Citizen, cyclist, editor, writer, father, baritone forced to sing tenor, vaudevillean, deli lover, wannabe chef. Did I mention long-suffering Leaf fan? Thoughts are my own.
Toronto politics, Canadian politics, citizenship ... anything that breaks my concentra -- oh, look! Something shiny!
It's just a suggestion, but maybe if the mayor wasn't so intent on freezing the newspaper out, the newspaper wouldn't seem so keen on pursuing stories that don't flatter him?
Nothing to do with anything in particular.
Related posts:
Dougie (do you mind if I call you Dougie?), we need to talk.
You're hurting Robbie. I know you're trying to help. Really, I do. But you're hurting him, and you're hurting him in ways that the rest of Team Ford can't even approach.
Where do I begin? I guess it's with your frequent references to the private sector in council debates. Seems like every time you stand up to talk, you're comparing municipal governance to your notions of the private sector and how it should function, and invariably, public institutions and the people who work within them suffer by comparison.
You're a successful business guy, Doug. We know that. But if you're assuming that what worked for you in the family business necessarily translates into politics and public service, I think you need to reconsider.
I'm not talking about personal mannerisms. We'll get to those in a minute. I'm talking about basic assumptions and understanding the roles played by public institutions as opposed to private-sector actors. There's a difference between the two, and while I'm not going to suggest that you don't understand that, it might be helpful to review it briefly.
Business operates in order to make a profit, Doug. We know. We get that. And we recognize that you and your family have been successful that way. Creating shareholder value, meeting customer expectations, finding efficiencies -- we know.
But Doug, this isn't the private sector. It's government. And government isn't there to make a profit. It's there to advance the public good. It's there to ensure that public needs are met. It's the means whereby citizens act collectively to pursue social goals. Public health, municipal infrastructure, transit, libraries, recreation, police and fire services ... all those things that make up a livable and functioning city. Shrinking government by depriving it of resources and crippling its capacity to act means it's less able to deliver those things and care for its citizens.
Let's linger for just a second on that word: citizens. You and Rob have made "respect for taxpayers" a central theme in your approach to things for the last year and a half. Thing is, though, that's not an especially useful way to frame the relationship between people and their government. I've always preferred to think of myself as a citizen first. Citizenship carries rights, but it also comes with obligations and responsibilities -- to my city, to my community, and to my fellow citizens.
Government, and the public sphere more generally, aggregates the channels whereby we address those obligations. It's not always the most efficient mechanism, and it involves complex exercises in the balancing of competing interests and opinions, but that's why it's called "public." Whatever you want to call it -- left, right, conservative, socialist, up, down, whatever -- you'd be doing Robbie, yourself, and the rest of the city an enormous favour if you started thinking in those terms.
I don't know you personally, Doug, so I don't know what you're thinking. (And it seems I'm not the only one.) I'm not going to assume that you're full of contempt for public institutions or municipal officials or city staff. I can only go by the things you say. But here, again, you're hurting Rob. So, for future reference, you might want to note:
And about those personal mannerisms: God knows, I'm not here to lecture you on personal comportment or people skills. It's possible that I may have a few things to learn in those regards as well. But since politics and government involve building bridges, extending hands and working with people even when you don't necessarily agree with them, you might want to think twice before you say things that make it that much harder. Calling people little pricks or threatening to execute them doesn't just piss them off at you -- it hurts Rob's ability to bring them onside. And we know you're here to help Rob.
Don't misunderstand me, Doug. It's not just about the personal stuff. A few weeks ago, in the midst of the transit debate, some of your allies on council were coming round to the point where they were ready to talk about tax increments or development surcharges as ways of financing subway construction. And it seemed that Rob was this close to an understanding with some of the councillors who could have helped him out on that, but as soon as you declared that all taxes are evil, well, boom. So much for any hope of compromise.
Dougie, Dougie, Dougie. You're supposed to be there to help, remember?
One more thing. I've never hidden my disagreement with you and Rob. And while I've often fallen short in the generosity-of-spirit department, I've tried to extend it wherever I can, and I've even noted that both you and Rob are capable of it from time to time. It's for that reason that I will not take cheap shots at either one of you for your weight.
But for Chrissakes, Doug. When you make jokes about duct-taping his mouth and cutting a hole for a straw, is that any different? Maybe it comes from a place of love, but ... seriously?
Related posts:
The mayor, a champion of car travel, went further on his Sunday Newstalk 1010 radio show, calling McKeown’s $290,000 salary “an embarrassment,” and promising to “look into it.” His brother, Councillor Doug Ford, calling in from Florida, asked: “Why does (McKeown) still have a job?”
Goddamn those smart people with their facts and evidence and experience, anyway.
So Toronto's medical officer of health floats an idea about reducing speed limits in order to make the streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Can't have that, of course. Silly doctor -- streets are for buses, cars, and trucks.
Forget all that facty, evidency, history stuff that Cityslikr's citing about carcentrism being a relatively recent thing. (And what kind of condescending, elitist-type word is that, anyway?)
What's Team Ford's reaction? Can't have a discussion about it, it's just nuts nuts nuts. How much are we paying this guy, anyway? Let's look into that. It's an embarrassment. Why does this guy still have a job?
Got that, city staff? Zip it, or ... well, shame about Gary Webster, innit.
Perhaps council should take the board of health away from the FoBros. It's pretty clear that they can't be trusted not to break things.
Related posts:
There's a lot of sound and fury, understandably, about Stephen Woodworth's attempt to reignite the abortion debate.
It's hard not to be struck, right off the bat, by the disingenuous bullshit surrounding it. Woodworth likes to characterize his initiative as an honest inquiry about when life begins. The Harper machine insists that Woodworth is acting on his own, and that this isn't official government policy.
Yeah, right. This from an operation so obsessed with message control that backbenchers dare not even fart without clearing it with the the PMO.
And let's be clear about what this is: it's not a simple intellectual exercise or an attempt to update the state of scientific knowledge. It's an assault on reproductive autonomy — a transparent and disingenuous attempt to reassert patriarchal control over women's bodies and take away the freedom of choice that took decades to achieve.
To suggest that this "debate" isn't welcome is not, as some misguided voices would argue, the same as advocating censorship. It's an assertion that some debates are simply not worthy of consideration in public discourse.
It's inconceivable that in 2012, we would even discuss whether women have the right to control their own bodies. That question was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada more than two decades ago. Do we really have to go through all that again? Are we really prepared to put the basic human rights of our fellow citizens in issue? Seriously?
Framing it as a matter of free inquiry and intellectual exchange allows its proponents to posture as reasonable people and dismiss their opponents as angry, irrational and hysterical. Condescending? Ya think? What next? Are we going to have calm, reasonable, mature debates about whether black people should have the same rights as white people, or whether LGBT people should have the same rights as straight folk?
No. And saying "we're not going to debate about it" isn't censorship. Woodworth and his hangers-on — so-cons, misogynists, fundies and assorted intellectual wankers — are welcome to have as many of their little debates as they like. Fill yer boots, boys.
Just not in the Parliament of Canada, let alone any forum that bills itself as "progressive."
Related posts:
While the federal government and pro-oil lobbyists have taken aim at environmental charities for allegedly violating the Canadian Revenue Agency’s legal limits for “political activity”, the Fraser Institute and its charitable status remain unquestioned. And as the Koch Foundation’s tax data shows, they’ve received a significant amount of “foreign funding” to help influence Canadian policy—which is precisely what environmental groups have been accused of doing.
The Fraser Institute claims to be “non-partisan and non-political”, and denies that it undertakes lobbying activities. However, critics cite examples of its blatantly political endeavors—like publicly calling on the government to change election spending laws, or pushing provinces to adopt “right-to-work” legislation.
The Fraser Institute's continuing prominence in the national conversation is one of life's enduring mysteries. Its agenda is evident to anyone with basic critical-thinking skills; like other organizations of a similar mindset, it pushes a worldview that seeks to portray government and the public sphere as inherently corrupt, feckless and inefficient. Hence the "enfeeblement" I wrote about earlier this week.
And yet every time it releases one of its position papers, or "studies," or contrived and transparent PR stunts like Tax Freedom Day, the corporate media are all over it. It says a lot about what's considered "newsworthy " these days. Seriously, someone at the FI could fart and it would be on front pages all over the country.
So this piece from the Vancouver Observer is timely for two reasons: one, it puts the Harper regime's unsubtle threats against charitable organizations in context, and two, it highlights the hypocrisy and double standards evident in the treatment of charities considered "friendly."
More Koch influence in Canada. Just what we need.
Update: follow the money.
By my prof! =) Who funds the Fraser Institute? bctf.ca/publications/N…#cdnpoli #canada #fraserinstitute
— min reyes (@Min_Reyes) April 26, 2012
Related posts:
@sol_chrom it is people like you that we can't get real transit in Toronto.
— Miroslav Glavić (@MiroslavGlavic) April 24, 2012
Busted.
There's been some discussion recently about the role of charitable organizations, and by extension other NGOs, in social advocacy and the debate over public policy. In an essay for the Star this past weekend, Alan Broadbent calls for just that in arguing for more overt political activity from Canadian charities.
It's not hard to discern the context for Mr. Broadbent's essay. Indeed, he makes it clear in his very first paragraph in citing the recent federal budget and characterizing it as a shot across the bows of Canadian registered charities, and in noting the rhetorical strategy employed by the Harper government and its acolytes in promoting accelerated exploitation of the Alberta tar sands.
HIs essay notes that the law allows charities to devote up to 10 per cent of their activity to politic, and encourages Canadian charities to become more active participants in policy discourse. (In fairness, he also notes that many charitable organizations don't have the organizational resources to play too prominent a role in that regard, occupied as they are with programming and fundraising.) In describing the need for their participation, he notes that
… since governments have shed much of their policy capacity in the last few decades, they need good ideas from outside, and particularly from those working close to the coal face of society’s problems.
Mr. Broadbent makes a useful argument, and it's particularly timely in its evident defence of the fact that some of the money for Canadian charities and advocacy comes from sources outside Canada, if for no other reason than that it blunts the Harpublican strategy of demonizing opponents as foreign-funded radicals trying to hijack Canadian regulatory processes.
That's one level, anyway. The discussion is valuable on that level, but let's try to view it in a somewhat larger context — one which examines the role of charitable organizations not just as political actors, but as service providers and enhancers of community bonds and — one of my favourites — the public good.
It's become fashionable, as governments embrace the "austerity" fetish and shed the capacity to act, to call for more reliance on private-sector actors and/or charities. Indeed, last December Hamutal Dotan described an incident wherein Doug Ford reached into his own pocket and wrote a personal cheque to help out a school nutrition program.
God knows, I'm not here to kick Brother Doug around for that. But, as Hamutal argues, necessary social programs shouldn't have to rely on charity or personal generosity. And that's the larger context for both her argument and Alan Broadbent's.
Once again, it's useful to unpack some of the underlying assumptions and go back to first principles. Part of that involves making my own biases explicit, but that shouldn't take long.
Why do we have government? Why do we have a public sector? Why, for that matter, do we have communities and social structures? I'd argue that a large part of the reason is collective empowerment: we pool our efforts and our resources in pursuit of the common good. By working together, we accomplish things we can't accomplish on our own. Regardless of whether you want to call yourself a conservative, a socialist, a liberal, or whatever, that's the basis for community.
And that's the organizational underpinning for whatever sector of public policy you want to cite: education, national defence, municipal infrastructure, public transit, health care, food inspection, energy, environmental protection, and so on. That's why political priorities are set, resources allocated, timelines established, and structures established to ensure democratic oversight and administrative accountability. It's not a simple process, but it can and does work when it's properly resourced and managed. As with most complex undertakings, it depends on consistency, predictability and transparency, and an overarching commitment to the public good.
It's for that reason that I find the increased emphasis on charities disquieting. I'm not questioning the value of the work they do, and I'm not saying they aren't worthy of all the support they get and more. But I am taking issue with the idea that we should rely on them to step into the vacuum left by diminished and kneecapped public institutions.
Where is it written that we must reconcile ourselves to the enfeeblement of government, of the public sphere, of our collective capacity to act for the common good? Just because "austerity" has become the flavour of the month doesn't mean we've suddenly been relieved of our obligations to ourselves, to our communities and to our fellow citizens.
Regardless of the political context or the issues of the day, those obligations are constants. They are necessary incidents of citizenship, and of membership in civil society. As such, they need to be resourced and supported consistently. They shouldn't have to depend on charitable donations. They're unpredictable, they're hard to budget for, and they're too dependent on the personal preferences of donors, commendable though those might be. Frankly, I don't want the social fabric and essential community programs dependent on the Jim Doaks of the world.
As Tories crack down, records show less than 1% of charities fund political activism. tgam.ca/D8mN #cdnpoli
— Stephen Wicary (@wicary) April 25, 2012
And, as the warning shots Mr. Broadbent cites illustrate, charities are vulnerable to politically motivated attacks.
We can argue about the legalities and the definition of political activity and whether any given initiative comes close to the 10 per cent threshold, but the chilling effect of those warning shots is perfectly obvious. The Harper regime's strategy for dealing with people and organizations it doesn't like is a matter of record. Bracing as Mr. Broadbent's call to action is, it's that much riskier for any small organization to stick its head up under the circumstances.
(Do I have to point out that I'd be delighted to be wrong about this?)
Related posts:
A terrific piece from Hamutal Dotan. Read it now.
She goes through all the political, ethical and symbolic arguments in favour of Rob Ford's participation, so I won't repeat them here. The only observation I'd make is to wonder, who in god's name is advising him these days?
And in her inimitably classy way, Kristyn Wong-Tam's trying to throw him a rope:
Cllr Kristyn Wong-Tam, when asked if she thinks Ford is homophobic: "I think the mayor is shy. I think the mayor is insecure." #TOpoli
— NOW News (@NOWTorontoNews) April 18, 2012
We can debate about whether this is a big-picture or little-picture thing, but even that's beside the point. It's also beside the point to speculate about how the mayor may feel, personally, about our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and/or queer brothers and sisters.
Leaving aside Team Ford's approach to contracting out, or transit, or waterfront redevelopment, or revenue versus spending, or any of the other major files involved in municipal governance, this seems like such a no-brainer. You show up, you read a statement of support, you pose for a few pictures, and then you head for the cottage. Five minutes, for Chrissakes. Of all the things he's getting beaten up for, this seems so easy to avoid.
Hello, Ford handlers? Someone want to explain this, please?
Related posts:
What we’re actually seeing, however, is complete inflexibility. In March, European leaders signed a fiscal pact that in effect locks in fiscal austerity as the response to any and all problems. Meanwhile, key officials at the central bank are making a point of emphasizing the bank’s willingness to raise rates at the slightest hint of higher inflation.
So it’s hard to avoid a sense of despair. Rather than admit that they’ve been wrong, European leaders seem determined to drive their economy — and their society — off a cliff. And the whole world will pay the price.
There's the classic definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results -- but Krugman argues that this goes beyond even that.
It's really hard to imagine any set of criteria whereby this obsession with austerity could be judged a success, unless the objective is to entrench and aggravate suffering, misery and dislocation.
Related posts:
Citizen, cyclist, editor, writer, father, baritone forced to sing tenor, vaudevillean, deli lover, wannabe chef. Did I mention long-suffering Leaf fan? Thoughts are my own.
Citizen, cyclist, editor, writer, father, baritone forced to sing tenor, vaudevillean, deli lover, wannabe chef. Did I mention long-suffering Leaf fan? Thoughts are my own.
Theme created for Posterous by Obox
