06 November 2013

"In Defense of Rob Ford"





            Of course I am not going to defend Rob Ford - he is a fairly loathsome and rather detestable politician and mayor, not to mention a pitiful excuse for a human being. This is self evident, so I will not bother giving you an enumerated list. That said, I do find the sheer amount of crowing from Ford's opponents in the media and amongst my social network in regards to the recent revelations to be smug, self-indulgent, and potentially destructive for the future of Toronto. What troubles me is that it seems none of his political opponents gave Ford a chance to be the mayor of Toronto; the citizens of Old Toronto, especially in the media, did not like the very idea of Rob Ford from the moment he began his run as a candidate. Rob Ford himself, was not so important as what he represented. The numerous articles featuring muckraking and yellow tactics, from the Toronto Star in particular, show this problem. At the same time they published op-eds decrying the 'Americanization' of Toronto politics, they ran front page articles attacking every item on Ford's political agenda from day one. While this was going on, left-leaning City Councilors, or those from Old Toronto, refused to work with Ford on anything beyond basic proposals. Sounds like a rather 'American' tactic to me - is this not what Congressional Republicans have been doing to President Obama? And we've all read the many articles from Toronto media gleefully pointing at that ongoing scandal.
            Of course, in the case of Rob Ford, the Star's muckraking seems justifiable, given the sheer amount of slime this man left around the city - and there is no end in sight. I am not criticizing that at all. What I am criticizing are the motivations of the Star and many on the Toronto Left. They weren't opposed to Rob Ford per se, they were opposed to what the man represented: a viable mayoral candidate from the "suburbs" of post-amalgamation Toronto. For them, Ford represented everything that was wrong with the 1998 amalgamation: his personality (bombastic, proud, and confrontational), his conservative populism (clearly learned from Stephen Harper & George W. Bush), and his (rather successful) tactics. The fact that he caught Old Toronto with their pants down, with the vote of 'sensible people' divided between two essentially indistinguishable candidates, adds to their injury. His rather 'American' nature certainly didn't sit well with a lot of people, either. The only bigotry and outright hatred that anyone can get away with in the Canadian media is in regards to Americans and American culture, so Ford was (and is) a perfect target. Only, in this case Ford is so detestable it's even easier than usual to get away with it.
            Rather than the opposition to Ford, what is notable about this situation is the anger towards the process of amalgamation itself, and the continuing changes taking place in Toronto, a city that, even fifteen years later, is woefully unprepared to deal with these challenges. The mayoral system itself is a prime example: Toronto's mayor is little more than Head City Councilor, which explains why it is so difficult to effect change in this city. Even if Ford didn't have the Star nipping at his heels, or obstinate Liberal and NDP Councilors to deal with, he would not have had much opportunity to implement much of his far-reaching conservative agenda. Scratch that - his agenda wasn't so much 'conservative' as 'suburban'. The agency most responsible for integrating the amalgamation of Toronto is arguably the TTC, which is run by political appointees. By default, any candidate appointed to such an agency would adhere to the status quo in order to keep their job - and the status quo runs counter to the ideal of amalgamation, creating a united city. Viable, effective, long-lasting mass transit is the best means for transforming Toronto into a single city, instead of the many cities shoved into one, as exist now. Look at Ford's signature proposal, building new subways as opposed to light rail, despite the far greater cost. Much of the opposition to this plan came from Old Toronto, while his support came from suburban districts. This divide is painfully obvious - it is between people from the suburbs who have to deal with the atrociously crowded (and slow) Go Transit, the SRT or long-distance buses every day, and those who imagine 'light rail' to mean 'streetcars' and wonder why "suburbs" need subways. Of course anyone having to use Go Transit or the SRT would want a subway instead! But instead of there being a clear and thoughtful debate on the virtues of mass transit and the need to build more of it in a just and effective way, it devolved into the Left screaming about how Ford doesn't care for Old Toronto. This is certainly true, but in regards to this issue they tossed the baby out with the bathwater, and concentrated on their larger goal: to hell with anyone who favors following amalgamation to a successful end.
            To be clear, just in case anyone gets a bright idea, I do not support Rob Ford, nor would I ever defend a man like him, someone who was unsuitable to run for mayor, and far too inept to run the fifth largest city in North America. What I do defend is the city of Toronto becoming an actual metropolis, a city connected by more than a common government, which for me is what Ford represented. The beautifully ironic part of all this is that Ford represents areas which aren't really suburban anymore - Etobicoke and Scarborough are becoming (or already are) just as urban as Old Toronto, but without the necessary infrastructure.
            So to the denizens of Old Toronto and my friends rejoicing in Ford's well earned misery, and the media celebrating their supposed triumph, my message is this: after you've had your fun, get off your high horse and examine what good ideas Ford had about our city, and recognize that it's time we had One City, indivisible, instead of bickering boroughs who have long outgrown their britches.
           

08 October 2012

You're Doing It Wrong.

A Philadelphia high schooler says she was humiliated after her teacher told her to remove a Mitt Romney T-shirt she was wearing, comparing it to “wearing a KKK shirt.”

Seriously? Freedom of speech works both ways. And articles like this really don't help the cause.

And regardless of the many, many things things which Romney/Ryan are wrong about, they are not the equivalent to the KKK. I mean, are you bloody kidding me?

Article reported by Dan Stamm and Claudia Rivero, published by NBC Philadelphia.

07 October 2012

"Republicans to Cities: Drop Dead"

How the G.O.P Became the Anti-Urban Party

This isn't a new idea by any stretch, but it is informative and essential towards understanding the mentality of many national Republicans.








For many Republicans, cities have been cesspools of decay and moral corruption since the 1920s - and so long as they see cities, and the people who live in them, in this fashion, naturally they are going to be hard-pressed to  get any votes from urban dwellers. Further, as the article points out, they are going against the grain; urban living has been rising since the 90s, and especially with the 'Great Recession' in 2008, city life is becoming even more attractive, as people realize that they cannot live so far away from cities and still expect to work. The country is centralizing, finally, and we are all returning to cities. When you speak to anyone in my generation, ask them where they want to live, and they'll give you a list - and I'll bet you anything that list will be composed of nothing but cities, large or small.

Given how odious I find many (national) Republican policies, whether on an economic or social level, I am not displeased to see this. Let them keep their rural districts, their suburbia - in short, where life is simply boring, with nothing to do. Growing up in places like that, no wonder many Republicans are filled with so much hate and vitriol; they simply had wayyy too much time on their hands.

Article written by Kevin Baker, and published by the New York Times.

Is America Ready for a President Who Has Never Been Drunk?

Is America Ready for a President Who Has Never Been Drunk?

Dubaya was one thing - the man used to drink, way too much, and so decided to quit drinking. That I understand, even respect. But Romney has never been drunk, and so much of American history and culture can be traced back to alcohol ... can we survive a president who will steadfastly refuse to have a drink?

At the end of his first year in office, he may very well look like one of the (sadly many) Trinity undergrads whose heads I had to hold above toilet bowls:

"Second, the presidency is a stressful job. If the president has never smoked, drank, or used curse words, his first hundred days may end up being like freshman year of college. The White House RA may find Romney passed out on the floor in a pool of his own throw up because he wasn't able to handle the stress."

A reasonable concern, indeed! I also like this observation: "America also makes a lot more sense if you are drunk. For example, why are birth rates the highest in states where the obesity rates are the highest? Until you have been drunk, and lonely, and get unlimited mass texting on your phone, you will never know the answer."

Though I can understand why Mitt Romney (and his fellow Mormons) may never want to know the answer to that particular conundrum ...

Article by Will Newman, and published by the Huffington Post

Why Not? Seriously, Why Not??

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

03 October 2012

The Importance of Monsters

"5 Reasons Humanity Desperately Wants Monsters To Be Real"

Definitely not an uplifting article, but an important one, especially given how true it is. We need other people to be monsters, to de-humanize them - so we have a reason to be the worst kind of human we all crave.

Read the article, David Wong (editor of Cracked) makes a very good argument.

Article written by David Wong, and published by Cracked.com

01 October 2012

California Recognizes There is No Cure for Being Gay

California Bans Therapies to 'Cure' Gay Minors

It's about damn time. It's also fitting that the state which is the home of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality would be the first to ban such practices. Young homosexuals have enough trouble as it is, they don't need "therapy" designed to brainwash them on top of it.

Article written by Erik Eckholm, and published by the New York Times.