"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.

           

"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.

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.

The Purpose of Memory is to Remember, Not Relive

With Tattoos, Young Israelis Bear Holocaust Scars of Relatives

I strongly support the right of people to get whatever tattoo they desire, even if said tattoo would shock or offend others.

That said, I feel this practice is taking the "cult of remembrance" regarding the Holocaust yet another step too far. As Jonathan Ornstein said to me before I left Krakow, "Judaism as a religion has always encouraged people to move on, to not wallow in our grief. By constantly memorializing the Holocaust in this way, we risk constantly reliving it, not just remembering it." He was referring to the March of the Living, but I feel that this practice follows in the same category. It's one thing to want to signify or remember your family member's sacrifice and memory, it's quite another to say this:

“All my generation knows nothing about the Holocaust,” said Ms. Sagir, 21, who has had the tattoo for four years. “You talk with people and they think it’s like the Exodus from Egypt, ancient history. I decided to do it to remind my generation: I want to tell them my grandfather’s story and the Holocaust story.”

Our generation, whether in the States or Israel, knowing nothing about the Holocaust? Where did this kid go to school?  While in Israel, I saw nothing but reminders about the Holocaust - after all, it is the primary reason why Israel was founded, and why many Jews say we need a Jewish state, in order to ensure that the Holocaust doesn't happen again. I'd say that the odds of us forgetting about the Holocaust anytime soon is quite simply an over-reaction.

Should we forget about the Holocaust? Fuck no. But do we, as a people, need to move on? I'd say so.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren, and published by the New York Times.

He Doesn't Even Need to Try

It's pretty clear that this video sunk Romney's campaign, which was failing in the water already. Sure, seeing that Obama is going to win makes me feel great, and optimistic about America's future ... but something about this ad, and the contest it symbolizes, bothers me.

Aside of the relentless attacks, false claims, ridiculous sound bites, and the fact that we've had a presidential campaign that lasted almost two years, I mean. 

Mainly, Obama didn't even need to try. There was no national debate about the truly major issues facing our country, no subtlety, no serious discussion of what direction the States is going in, whether in terms of domestic goals, or foreign policy, not to mention the massive culture war that is going on. People chose out of fear of the other side, and never really listened to what either candidate had to say. It really doesn't bode well when there isn't an effective opposition in government, either - which is precisely what the Republicans have become. An ineffectual opposition, concerned with ... well, I'm not really sure. In fact, I'm not sure what either the Democrats or the Republicans stand for, except to say "we're not them!"

I'm not going to wax nostalgic for "the good ol' days", because of course politics is always a dirty business. But a one-party state isn't a good idea, either - complacency is the death of any state, and I definitely don't want that.

The Declining American Empire?

Today were two articles in the NY Times' Op-Ed discussing the recent outbreak of anti-American feelings in the Middle East, dealing heavily with the "Innocence of Muslims" video. The first article uses Salman Rushdie and the laughter associated with the Newsweek cover 'Muslim Rage' to point out why we really need to simply stand our ground:

The Satanic Video

While another article points out why the US needs to become accustomed to the fact of its status as a declining empire:

America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East

I agree with the idea that the US should not apologize for its culture - I actually agreed with what Romney said, that we should stand for our way of life. Unfortunately, he said it with crappy rhetoric and the worst timing possible. Freedom of Speech is one of the best defenses against tyranny, and we should not give it up, or turn our backs on it, simply because some people get pissed off by it. Obama's response was diplomatic, to be sure, but I would have liked it to include a small explanation about how American society functions - and that the government cannot (and absolutely should not) shut down freedom of expression, even if the persons in question are idiots.

The second article was inevitable - since 9/11, everyone has enjoyed pointing out that the American Empire is on its way towards collapse. This has included me on occasion, I admit. It definitely includes everyone in the Univ. of Toronto History Department - which is rather amusing, given how much Canada benefits from American imperialism, but I digress. The author makes a comparison between the evacuation of Saigon in 1975 with the US' withdrawal from Libya - except it doesn't work. The US retreated from Vietnam because there was no strategic reason to be there, except stop the "spread of Communism" - which by then we had realized was never going to be the case. Vietnam had no economic benefit to require an American presence - while the Middle East definitely does. That was why we went into Iraq, and why we will continue to maintain a visible presence in the Middle East for decades to come, with the accompanying cost. The author is right, however, in stating that the US has really screwed up in the Muslim world during the past 20 years, and clearly pointed out the folly of following colonialist imperialism in a post-colonial world.

What I like about Obama in regards to foreign policy is his willingness to follow different models to enable American success - but those different models should not include apologies for free speech or other protected American rights.

Salman Rushdie really put it best when he was on the Daily Show last week - the US needs to stand up for its intellectuals and artists, regardless of how good (or bad) they are. Further, John Oliver made a funny point that the Muslim world is the same today as Christianity was 600 years ago - the latter got out of it eventually, and the former will do the same. We may never see Mohammed depicted on a box of Wheaties or in a sliced tomato, but every religion gets a sense of humor eventually. We just have to be patient, stand up for ourselves when necessary, and cooperate - while never forgetting that we forged an American Empire for a damn good reason.

"The Satanic Video" was written by Bill Keller, and published by the New York Times. "America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East" was written by Pankay Mishra and also published by the NYT.

Israeli’s Act of Despair Disheartens a Movement

Really?

I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.

What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.

Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.

Denis Leary: Prophet?

U.S. Priority on Illegal Drugs Debated As Pill Use Rises

The stats are staggering - in the US, cocaine was used by 1.5 million people, and heroin by 220,000 - but over 7 million people abused prescription drugs in the past year. While this hardly qualifies as a staggering fact, the release of this new data came at the same time when many outspoken officials on both sides of the debate have condemned the War on Drugs as a failure. The article quotes NJ governor Christie as agreeing with this statement, and even Pat Robertson, who as symbol of morality (for better or for worse) has condemned the prosecution of small amounts of marijuana, and has even joined the campaign to have it treated like alcohol. Further, the newly elected president of Mexico has clearly stated that his priority will be social treatment, rather than new efforts at law enforcement; he has further stated that he dislikes the US' strategy of ending drug use through enforcement, rather than looking at their own problem.

For me, the article allowed the formation of an image in my mind - specifically, will I see the day where there is no longer a War on Drugs? I don't think it's coincidental that so many voices have joined together to condemn this war, which has so little benefit - and if anything, is only encouraging the problem.

Finally, the tagline to this post is a reference to Leary's routine regarding legal drug use - in No Cure for Cancer, he jokes about how one can abuse legal drugs and get as good as, or in some cases, a better high off the legal stuff than you can on the illegal - and it's far easier to obtain, to boot. Further, I think the number the article quotes regarding the abuse of prescription drugs is lower than it is in actuality; does that number include the abuse of drugs like ritalin and adderall, which is becoming increasingly prevalent among students, as described by a recent NYT article?

We should simply end this War, and accept the consequences of that decision. I think it is possible to transition to an actually free society, where people can utilize whatever substances they like, as people use alcohol and tobacco now - with the caveat of a high tax on your pleasure. The abuse of prescription drugs is just as bad as abusing heroin, cocaine, or marijuana; the only difference is that drug companies have legitimate representatives and lobbyists in Congress.

Article written by Damien Cave & Michael S. Schmidt; published by the New York Times.

Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close

Milos Forman, director of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”, responds.

"Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism"

An excellent rebuttal to the rhetoric used by Obama's detractors. Their tactics are cheap, and merely serves to reinforce the weakness of their own arguments; this is unfortunate, mostly because there are good arguments to use against Obama, but by using this rhetoric they diminish their own chances of success.

Forman goes further to say:

"What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody. 

Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony." 

Well said. 

This opinion piece was written by Milos Forman,and published in the New York Times.

On Being Offended

Jim Norton On Offending People, Apologizing To Steve Martin & Why He Likes Westboro Baptist Church 

I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:

"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”

It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."

Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing,  as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.

Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.

Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?

Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens

The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?

While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.

The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.

Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.

If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.