ideals out of incoming candidates, and forcing them to conform to the status quo. On those rare occasions where likeable outsiders like Bailey get in, how many idealistic election promises end up getting abandoned, or watered down beyond recognition? Perhaps no one can overcome the problems inherent to the institution, but if anyone will go down swinging in defense of his ideals, it’s Greg Debogorski. He might end up impeached, but he’d make one hell of an effort to shake up the status quo along the way.

Now, I know that many of you are just peachy with the status quo. It’s hard to see the problem when you are as deep inside the belly of the beast as most of the pundits and fans of punditry.ca.  Talk to some students you’ve never met though, ones who aren’t afraid to hurt your feelings because they don’t know how much work you have put into the union. Greg does it all the time.

There is a HUGE perception out there that the DSU is run by a small cadre of insiders who are more concerned with playing political games than looking out for the average student. This is fuelled in large part by the fact that most students have never (knowingly) had a conversation with a councilor. How can council effectively represent the will of the majority of the students if they have no reliable way of gauging their constituents’ opinions?

I’ve heard from a friend before that it’s not a councilor’s job to represent their constituents’ opinions, but rather to make the decision that they personally feel is in the best interests of their constituents. That may be the best you can do within the confines of a terrible system that has you representing upwards of several thousand students (only a tiny fraction of whom likely voted for you), but it is a pretty condescending attitude when you think about it. Whatever excuses we like to toss around about students not voting because they are happy with things, most apathy stems from the fact that people feel disconnected from the decision making process in their union, and God help me, I think Greg has the best ideas about how to fix this problem.

From my reading of his platform and listening to him in the debates, Greg proposes that we bring in an online system that allows the union to hold monthly referenda, and conduct monthly surveys.  Direct voting on controversial issues, and a constantly updated stream of direct feedback from a large sampling of the student population. Empowering students and getting priceless input about their priorities—why is this such a stupid idea again?

Greg even proposes a way to draw skeptical students into this system, by rewarding voter participation with material benefits. In the debate, Bailey argued that there are plenty of students who would be willing to help move Dal forward sans-reward, and I agree to a point, but there is also a massive segment of the population that has written off the DSU altogether. You’ll never reach them without breaking through that invisible wall of skepticism, and the best way to do that is to offer them a tangible reward for voting. I think that once these newcomers realize they have a say in the decision-making, and are sucked in to the drama like those of us already here, they will be far more likely to extend their interest in the union to areas where there are no bribes.

As for the constant stream of criticism directed toward Greg’s lack of technical knowledge and perceived personality flaws, as far as I can tell, he is a smart guy with a degree in management. He may not have the detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the DSU, but I’m sure he can figure things out pretty quickly. I’ve talked with him several times at the events this week, and he’s also a surprisingly nice guy when you get to know him – a little blunt, but he doesn’t seem to hold any personal grudges against people who have belittled him for years, which is more than I would be able to say if I were in his shoes. He has a great sense of humour about himself, and its 100% genuine. As he says in his video, he’s rough around the edges, but he’s real, and I like that in a politician.

Do I think Greg can win? He’s a long shot, granted, but I’ll give him better odds than some of the others have. He had engaging performances in the debates—and he actually showed up for all three. He speaks to issues that average students care deeply about. He has a strong video and bio. He isn’t actively scowling in his picture this year. He managed to win me over at any rate, so who knows what effect he’s had on others. I guess his odds depend on if average students actually come out and vote—a crazy thought, but who knows, right?

To paraphrase his video yet again, I’m going to take a chance on Greg. Here’s hoping he fights like hell for me.

For the union!

Here is video of yesterday’s presidential debate, not quite in its entirety, but close enough to give you a taste of the action.

Many thanks to my girlfriend Shannon (put down your gossip diary Snow, I’m not taking about the prez) for recording most of the footage.

It might not seem like I did much with the video this time around, but I assure you, this took over six straight hours of work to get online.

I know only a handful of people will watch, but it’s a matter of principle, right? Right?! (Crazed look in bloodshot eyes.)

There are several missing questions from the audience that took place between where the second last video cuts off, and the last one picks up. I do have the majority of these on film, since we figured the battery on our main camera would probably run out before these windbags finished talking, but I do not presently have the second camera with me, so you’ll have to wait on that if you are really keen.

The section between question six and the anti-elitism rant (basically the last 17 minutes of the first tape) is currently missing as well, mainly because the public Mac I uploaded that tape onto crashed not once, but twice, and I will commit suicide if I have to upload the footage again today.

There have already been two posts on the debate so far, so I’ll refrain from subjecting you to my full opinion just yet. I’ll just say that Greg’s performance seemed to be the big topic of discussion afterwards. I talked with a few people who felt like he definitely had the best stage presence, and others who thought he was a disgrace. Seems the audience either loved or hated him, but given that the ones who hated him seemed to be the ones who would never vote for him in a million years anyway, he may be onto a good strategy. I think his advantage with a certain portion of the audience came from his contrast with the other two candidates. Whatever the question, Saulnier usually comes off as a little like Tracy Flick from Election, and Bailey tends to answer in a way that seems somewhat passive and drippingly sweet. Their styles leave an opening for Greg, who, if not exactly eloquent, always seems passionate, active, and utterly sincere.

Enough of my thoughts for now. Here are the videos I managed to get online. Same rules regarding them looking like garbage unless you give them time to properly process still apply.

Part 1 — Opening Statements

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11 — Closing Statements

Hopefully these will feed many more comment wars.

All best, and keep an eye out for more actual commentary from me in the next few days now that the filming is done with!

My first punditry post of the new year.

First off, I have a video for you:

Candidate Breakfast – March 15th, 2010

So today was the Candidate Breakfast, the first event of the real start to the campaign season.  The few luxury days the candidates had to find their feet are now behind us, and from now until next Monday they will be in a tooth and nail fight for the attention and love of the student population. Friends will be sacrificed, unlikely alliances will be formed, and guys like Eric Snow will ask annoyingly specific questions about the inner workings of the DSU that you won’t have a chance in hell of answering if your name isn’t Chris Saulnier.

I’ll let the video do most of the talking, but I do have a few thoughts based off of what I’ve seen thus far:

-    VPE is a real race. Evan Price must have talked to 150 people in the SUB this morning. He is a natural. He also has a fancy suit. I thought it was going to be a walk at first glance, but this is going to go down to the wire.
-    Everyone has a theory about VPI, and every theory is drastically different. I get the feeling it will get bloody quick – it’s already started.
-    President is more open than anyone expected. Bailey is a lot more serious than I’d originally thought, and Debogorski is a serious threat, for the first time ever. This one isn’t necessarily the write-off it seemed originally.
-    Wait, let me repeat that: DEBOGORSKI is a LEGITIMATE THREAT to WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I thought perhaps I was alone in thinking this, but everyone I talked to seemed to agree that the way he is positioned at this point, Debogorski has a great shot at winning over the populist vote. He has toned down the crazy about 800%, and seems to be trying. If the rumors of him doing class talks are true, I would follow his poster’s advice and “Beware of Debogorski” if I were Saulnier or Bailey.

The race is on. Tomorrow’s Studley Debate should give us a good look at the candidates in action, provided they show up.  I’ll be there, camera in hand. Until then, enjoy the video, be sure to get a good sleep tonight candidates, and I’ll see you all tomorrow!

(Note: For the record, many candidates, particularly Chris Saulnier, provided me with particularly long and competent sounding platform pitches. Youtube has a ten minute limit. If anyone really wants to see them, I’ll post them online, but I’ll be uploading the debate footage soon, so I’m sure you can wait.)

(Note #2: For those who are twitch reloading punditry every three seconds, you’ll need to give the video a few minutes  for youtube to properly process it, otherwise it will look like crap. Check above the video to see if the processing message is still there.)

(If the font for this comes out very tiny on your browser, many apologies. I’m pressed for time and have no idea how to start fixing it – maybe Mike knows what to do!)

NSPIRG held a rather unusual sort of press conference this morning. They refused to have a question period, decreeing that this press conference was a time to focus on the positive, and disengage from the divisive rhetoric that has been plaguing the debate these past few weeks. Ben Wedge did some live-blogging of the event on the Stop NSPIRG website, so if you want an agenda of what happened when, that might be worth checking out. I have a few thoughts on the proceedings, and unlike NSPIRG this morning, I’ll even leave the comments section open for debate.

First of all, isn’t it a little hypocritical for a group that claims to be the champion of dialogue and free speech on campus to hold a press conference in which no one can ask questions? Yes, I appreciated the comedic value of not being able to ask questions at an hour long press conference in which every single candidate told me that NSPIRG was the last great hope for free speech at Dalhousie university, but I’m not sure that was the reaction that NSPIRG was going for. Also, there was an amazing similarity between the “diverse opinions” they championed at the press conference today. One moment that brought a very big smile to my face was when Megan Leslie declared that we need dissent and debate for democracy, and claimed that the House of Commons is an awful place because dissenting questions are often silenced. Was she actually that oblivious to the nature of the event she was speaking at, or was she perhaps speaking to us live via some sort of futuristic CNN holograph?

Next, I have to say, for an event that was supposedly taking the high road and focusing on the positive aspects of NSPIRG, they sure spent a lot of time talking trash about their opponents – not that they seemed to have a solid idea of who these opponents were, exactly. Most seemed convinced that this was a Conservative conspiracy of some sort, though they often differed on the details. Megan Leslie was repulsed by the idea of political agents meddling in student union activities (unlike, say, an NDP MP flying in from Ottawa to act as the keynote speaker of a rally in favour of a supposedly non-partisan student group) but she seemed somewhat uncertain as to who these conspirators were, beyond their slavish loyalty to Harper and their sexist beliefs.

Many echoed this sentiment, but El Jones took a slightly different approach. Jones, a spoken word artist, directed her attacks against the clearly racist DSU, which hates people who look like her, apparently. It was unclear if the racists in question were DSU councillors, or just students of the DSU in general, but her message was direct: you hate me and want to destroy all non-white cultures, so please continue to support NSPIRG – that way maybe you won’t be punished quite as long in hell.

Given that one of the central charges levelled against the imagined Conservative fiends masterminding this evil plot is that they are dealing in misinformation and deception, the speakers themselves might have benefited from some basic research into the issue themselves – you know, beyond the pamphlets NSPIRG gave them. If they’d even given people a chance to ask questions, maybe some of us might have even been able to mention that the Stop NSPIRG campaign is a grassroots coalition consisting of members of all political stripes, or that we are concerned with accountability, not trying to ruin the lives of young immigrant lesbian single mothers who read Marx.

After listening to all of the speakers, there is one big question that I wished I could have asked. There seemed to be a unanimous consent in the room that if the evil sexist, racist, Conservative conspirators succeeded in stripping NSPIRG of its levy, Dalhousie students would somehow lose their capacity to think critically or express diverse opinions.

Why? Is critical thinking on campus really promoted by throwing large amounts of student money at unnecessary staff members who do next to nothing to facilitate freedom of thought at Dalhousie university – and, in the case of at least one of the current paid staff, actively encourage a culture of screaming at each other rather than engaging in debate?

This is a crucial aspect of the debate, and it was completely ignored at the press conference. For an hour straight, NSPIRG advocates attempted to hammer home the message that they represented all that was good and pure on campus, and that if NSPIRG was to cease functioning in exactly the way that it does now, diversity of opinion and social awareness on Dalhousie campus would wither up and die before our eyes. Again…why?

I think that it is safe to say that the bulk of support for the Stop NSPIRG movement comes from people who are fed up with the antics and structure of NSPIRG, not from opponents of social justice/community relations. Many of us feel that, were NSPIRG to lose its levy, its members would be forced to do some soul searching so that they could come back with a package that was more appealing to students. For arguments sake, wouldn’t a $60,000 levy dedicated exclusively to providing grants for student/community projects go a lot further towards promoting our role in the community? Such an arrangement could easily function with a non-partisan, volunteer board of directors who considered the grant requests on a regular basis, and it would likely please a number of the people I’ve talked to who feel that the NSPIRG levy primarily goes to hiring two protestors in residence.

I’m fast running out of time to post this, so I’ll shut up for now. Feel free to call me a Conservative monster – if NSPIRG keeps up the great work, I might yet turn into one. I may have voted NDP consistently since 2003, but I’ll likely be living near campus the next time an election rolls around, and I sure as hell won’t be voting for a representative that can’t be bothered to do some basic research before taking a very public stance and embarrassing both herself and her party. That’s just me exercising the power of critical thinking.

(Please speak up if you notice an error!)

Voter Turnout: 15.9% (2,361)

Dags: Both Yes.

*Health Plan Referendum Question:*
Yes: 72%
No: 28%

*Senate:*

Glenn Blake:
Yes: 64%
No:36%

Meredith Evans:
Yes: 74%
No:26%

Shane Simms:
Yes: 64%
No: 36%

*Vice President Student Life:*

Kris Osmond

Yes: 91%
No: 9%

*Board of Governors*

*Janet Conrad: 29
*Adam Harris: 22
Will Horne: 19
Fred Peron-Welch: 17
Vikram Rai: 13

*Vice President Education:*

Edgar Burns: 38.5
Rob Leforte: 61.5

*Vice President Internal: *

Mark Hobbs: 50.9
Craig Jennex: 49.1

(35 vote difference!)

*President:*

First ballot:

Gregory Debogorski: 10
Eric Snow: 39
Shannon Zimmerman: 52

Second ballot:
Eric Snow:
Shannon Zimmerman: Winner

I was going to go to bed at a reasonable hour tonight, but Jen, in her wonderful review of the SMAC event today, went and put me on the spot by revealing that I had pictures. Damn ginger kids. Many thanks to Lisa, for loaning me a camera!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today is the big day – I wish everyone the best of luck, and hope to see you out in the Grawood tonight!