My most recent column “Why occupy Wall Street, Bay Street, Victoria Park?” hit the streets yesterday and, as any newspaper column in this big wide world is capable of doing, opened the door to some give and take between this writer and his readership.
As usual, I’ll use the good manners my mother taught me, answer every email, try to handle questions thrown my way like an astute tennis pro and leave the reader feeling like he/she at least got a straight answer if not an agreeable one.
In the following exchange, which is now on-going, you’ll notice I didn’t rise to all the bait. Will you give me an A for astute?
Norm B. writes the following:
Once again I read an article about people occupying some area in support of what? How many of those people really know what they are supporting? Nine percent unemployment?
Sure I’m upset about that but what’s the solution? Shouldn’t I have some solution in mind when I am protesting something? Lack of good employment? What is good employment? Ditch digging?
C’mon Gord, most of your columns are pretty good for a retired school teacher but this one is pretty nebulous. It’s like you’ve come out on the side of protest but wrote something just for the sake of getting the column out.
Moments ago I sent the following reply:
Hi Norm,
Thanks for your email. You're the first person in 10 years to describe one of my brilliant columns as "pretty nebulous."
Another reader wrote the following, also a first:
"Gordon, Pretty slim thinking, wouldn't you say?"
I wish I had a budget. You folks deserve at least a free coffee!
["Don't run from problems. Train for the long haul."]
On a more serious note, I can understand the questions you and others have about an occupation. I have questions myself.
The book I mention, however, by Chris Hedges (Death of the Liberal Class) may provide answers for some people, and that's why I devoted half my column to it.
In the one paragraph I quoted, Ernie Bell actually hit upon 6 reasons (I only mentioned 3, thinking that readers could tease out the other 3 themselves) why people in the US would be angry and, like him, take to the streets.
Occupiers in Victoria Park may not use his words but I think they feel some of the same fear, anger or frustration, especially when it relates to job hunting and a secure future.
You ask, “Shouldn’t I have some solution in mind when I am protesting something?”
I think, for some, because they can't think of a solution they feel the need to protest. They may have heard about the days, e.g., 1970s (my era), when people could get a job for life with decent pay. They may want to know or question why there has been a great shift away from secure, full-time jobs.
Finally, you mention ditch digging. I would take that job - yes, I feel it's good employment - because my grand father was a digger (graves were his specialty), and I guess I can sometimes dig myself into a nebulous hole!
Thanks again for your comments.
Gord Harrison
@The Londoner
Admittedly, I didn’t try to answer all Norm’s questions or rise to all the bait in the water.
For example, I feel no need to address the idea that “most of your columns are pretty good for a retired school teacher” or delve into his last sentence re the side I seem to be taking or the amount of effort I put into the column. Ted Williams never had a batting average of 1.000 but why moan about that?
I could have directed him to read my blog post about Ernie Bell’s six reasons that could motivate someone to occupy a street of significant address, but still, I give myself a pretty good grade for the reply.
Do I can an A for astute?
***
Norm just got back to me. No A from him.
Please click here for more about “Why Occupy Wall Street.”
.
No comments:
Post a Comment