"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.

           

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.

"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

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Seeking Return of Art, Turkey Jolts Museums

This isn't a new issue by any stretch, but Turkey is calling for the return of archeological treasures which it claims are rightfully theirs, with statements like these to both back up their claims, and intimidate museums:

“Artifacts, just like people, animals or plants, have souls and historical memories,” said Turkey’s culture minister, Ertugrul Gunay. “When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored.”

It strikes me that Turkey has a lot of gall to wage a campaign like this; they are leaning on an Ottoman-era law to get these pieces back, when it was Ottoman authorities who would often sell artifacts to foreign collectors in the first place. Further, they are claiming that any piece which was taken from Ottoman territory belongs to them - which conveniently protects items in their own museums which were taken from other countries, then under Ottoman control. Not only is it galling that they use such a double standard, but it is against the standards they agreed to under the banner of UNESCO. If Turkey succeeds in these cases, then any nation can claim any archeological treasure, anywhere - so long as it belonged to their state at some point, in this past. So does this mean that Italy can demand the return of all Roman antiquities?

This is bullshit, and I agree with the author wholeheartedly when he ties it together with Turkey's rising status as a powerful state in the Middle East. It is easiest to flex your muscles in the cultural realm, especially when you play on Western guilt regarding past colonial and imperial ventures - while conveniently forgetting your own.

Oh, and Mr. Gunay? Artifacts, plants, and animals don't have souls or historical memories; we created them for these objects, in every case.

Article written by Dan Bilefsky, 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.

Obama is NOT Getting My Vote!

.... to be the next antichrist. As Soren Bowie explains:

"Needless to say, those of us who expected Obama to reveal himself as the beast of sorrow and despair are more than a little disappointed. Instead, we got universal health care and environmental protection acts. And now he has the nerve to ask for another four years to get everything done. Yeah right, Barry. If you're not going to take this seriously, we'll wait for the next antichrist, thank you very much."

Read the article, it's quick, and very funny. 

 Article written by Soren Bowie, and published by Cracked.com

On Europe's Last Dictatorship

Belarus - A Prison For Those Who Live There

A very moving op-ed describing the situation in Belarus, written by Andrej Dynko, the editor in chief of Nasha Niva, a weekly newspaper in Belarus. The article is a poignant rebuttal to the false sense of hope regarding Belarus held by many in the EU government - Mr. Dynko points out how entrenched Lukashenko is in power. Dynko effectively criticizes the ineffectiveness of "symbolic acts" by pointing out how they fit into the dictator's methods of holding on to power. Further, Mr. Dynko makes a damning accusation by the end of the article - Belarus is merely a prison for 9 million people, with conditions in society reflecting that which political prisoners find in jail. A damning portrayal of a country which needs concerted change, quickly.

The article was written by Andrej Dynko, and translated by Julia Sherwood. Published by the New York Times. 

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.

Pat Robertson to Actively Support Legalizing Pot?!

Damn.

Marriage Equality is Officially Mainstream ...

According to Pollsters and Their Respondents, Anyway

I always question polls, given how often they're off the mark, but I hope this turns out to be true - especially on election day. 

The article (blog post?) brings together quotes from a Report published by the Center of American Progress and various polls conducted on the issue recently. The article is very good, I would say - both well researched and well written. I expect Savage will post it on his blog any moment now. 


Article is courtesy of Fark.com; written by Katie Halper and published on Feministing.com

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.

Toronto Deputy Mayor channels Cat Stevens ...

“Downtown not the place to raise kids, says Toronto Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday”

Believe it or not, Holyday actually says " ... but where do the children play?" at one point. I love that song, but it's a seriously dumb idea. Of course kids can grow up downtown, they should grow up downtown. Are they going to learn about life living in the suburbs? I think not. Raising a kid at King & John is kind of like raising a kid on Herald Square; I wouldn't do it, but I can see the kid having a grand 'ol time.

Living downtown is a challenging, exciting place for a kid to grow up, and I see them learning a lot from the experience - if the parents are up to the task, naturally. You have to be much more engaged with your child if you choose to raise them in an urban environment. Not all parents like being that engaged, though. Sucks for their kids, really. 

I'm thinking, though, about exactly why people would be so convinced that you can't raise kids in an urban setting - and here's the funny thing. To raise a kid in the city, you have to trust yourself, trust your kid (when they get to that point), and trust the people you live around. People don't like doing that - they don't want to watch their kids, they don't want to trust their kids, and they definitely don't want to trust the people around them.


Article courtesy of Randy McDonald over at A Bit More Detail; original written by Daniel Dale and published in the Toronto Star.

Yeah, Andersoon Cooper Waited Too Long

Love Among the Spuds: Tammy Baldwin's Senate Run in Wisconsin

Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.

Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.

It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.

But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.

Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing. 



Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.