Why bother appointing/electing a choice director if they do not promote choice...
They must present and defend choice instead of seemingly cringing and hiding in the corners; lend explanations about choice; give support to choice arguments; talk about their role as choice directors; in other words...PROVIDE leadership.
OMG Think about that one.
Several choice directors abandoned choice, and the odd one wavering, to boot. Shouldn't have to argue with and convince a choice director to remain choice, as has happened in the past. Better off to drown him in his appointed/elected gopher hole. AS made a good point.
The way it is now, it might have initially been more effective in moving forward towards choice, if we had voted the directorship plumb full of Netties. At least farmers would know where they stood.
The Minister has been pelted with mud.
The Government has been pelted with mud.
Jim Pallister is often attacked in the papers, I read.
John DePape is attacked in the papers every week.
Monopoly directors have constantly and consistently pelted and slung and tossed while their counterparts snoozed. How many Kyle letters have you read in the Western Producer? Lots.
But it appears the directors that choice farmers depend upon to provide leadership, are simply not prepared to write in the paper, or send a press release or call a farmers' meeting or give interviews that lend crdibility to the choice view. Is that smart or is it actually weak? Are they whipped, or simply not worth their weight in wheat?
Granted, jailed farmers made a stand.
A strong one. And the public has not forgotten.
But lately, the public has heard one side only.
Voters have heard one side.
Monopoly.
Agri-business too, hears the constant monopolist PUBLIC arguments supported and supplemented and interpreted and consolidated and endorsed and confirmed by....
yup...fellow monopoly directors.
Where was a CWB alternate choice-paper that should have been sent to the WTO to support open marketing, non protectionism?
Where is an editorial titled Conflict of Interests During the 2008 CWB Elections?
Zippo.
Silence and withdrawal by choice- directors has been a very unsuccessful tactic.
Has the present choicers on the Board created momentum for choice? Think about that one.
A lot of farmers ask, "Where is their voice when we need them?"
We can hardly even remember their names.
Parsley
They must present and defend choice instead of seemingly cringing and hiding in the corners; lend explanations about choice; give support to choice arguments; talk about their role as choice directors; in other words...PROVIDE leadership.
OMG Think about that one.
Several choice directors abandoned choice, and the odd one wavering, to boot. Shouldn't have to argue with and convince a choice director to remain choice, as has happened in the past. Better off to drown him in his appointed/elected gopher hole. AS made a good point.
The way it is now, it might have initially been more effective in moving forward towards choice, if we had voted the directorship plumb full of Netties. At least farmers would know where they stood.
The Minister has been pelted with mud.
The Government has been pelted with mud.
Jim Pallister is often attacked in the papers, I read.
John DePape is attacked in the papers every week.
Monopoly directors have constantly and consistently pelted and slung and tossed while their counterparts snoozed. How many Kyle letters have you read in the Western Producer? Lots.
But it appears the directors that choice farmers depend upon to provide leadership, are simply not prepared to write in the paper, or send a press release or call a farmers' meeting or give interviews that lend crdibility to the choice view. Is that smart or is it actually weak? Are they whipped, or simply not worth their weight in wheat?
Granted, jailed farmers made a stand.
A strong one. And the public has not forgotten.
But lately, the public has heard one side only.
Voters have heard one side.
Monopoly.
Agri-business too, hears the constant monopolist PUBLIC arguments supported and supplemented and interpreted and consolidated and endorsed and confirmed by....
yup...fellow monopoly directors.
Where was a CWB alternate choice-paper that should have been sent to the WTO to support open marketing, non protectionism?
Where is an editorial titled Conflict of Interests During the 2008 CWB Elections?
Zippo.
Silence and withdrawal by choice- directors has been a very unsuccessful tactic.
Has the present choicers on the Board created momentum for choice? Think about that one.
A lot of farmers ask, "Where is their voice when we need them?"
We can hardly even remember their names.
Parsley
Comment