Why a Vote for Bornatfiglheu is a Vote for Benito

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Esteemed Benitians,

In the interests of transparency and engagement with the citizens of our beloved province, I want to reach out and let you know what I hope to accomplish as your senator.  I'm a big believer in engagement with my constituents, so please feel free to ask any questions you might have.

1.)  Return the US state of Ohio to Benitian catchment.  Due to the previous catchment reform, Ohio was moved to another province, despite the fact that there are a number of us already living here.  There is a cluster of at least 3 (and a few more, I think) Talossans located here.  If the purpose of province is contiguity and cultural distinction, why split up such a community?  WHy should my neighbor be Vuodean just because she joined later than I did?  It doesn't make sense to cut off an entire community like that.

2.)  Monarchial Reform.  The results of the past referendum indicated a fairly strong desire to retain the monarchy.  However, there is also consensus that the monarch needs to be engaged and accountable to the people.  I would like to reform the monarchy to make that happen and return the institution to traditional Talossanity.  Abolish the hereditary monarchy.  Enshrine the title of "King" in the Constitution (Did you know Talossa had a female King?  Florence I.  No Queens!  All Kings!).  Allow the sitting monarch great security on the throne, where they are difficulty to remove from the position.  Very difficult.  However, I propose making the institution itself precarious.  This "sword of Damocles" option would make the monarchy relatively easy to abolish in the case of malfeasance, encouraging individual monarchs to safeguard the institution as opposed to their own personal interests.

3.)  Foster greater national support for Benitian cultural development.  I plan to work with the Ministries of Culture and Finance, as well as colleagues in the Cosa, to procure resources for cultural and infrastructure projects that benefit Benito.  Maybe Talossan coins and stamps as prizes for a lipsync competition.  Funding for plaques and certificates.  That kind of thing.

4.)  Speak loudly for the interests of my constituents in the national legislature.  I plan to be your voice.  And though I cannot, and will not, guarantee that you will completely approve of everything I do and say, I promise that I will always listen in good faith and explain my reasoning.  Yes, I am a member of the FreeDems, and am thus in agreement with most of their platform.  However, I will be representing Benito, not the FreeDems.

Quite simply, I offer an alternative to my opponent who, even though he admits it was not the best possible idea, accepted high party office and the Senschalsqab to the detriment of his representation of this province.  I offer an alternative to someone who, in frustration and irritation, thumbed his nose at his own constituents.

Humbly,

E.S. Bornatfiglheu

[Lüc da Schir]

A few questions.

1) My proposal was to allow petitions to the Chancery to allow relatives or friends of Talossans to join the same province, if they live reasonably nearby. Any thoughts on that? How do you plan on addressing the wider imbalance in catchment areas a bill like the one you're supporting passes? In other words, how do you balance chipping away even more at the catchment area of what already is the smallest province? Have you spoken with any members in other parties to build cross-partisan support, and if not, how do you plan on finding support in the Ziu for such a bill?

2) Monarchy reform is a broad term and I understand the usual FreeDem talking points - not stating any explicit opinions here, just asking questions. Everyone is in favour of some degree of reform to anything. Even the King is probably in favour of some kind of monarchy reform. So why do you seem to equate the overwhelming support for a monarchy with a largely cerimonial role, and few actual political powers, to wanting to abolish the hereditary monarchy, or dooming the entire institution should an unsuitable monarch take the throne?

3) I have multiple issues with your approach. First, the national budget already needs some serious restructuring. This term we had both the MinStuff and the MinFin not really accomplishing the goal of finding better, cheaper web hosting. This means that we're still running on a deficit and it should be the incoming government's top priority to sort that out, period. You're basically okay with spending more money on never seen before pork barrel spending, though. A much better approach would have the Benitian provincial government run its own cultural projects, instead of the usual FreeDem dirigist stance of letting the national government do that.

[Lüc da Schir]

Lastly though, I thought your campaign was entirely centered on a single mistake I made a few terms ago, so I commend you on bringing up a few ideas of your own, at last. You've been misquoting me and misrepresenting my record for days, implying that I am not fit to represent Benito because of a single episode - but are you actually a valid alternative, when you were the perpetrator of the worst case of electoral fraud to happen in Talossa, possibly ever? I may have ignored the concerns of two constituents on a certain bill, but you betrayed the confidence of our whole nation. You made fun of our immigration system, mocked the Royal Talossan College of Arms, jeered the New Citizens' Committee, taunted the Chancery.

Sure, you are a "big believer in engagement with your constituents", and haven't had the chance to disagree with them so far (although the reason for that is... not because you were doing your job, shall we say). But it puzzles me how you can think you could represent Benito appropriately, after so clearly, blatantly and repeatedly breaking the law, with no particular regard for the hard work of others and the very well being of our beloved nationette. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

You said that, somehow, the people of Benito should not be concerned in the least. This was frankly deeply alarming to me, as was calling an outright crime "something of a scandal". Oh well. People can change, but as I welcome the challenges on my own single dark spot in four years of tenure, I would also expect the people of Benito to remember and be wary of your own big fat black stripe when casting their vote for this election.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Jun 23, 2018 2:57:04 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

A few questions.

1) My proposal was to allow petitions to the Chancery to allow relatives or friends of Talossans to join the same province, if they live reasonably nearby. Any thoughts on that? How do you plan on addressing the wider imbalance in catchment areas a bill like the one you're supporting passes? In other words, how do you balance chipping away even more at the catchment area of what already is the smallest province? Have you spoken with any members in other parties to build cross-partisan support, and if not, how do you plan on finding support in the Ziu for such a bill?

I could support a petition system, yes.  How should we define friends?  Must they get together at least once a week?  Do they hug?

But of even greater concern is this focus on keeping the provinces "even."  As a Peculiarist, I am all for experimentation, but fiddling with the lines has essentially turned provinces into voting clubs..  Provinces grow unevenly.  It's a fact of governance.  My focus here is returning a Benitian community to our catchment in the interestes of cultural distinction and geographic continuity. 

2) Monarchy reform is a broad term and I understand the usual FreeDem talking points - not stating any explicit opinions here, just asking questions. Everyone is in favour of some degree of reform to anything. Even the King is probably in favour of some kind of monarchy reform. So why do you seem to equate the overwhelming support for a monarchy with a largely cerimonial role, and few actual political powers, to wanting to abolish the hereditary monarchy, or dooming the entire institution should an unsuitable monarch take the throne?

To begin, my thoughts on the monarchy are twofold.  First is the hereditary monarchy, and second is the "sword of damocles" option.

My issue with the hereditary monarchy is that it is an unTalossan innovation. Kings Robert II, Florence, and John were chosen.  They did not accede by birthright.  Even King Louis was chosen, albeit by the previous incumbent.  The idea of having a royal house of a hereditary monarch is a relatively recent innovation and flies in the teeth of long tradition and history.  That is my issue with the hereditary nature of the monarchy.

My idea behind the "sword of Damocles"  version of the monarchy is, precisely, to make people very careful in issues surrounding the monarch.  In other words, an unsuitable monarch could sink the whole system.  Yes, and that is the point.  However, I did not say they would be impossible to remove, just more difficult abolishing the institution entirely.  Then, in the case of the unsuitable monarch, the Talossan people will need to do some very real soul searching.  Some very real consideration of "do we undertake the long and difficult process of removing THIS monarch?  Or do we simple abolish and replace the position with something more responsive?"  It is to encourage that soul searching into the very nature of the monarchy itself.

So these are really two separate issues with the monarchy.  I hope to pursue both.

3) I have multiple issues with your approach. First, the national budget already needs some serious restructuring. This term we had both the MinStuff and the MinFin not really accomplishing the goal of finding better, cheaper web hosting. This means that we're still running on a deficit and it should be the incoming government's top priority to sort that out, period. You're basically okay with spending more money on never seen before pork barrel spending, though. A much better approach would have the Benitian provincial government run its own cultural projects, instead of the usual FreeDem dirigist stance of letting the national government do that.

So, you're telling us that your government was unable to exercise fiscal discipline.  Good to know. 

I am not asking for blank cheques here, but instead procurment of funds for programs that stand a chance of helping us develop our unique Benitian cultural heritage.  And as for the Benitian government running its own programs, I did my best with the when Maestro, but the province doesn't necessarily have any more resources than a private individual in terms of materials or funding.

Which brings us to the big issue here.

Sure, you are a "big believer in engagement with your constituents", and haven't had the chance to disagree with them so far (although the reason for that is... not because you were doing your job, shall we say). But it puzzles me how you can think you could represent Benito appropriately, after so clearly, blatantly and repeatedly breaking the law, with no particular regard for the hard work of others and the very well being of our beloved nationette. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Let's not mince words here.  I haven't had a chance to disagree with my constituents because I was under a sentence of civil disability for a crime that I committed.  Aside from a term as provincial Maestro, in which I did all I could to engage, I haven't had "constituents" aside from the voices in my head.  But they're not really worth listening to most of the time.  But is it impossible to turn over a new leaf after making an error (a huge one, yes)?

Have you ever sat with someone who, having done something bad, knows that they're now damaged forever?  That despite their remorse and desire to make amends, things will never quite be fixed?  That their life may never quite return to plumb because of this?  It is a deep pain, mixed with a wild and spiky fear.  And in that they wish they could go back and do it differently (or, put simply, not do the thing they did).

You said that, somehow, the people of Benito should not be concerned in the least. This was frankly deeply alarming to me, as was calling an outright crime "something of a scandal". Oh well. People can change, but as I welcome the challenges on my own single dark spot in four years of tenure, I would also expect the people of Benito to remember and be wary of your own big fat black stripe when casting their vote for this election.

Actually, I did not call it "Something of a scandal."  That was one of our fellow Benitians seeking to be polite.  I actually encouraged him to quite simply call my actions what they were, a crime.

I can say that the people of Benito should not be worried for one very simple fact.  I know my own mind.  I know the deep regret and the lengths I went to in order to serve my sentence with scrupulous honesty.  I know the way I hurt my friends.  I have been justly convicted and sentenced, served that sentence, and rehabilitated.  I have been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion, and know that some will never trust me again.  And for all of that, I am still deeply remorseful.

I do not blame people for being dubious.  I probably would be if the situations are reversed.  But quite simply, the only person who knows what I am thinking and feeling is ME.  And so when I was asked if people had anything to worry about from me, I can say with certainty that they do not.

You have apologized, significantly, for your mistakes.  And seem willing to mend those particular fences.  Am I to be no different?  I have paid my debt to society and have expressed my deep remorse.  But now I'm ready to get back to work.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

[Lüc da Schir]

Jun 23, 2018 4:42:12 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Jun 23, 2018 2:57:04 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

A few questions.

1) My proposal was to allow petitions to the Chancery to allow relatives or friends of Talossans to join the same province, if they live reasonably nearby. Any thoughts on that? How do you plan on addressing the wider imbalance in catchment areas a bill like the one you're supporting passes? In other words, how do you balance chipping away even more at the catchment area of what already is the smallest province? Have you spoken with any members in other parties to build cross-partisan support, and if not, how do you plan on finding support in the Ziu for such a bill?

I could support a petition system, yes.  How should we define friends?  Must they get together at least once a week?  Do they hug?

But of even greater concern is this focus on keeping the provinces "even."  As a Peculiarist, I am all for experimentation, but fiddling with the lines has essentially turned provinces into voting clubs..  Provinces grow unevenly.  It's a fact of governance.  My focus here is returning a Benitian community to our catchment in the interestes of cultural distinction and geographic continuity. 

Hah. Silliness aside, we could just take it to mean that the immigrant has been introduced to Talossa by the friend. I don't know whether or not I should take the second part of your answer seriously. I get the cultural distinction bit... but geographic continuity? That was one of the arguments in favour of the Act, not against the Act, as was the voting club point. The uneven growth point, back then, was publicly admitted and it was ultimately decided that contiguous/coherent provinces was better than equal provinces no matter what.

2) Monarchy reform is a broad term and I understand the usual FreeDem talking points - not stating any explicit opinions here, just asking questions. Everyone is in favour of some degree of reform to anything. Even the King is probably in favour of some kind of monarchy reform. So why do you seem to equate the overwhelming support for a monarchy with a largely cerimonial role, and few actual political powers, to wanting to abolish the hereditary monarchy, or dooming the entire institution should an unsuitable monarch take the throne?

To begin, my thoughts on the monarchy are twofold. First is the hereditary monarchy, and second is the "sword of damocles" option.

My issue with the hereditary monarchy is that it is an unTalossan innovation. Kings Robert II, Florence, and John were chosen.  They did not accede by birthright.  Even King Louis was chosen, albeit by the previous incumbent.  The idea of having a royal house of a hereditary monarch is a relatively recent innovation and flies in the teeth of long tradition and history.  That is my issue with the hereditary nature of the monarchy.

My idea behind the "sword of Damocles"  version of the monarchy is, precisely, to make people very careful in issues surrounding the monarch.  In other words, an unsuitable monarch could sink the whole system.  Yes, and that is the point.  However, I did not say they would be impossible to remove, just more difficult abolishing the institution entirely.  Then, in the case of the unsuitable monarch, the Talossan people will need to do some very real soul searching.  Some very real consideration of "do we undertake the long and difficult process of removing THIS monarch?  Or do we simple abolish and replace the position with something more responsive?"  It is to encourage that soul searching into the very nature of the monarchy itself.

So these are really two separate issues with the monarchy.  I hope to pursue both.

Well, Robert II was a suspected sockpuppet, brought in to placate Laurieir as Ben had no heirs. Similar story with Florence. John ensued, again, after Louis had no heirs; the House of Rouergue was a real thing, apparently, and a royal house doesn't seem to be a post-2007 concept. I'm not saying your opinion is flawed, but your argumentation might be.

3) I have multiple issues with your approach. First, the national budget already needs some serious restructuring. This term we had both the MinStuff and the MinFin not really accomplishing the goal of finding better, cheaper web hosting. This means that we're still running on a deficit and it should be the incoming government's top priority to sort that out, period. You're basically okay with spending more money on never seen before pork barrel spending, though. A much better approach would have the Benitian provincial government run its own cultural projects, instead of the usual FreeDem dirigist stance of letting the national government do that.

So, you're telling us that your government was unable to exercise fiscal discipline.  Good to know.

I am not asking for blank cheques here, but instead procurment of funds for programs that stand a chance of helping us develop our unique Benitian cultural heritage. And as for the Benitian government running its own programs, I did my best with the when Maestro, but the province doesn't necessarily have any more resources than a private individual in terms of materials or funding.

Yes, in the interest of not mincing words, as you say, my government did avoid spending anything unnecessary but did not balance the budget on time, which was the initial goal. Both the Finance Minister and the STUFF Minister, while achieving some other goals, were less active than they had hoped and I should have been more active in monitoring progress.

I thank you for your further explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that we don't have funds for pork barrel spending.

Sure, you are a "big believer in engagement with your constituents", and haven't had the chance to disagree with them so far (although the reason for that is... not because you were doing your job, shall we say). But it puzzles me how you can think you could represent Benito appropriately, after so clearly, blatantly and repeatedly breaking the law, with no particular regard for the hard work of others and the very well being of our beloved nationette. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Let's not mince words here.  I haven't had a chance to disagree with my constituents because I was under a sentence of civil disability for a crime that I committed.  Aside from a term as provincial Maestro, in which I did all I could to engage, I haven't had "constituents" aside from the voices in my head.  But they're not really worth listening to most of the time.  But is it impossible to turn over a new leaf after making an error (a huge one, yes)?

Have you ever sat with someone who, having done something bad, knows that they're now damaged forever?  That despite their remorse and desire to make amends, things will never quite be fixed?  That their life may never quite return to plumb because of this?  It is a deep pain, mixed with a wild and spiky fear.  And in that they wish they could go back and do it differently (or, put simply, not do the thing they did).

Actually, I did not call it "Something of a scandal." That was one of our fellow Benitians seeking to be polite. I actually encouraged him to quite simply call my actions what they were, a crime.

I can say that the people of Benito should not be worried for one very simple fact. I know my own mind. I know the deep regret and the lengths I went to in order to serve my sentence with scrupulous honesty. I know the way I hurt my friends. I have been justly convicted and sentenced, served that sentence, and rehabilitated. I have been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion, and know that some will never trust me again. And for all of that, I am still deeply remorseful.

I do not blame people for being dubious. I probably would be if the situations are reversed. But quite simply, the only person who knows what I am thinking and feeling is ME. And so when I was asked if people had anything to worry about from me, I can say with certainty that they do not.

You have apologized, significantly, for your mistakes. And seem willing to mend those particular fences. Am I to be no different? I have paid my debt to society and have expressed my deep remorse. But now I'm ready to get back to work.

Thank you for your answer.