"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.

The Difficulties of Making Friends

Why Is it Hard to Make Friends Over 30

While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.

What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.

The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.

This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.

My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.

The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.

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.