Beautiful songs: A New England

The name Billy Bragg didn't mean a thing to me until one early morning about 10 years ago, in the dingy upstairs of the pre-renovation El Mocambo. The name still only holds limited meaning for me, event though the man has made a comeback in the years since I first noticed his music. But that meaning is strong, and rests on the power of his first release, the EP Life's a Riot with Spy vs Spy—in particular, the song "A New England". I have in my mind some negligible recollection of the song's name from before that fateful day, but it is most probably false, and it doesn't matter anyway.

It was that morning, probably around four o'clock, when Billy Bragg, alone with his electric guitar, roared into my life with the perfect anti-political slogan: "I'm not looking for a new England; I'm just looking for another girl".

I don't think I considered the politics or simply the meaning behind the words too closely at the time—really they're quite direct and don't need a lot of interpretation—but I clearly remember connecting with them intuitively (i.e., without bothering to think about them), as representative of my state of mind at the time. I was anti-political, and I was looking for another girl, although it sounds simple, and it could probably have been said of the great majority of my friends.

I was 21 years when I wrote this song;
I'm 22 now, but I won't be for long.
People ask me "when will you grow up to be a man?"
But all the girls I loved at school
Are already pushing prams.

So this song was the perfect way to end a long night of dancing, drinking and desperate socializing: with some poetry from another time—when most of us were babies or children—that tidily summed up our lives. This was at Blow Up of course, in case you hadn't guessed. And many songs that one could hear there summed up quite succinctly us mods' and britpoppers' attitudes towards life: the intense focus on style, fashion and cool; the cynicism, apathy and condescension; the need to belong, evinced through excessive drinking and drugs. Pulp, Blur, the Divine Comedy—they all made the life clear: "Modern Life is Rubbish", so let all us "Common People" grab "Something for the Weekend", and so on.

But Billy Bragg wasn't the frontman of some English bourgeois neo-glam art-school band with six members all wearing suits, dresses or jumpers. He was an activist punk and poet with a guitar and a middling voice. And at 3:30 in the morning you could even dance to him in a solo Britpop fist-pumping kind of way. The sound in the El Mo echoed with a few last souls on the floor—this was the "real" end of the night after all—and the touch of distortion screamed and shivered through the place. And then you'd go home—or to someone's home anyway—more or less satisfied that you played your part; your life was justified by some words written as the 1970s turned into the 1980s, as though that time were simpler—oh sad nostalgia.

So anyway, "A New England" finished my Saturday nights for many months. I couldn't say for how long—probably over a year; maybe even two! This was somewhat before I became a DJ at Blow Up, so I wasn't quite "in" yet. I don't remember whom I asked about the song. It might have been head honcho Davy love—it was he who played it every weekend—or it might have been my excellent dancing partner James S.; or I may have harnessed the power of the World Wide Web way back when, and searched for the easily understood lyrics. Either way, I know I bought that record as soon as I saw it at one of my local second-hand record stores. I had remarkable luck finding records I wanted. I played it over and over at home, taking in each of the stunning songs. I hadn't heard anything like it—so powerful, sincere and sparse—and I'm not sure I have since. But nothing else—no other Billy Bragg work that I've listened to—has given me even remotely similar feelings. Clearly the time played a great part.

I wish I had recorded in some way (you know, like in memory) what other groups or albums I got into around the same time, to do some sort of comparative study on what was influencing me. I think I prayed through music then, and throughout my long adolescence. By listening and singing along and dancing to certain songs, repeatedly, I reinforced the themes, ideals and wants they contained. I came to understand the world in terms of middle-class British (anti-)romance and vices and (anti-)politics—a sort of ethic of non-engagement, disdaining authority, but not bothering or willing to dispute or subvert the prevailing order. This is what I brought into my life, and how I lived my life at the time, it's fair to say. I guess it's not an uncommon theme for youth generally.

Recently I gave up the delusion that I might digitize the album from my vinyl copy, and I downloaded Life's a Riot. I hadn't listened to "A New England" for several years. Although I've since and finally left my adolescence behind (as far as I imagine I ever will), along with my apathy and several other traits that are acceptable—even charming—in youth, but distasteful in adults, the song still resonates deeply with me.

And now I'm free to consider the wider circumstances of the song: it is the product of a certain time and condition in the United Kingdom—which I won't pretend to know anything about—and it's certainly not anti-political, despite the appearance of its disarming lyrics. The chorus makes it clear that there is call for a new England, just that the subject of the song won't have anything to do with it. Instead, he is focussed on the issues—or the one main issue—facing young people anywhere in the world at any time: the passage into adulthood, the acceptance into society, the original political act. It did presage this passage in me. Within a couple of years, I moved out of my parents' house, began working regularly, engaged in political discourse, and eventually went to university—and left behind Blow Up, with some sadness. I guess it shouldn't be surprising then, that I stopped pulling Billy Bragg off my record shelf about that time, too.

Now I can listen to it at leisure, and I have. I almost feel guilty listening to it, like I'm indulging in some deep nostalgia. But would I ever feel indulgent listening to The Beatles or New Order? But enough of that! "A New England" is almost overpowering in its simplicity. I was certainly more indulgent the first time around! I hold it in Awe, like a Spring of Pure Beauty filtering through the Fabric of the Universe. I recommend a listen—to the album version first. Some live versions are very good, but none of them match the original recording, to my ears.

I hope you've enjoyed my little story; I promise to have something more for you soon.
___

I was 21 years when I wrote this song;
I'm 22 now, but I won't be for long.
People ask me "when will you grow up to be a man?"
But all the girls I loved at school
are already pushing prams.

I loved you then as I love you still;
Though I put you on a pedestal,
They put you on the pill.
I don't feel bad about letting you go;
I just feel sad about letting you know.

I don't want to change the world;
I'm not looking for a new England;
I'm just looking for another girl.
I don't want to change the world;
I'm not looking for a new England;
I'm just looking for another girl.

I loved the words you wrote to me,
But that was bloody yesterday.
I can't survive on what you send
Every time you need a friend.

I saw two shooting stars last night;
I wished on them, but they were only satellites.
Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?
I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care.

I don't want to change the world;
I'm not looking for a new England;
I'm just looking for another girl.
Looking for another girl
Looking for another girl
Looking for another girl
Read on..!

Medical marijuana: get used to it

After a diagnosis of terminal pancreatic cancer, New York State Supreme Court Justice Gustin L. Reichbach eventually discovered that "inhaled marijuana" was the only medication that allowed him to eat and sleep as needed to manage his pain and maintain his weight, energy, and morale. Unfortunately, for him, New York has not legalized medical marijuana, so his friends provide it "at some personal risk", illegally. Says Reichbach:

"This is not a law-and-order issue; it is a medical and a human rights issue. Being treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, I am receiving the absolute gold standard of medical care. But doctors cannot be expected to do what the law prohibits, even when they know it is in the best interests of their patients. When palliative care is understood as a fundamental human and medical right, marijuana for medical use should be beyond controversy."

"Because criminalizing an effective medical technique affects the fair administration of justice, I feel obliged to speak out as both a judge and a cancer patient suffering with a fatal disease."

Notice that he is not advocating for the more controversial general legalization of marijuana, but simply that medical patients should have legal access to medicine that has been proven effective. He also implies that marijuana is already so easy to get that there is little risk involved, but that isn't the point. Who benefits when otherwise law-abiding citizens are made into criminals for accessing medicine that can greatly improve their lives at little cost to themselves, government, and society?

In Canada, the question remains relevant as the government works to make it as difficult as possible for medical marijuana users to get their stuff. Why? Read on..!

G20 report chastises police. But who's responsible?

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) has denounced the tactics that police and their superiors used during the G20 gathering in Toronto. The OIPRD has released a report that, hopefully, will be less easy to ignore than the past reports. See the Star's initial take.

I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this, but the thing that strikes me is the lack of accountability. No one seems to know (or name) who made the offending orders to leave the violent protesters (the "black bloc") alone and to trap and arrest the peaceful protesters the next day.

While a small group was breaking store windows and destroying police cars, the Major Incident Command Centre held a meeting about the havoc:

"At a point where there was silence, I asked the question, ‘Why are we not arresting these people?’" [incident commander Mark] Fenton is quoted as saying. "The Chief [Bill Blair] responded by looking at me and saying, ‘That is a very good question, Mark.’" 

Fenton said he also asked another incident commander how the situation had spiralled out of control. 

"Superintendent Ferguson responded by shaking his head and saying words to the effect of, ‘I tried, but I could not get the public order to move’ … I asked them to move and I was told that they couldn’t.’"

To whom did superintendent Ferguson make his request for a "public order"? Why was the request denied?

Then:

During the Queen and Spadina kettling, commanders on the ground made two requests to the major command centre at police headquarters: to use the LRAD—colloquially referred to as a “sound cannon”—to communicate with the crowd, and for an exit route for people to leave.  

"Both requests were denied," the [OIPRD] report said.

Again, who denied the orders and why? Read on..!

A response to Toronto City Councillor and Budget Chief Mike Del Grande's editorial in today's Toronto Sun

In today's Toronto Sun, councillor Mike Del Grande (Ward 39, Scarborough-Agincourt) excoriates the Toronto Star and the CBC for its coverage of mayor Rob Ford. I think his comments are mostly stupid. Here is a note I sent his office via his website feedback form.

"
Mr. Del Grande,

I found your editorial in today's Toronto Sun offensive, misleading, and hypocritical. To call out the CBC and the Toronto Star for having an "agenda", from a pulpit in the most biased of Toronto newspapers, the Sun, is simply silly and frankly ignorant. It is a dangerous and foolish attack on dissent. I think it is you who has made a mistake, and I think you should apologize for it.

Consider your editorial with "politicians" in place of "newspapers". Many people believe what politicians say to be true, but the media demonstrate continuously that politicians lie or mislead the public when it suits them. Where is the standard for factual, accurate reporting for them? It is the press that holds politicians to account for their speech. If you can't see that, if you simply think they hide behind an agenda, you do not deserve to represent this city.
"

UPDATE:

So, Councillor Del Grande got back to me, suggesting that The Star wouldn't have printed his editorial, and that he had no other venue for expressing his opinion. Then he suggested that I was making a personal attack rather than trying to engage in dialogue. I responded thus:

"
I don't believe the question is who would have printed it or how to express the opinion. Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you like. But did you ask the Star or CBC to print it? You have a website. You could publish it there, or send a news release, or use twitter or facebook—all neutral platforms.

The point is that the opinion you expressed is tone-deaf. Almost everything that you said about the Star and CBC applies equally to all media outlets, and it also applies to politicians such as yourself.

Think about it. You excoriate the Star and CBC for having an agenda and then argue that they are intentionally misleading readers who often believe what they read. Then you complain that they don't meet standards of journalistic integrity. But you write this in a newspaper whose readers, according to your own logic, are likely to believe what you wrote, whether valid or not.

How is this different from the Sun? Have you read Sue-Ann Levy and Joe Warmington? Do you think they don't have an agenda?

How is it different from the mayor or yourself? Where are the professional standards for politicians?

At least for the press there is the press council (from which the Sun excused itself recently, you surely know). Politicians lie or mislead with impunity. That is not a "personal attack". Many reputable and skilled reporters in Toronto, including from the Sun, have uncovered and exposed such things—and not just from this council and mayor.

I am asking you: do you see how your editorial might be hypocritical? That is a question: dialogue.

For the record, I don't think the CBC is blameless in this latest instance, and I think some have been too quick to jump on non-issues at the expense of more important coverage. But those decisions are not up to me. I think it is important to have a committed fourth estate to challenge our leaders and inform the citizenry.

Thanks for your reply.
"

Shortly thereafter, Del Grande charmingly dismissed my concerns by saying succinctly, "Agree to disagree".

So, from this exchange I think I can fairly reach these conclusions:

• Del Grande truly believes that some media outlets are acting in a biased manner, but not others
• He does not believe that the mayor or any currently sitting politicians has misled the citizens of Toronto, intentionally or otherwise
• He believes that politicians should not be held to the same standard of truth-telling as the media
• He sees no conflict in expressing his opinion through a clearly and explicitly biased news organization, but not bothering to seek an alternative outlet, neutral or otherwise
• He would rather dismiss contrary opinions than engage in dialogue
• He has no idea what makes a logical argument

Interestingly, I have no way of knowing which of my several points of dialogue Del Grande is dismissing with his "agree to disagree", or whether he disagrees with all of it. One way or another, I believe it shows an unfortunate lack of respect for my response.

Read on..!

First impressions of davenport candidates: the fringe

When I have a bit more time, I'd like to take a close look at what the candidates are saying about local issues, but in the mean time, let's take a quick look at what they and their parties are about.

Here are the fringe candidates in Davenport, from the Communist Party, the Freedom Party, and the Libertarian Party (in alphabetical order by name).

Paul Bedard, Ontario Libertarian Party

There's not much to say about Bedard at the moment. His profile on the Libertarian Party website says only that is top issue is "limited government". No surprise there. The party's platform expands on this idea a bit:

There are many areas in which the government of Ontario has interfered to the detriment of the citizens of this fine province. ... the only proper functions of government are national defence (protection from foreign invaders), the police (providing protection from criminals) and the courts settling, according to objective laws, disputes among individuals, where private, voluntary arbitration has failed).

The party's website has lots of info for residents curious about how libertarianism works generally and where the party stands on broad issues like tax reform, education, health care, crime prevention, environment, child care/day care, employment equity/pay equity, poverty, and energy.

Franz Cauchi, Freedom Party of Ontario

There's not much info about Cauchi either, not even a top issue, but the party's website offers helpful information, including the party platform. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Freedom Party:

Instead of embracing the libertarian motto that "the government that governs least governs best", the Freedom Party asserts that "the purpose of government is to defend every individual's freedom, not to restrict it."

In other words, while the Freedom Party of Ontario might at first seem like a libertarian party, it is in fact an "objectivist" party. The distinction might not be obvious to anyone who is not a political philosophy scholar. At any rate, the party espouses capitalist policies based on reason, rational self-interest, and consent, and rejects appeals to altruism, irrationality, and the supernatural. The party's platform calls for eliminating various taxes and provincial bans, and perhaps most controversially, introducing medical cannabis centres.

Miguel Figueroa, Communist Party of Canada (Ontario branch)

Davenport is lucky to have the leader of the Communist Party's Ontario branch. Figueroa is the only one with a bio on his party's website, but it doesn't say anything about Davenport. The site does however offer this:

The aim of the Communist Party is a socialist Canada: a society in which the wealth is owned equitably by the working people who create it, and where exploitation and oppression of one human being by another is ended.

You don't need a degree to know that communism is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism and objectivism. The latter two call for as little government as necessary to defend the country, its citizens, and the law. Communism calls for government to regulate the economy and to provide a wide variety of social services to citizens. The Communist Party's platform calls for increased wages and employee benefits, enhanced labour rights and health and safety laws, electoral reform, improved access to quality affordable housing, improved public health care, education, and transit, sustainable energy and natural resource management, and food security.

That's it for the fringe candidates. To be clear, by "fringe" I only mean that their parties' ideas are at the edge of the mainstream. I don't mean to say that they are invalid in any way. Often ideas on the fringe slowly work their way into the mainstream.

Feel free to let me know what you think of any candidate! Read on..!

Ontario election 2011: Davenport and beyond

I live on Symington Avenue, right in the middle of the recently christened Junction Triangle. I've been here for over three years now and I love it. I think the West Toronto Railpath is one of the city's great recent successes, abbreviated though it is for the time being. The Wallace Avenue footbridgeoffers a terrific view of the city (and great exercise). There are excellent and affordable new restaurants, cafés and businesses opening up all around. Even the 168 Symington bus, which runs frequently past my door, is more convenient than noisy or intrusive.

I try to pay attention to neighbourhood issues. The things I hear about most are the Georgetown rail corridor/air-rail link (could be amazing), planning (where's that boys and girls club?), development (there's lots), incumbent industry (should it stay or go?), politics (how to engage the diverse and transitional population?), and traffic (Dupont is pretty bad).

Here are the issues that concern me the most this election.

1. Honesty, integrity, and vision among candidates
I have had enough of politicians who lie or misrepresent the truth to the public in order to advance their agenda. Toronto and Canada have seen too much of this in the last 10 years. In my opinion, candidates should have a positive vision for their city and province. They should express their vision plainly; they should answer questions clearly; they should avoid pithy slogans and name-calling; they should publicly discuss their ideas to improve their city and province, rather than simply attacking other candidates' proposals. They should act like concerned citizens, like you and me. They should talk and listen to citizens, and try their best to understand them. They should be clear about their ideas and willing to defend them, but accept that they might be wrong. (I know, I know. I must be dreaming!)

2. The Georgetown rail corridor/air-rail link
This is an issue that affects the entire electoral district of Davenport, and really the entire west end of Toronto. The problem is pollution, mainly from diesel exhaust. The Liberals have committed to increasing the number of trains running between Union Station and Georgetown, starting with a Union-Pearson Airport rail link. Due partly to the costs and partly to an artificial timeline, they have chosen an unproven "clean diesel" technology at a time when jurisdictions around the world are implementing electric railways. Critics of the plan say it is an immense threat to citizens' health and an enormous waste of money. The government says it will electrify the corridor eventually, and the new technology will limit the threat from pollution.

3. Public Catholic schools: LGBT rights and funding
These aren't Davenport-specific issues. Rather they affect citizens across the province. First, the taxpayers of Ontario support Catholic religious education with their money to the exclusion of other religions. In fact, Canada's constitution mandates this arrangement, but the constitution was written at a time when there were only (or very nearly only) Catholic and Protestant Christians in Canada, and there were fears that Catholics would suffer discrimination in what were at the time mainly Protestant schools. That is obviously no longer the case, but the system remains, only now it discriminates against all non-Catholics. Second, the Toronto Catholic District School Board recently refused to endorse a policy of support for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students, in defiance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Ontario's Human Rights Code. The problems that this situation presents are obvious: can the province justify using citizens' money to fund an organization that actively discriminates against citizens?

4. Planning, development, transit
Some might find this stuff dull, but I am very interested in how the city looks and, more importantly, how it works. I travel the city on foot, by bike, by car, bus, and train. I get stuck in traffic, and I get delayed on the subway, and I'd love the city to move people around better. In my neighbourhood, I hear of new developments regularly. In fact, I can hear one project being built at Dupont and Lansdowne from my house. I'd like Toronto to demand greatness in its development; to create and follow long-term plans that make the city—its streets and buildings and businesses and services—work for communities, not against them; to do more to respect its built heritage and to complement what exists with developments that make citizens and communities proud.

But Davenport is much more than my neighbourhood, and I'd love to hear what you think is important this election or in general. I'll be writing about the election on The Star's Speak Your Mind blog until the results come in. See the Davenport file there. (Click the "Blogs" tab beside ">>Davenport news" for the good stuff.) Blog blog blog. Read on..!

A letter to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty on the electrification of the Georgetown rail corridor

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Room 281, Main Legislative Building, Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1

Re: electrification of the Georgetown rail corridor

Mr. McGuinty,

I live in the Toronto neighbourhood, the Junction Triangle, so named because it is bounded (closely) on all three sides by intersecting rail lines.

My purpose in writing you today is to express my concern about your government’s plan to expand the use of diesel trains—by nearly ten times—along the Georgetown rail corridor (one of the three lines that borders my neighbourhood), and to voice my support for electrification of the line. I believe you understand the facts of the matter, since Metrolinx (along with many others past and present) has already affirmed that electrification is the logical next step for rail along the corridor. I expect you have heard facts and arguments from the Clean Train Coalition and other public interest groups, and I hope from your own caucus members from the affected ridings. So I will try to be brief.

Please understand that I support rail expansion. I believe it is extremely important—so much so that it is almost the only issue of importance for me and many others in this coming election—and I applaud you for acting to improve rail transit in Toronto and the surrounding areas.

First, simply put, diesel is the past, and as a citizen I resent wholeheartedly that you would waste my and my family and friends’ money on something that is already out of date and which will only serve to waste more money in the future. It seems like madness to me. I further resent as a citizen and human that you would spend my money to effectively poison me and my neighbours for decades to come. That is a conscious betrayal. I do not trust that the purported benefits of new technology will pan out as claimed. And the fact remains that diesel technology belongs to the past.

Second, I understand that the province made some sort of promise to the organizers of the Pan-Am Games that Toronto would have in place some sort of effective transportation option from the airport into the city for the games. Perhaps that promise involved trains, which puts Metrolinx on a tight timeline, but this is a poor argument for moving ahead with the wasteful and dangerous diesel plan. If we have made a foolish promise, it is better to take it back and make amends than to follow through.

The diesel plan is disrespectful to our Pan Am guests and more so to Ontarians. We should be showing how well and intelligently we do things here—how we plan for the future. We should be setting an example for the Americas and the world. Instead, we are insulting everyone by choosing to live in the past. And there are options. Designated busways/lanes for the duration of the games could easily transport athletes, guests, visitors, and others between the airport and various destinations. Has your government considered this option? The GO system itself could be used to greater effect if shuttle buses travelled from the airport to nearby train stations.

Third, you have made many claims of building a green economy in Ontario and generally advancing a green agenda. How can anyone trust such claims when you insist on moving ahead with such an environmentally unsound project? This is dishonest, and I cannot understand it, especially when the choice is so easy. Don’t let your past and ongoing investments and initiatives in the environment be overshadowed by this pointless move.

Finally, know that this is an election issue, and it is one that could cost you and your party their leadership. You must know at this point that your past accomplishments mean very little when facing opponents that are dedicated to change and an electorate that sees your government as complacent. Proponents of rail electrification are united and their numbers are growing. They are vocal and they are right and they will only support candidates who support electrification.

I believe that you, too, know electrification is right, and I suspect you would prefer to do it right the first time. If you think your hands are tied by the Pan-Am Games or finances or anything else, know you have options. Consult the people of Ontario, in whom you have said you believe so strongly, and they will give you solutions. You have the power and you can make the Georgetown rail corridor electrification happen, as you have with numerous other worthwhile causes over your tenure as premier. You can be the person who finally brought Ontario’s rail system into the modern era. Or you can be the premier who poisoned thousands of Ontarians for no good reason.

Please make the right choice.

Thank you very much,

Adam Gorley Read on..!

The internet always remembers?

Does the internet really remember everything? Do we need to teach computers how to forget?

I wonder if it won't just happen "naturally", like by attrition.

I imagine that sooner or later, irrelevant information will be pushed to the bottom of the pile (or search list) and then eventually be "forgotten", if not completely erased. Google already does this to a certain extent, arranging search results by relevance, estimated by factors like how many other sites link to the information and so on.

If a piece of information exists on a computer connected to the internet, but no website links to it, will anyone ever recover that obscure information? And what about when computers disconnect from the internet? Unless their data are cached somewhere (which, admittedly, Google and others do on a large scale), that information is no longer accessible. Also, over time, as formats and computer languages change, much more information will become inaccessible without translation.

Maybe it's just the same as with current information in "legacy" formats: there's a lot of it that exists, but which we are completely unaware of—like in dusty old tomes in libraries that we would have to spend hours or years searching for because it's not indexed. Still it's there.

I understand the ideal of going "off the grid", and avoiding trails of data that can tell others about one's daily habits or personal life. At its simplest, it means I can just go somewhere and no one will know where I am, or I can do something, and no one will know what I'm doing. Without such protection, we end up in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, never sure if someone is watching, always afraid to act.

It's not about living by the law or not. I'm sure that for many law-abiding citizens, once they believe that someone is watching their every move, they will reconsider some or many of their actions; they will become unnatural, separate from their desires, alienated from their selves.

Of course, time won't help if someone wants to remove some damning information from the internet right away. Facial recognition certainly won't make it any easier. It's almost enough to make me want to give up on Facebook. Sometimes I don't want to worry about someone seeing my photos or personal information (despite security measures).

I do believe that, in time, much digital information will be lost, in the ways I've mentioned and others. As disasters and time have destroyed copious past knowledge, so they will do to current and future knowledge. Most people probably have little to worry about when it comes to their personal information. That is, besides marketers, identity thieves, and future historians and archeologists, few people care about the average person's information. And for the time being, going off the grid can be as simple as leaving the house without your phone and wallet, and paying for things with cash.

We make much of our dependence on technology, and surely much of the talk is true. Perhaps fewer people each year could survive "in the wild"; and the idea doesn't interest them. Can we say that these people are worse off than others? Is it as dangerous as some say to trade our privacy for convenience? Is it harmful to trust technology with our secrets, some of which we would never even tell other people? Read on..!

The dangers of internet arrogance

So recently, my sister Jane performed one of the internet's cardinal sins and forwarded me an Unsubstantiated Public Service Announcement E-mail on the dangers of microwaving food in plastic containers. Naturally, being the good netizen that I try to be, I turned to Snopes to find the real story. I read the Snopes article, thought to myself: "Well, that little internet tidbit is clearly false", replied to my sister with the link, and smiled the smug smile of self-satisfaction one can only experience after lazily denouncing someone's valid attempt at discourse.

"Jane should know better than that", I thought, upon receiving the message. And maybe she should have. But I had fallen into a now-common trap that can blind even the very reasonable internet visitors among us, and certainly those more prone to tell people when they've done something "wrong" or stepped beyond the ephemeral bounds of netiquette (and there is no shortage of those—in fact, there are websites dedicated exclusively to telling people they're wrong; also, the comments on places like Digg are full of examples of people telling each other they're wrong in really awful ways).

My point is that Jane's chain e-mail activated my critical reflex, but I allowed Snopes to shut the reflex down, because I accept that site as a Reputable Depot for Information on Scams and Frauds and Unsubstantiated or Far-Fetched News Stories. It's not that I don't actually trust Snopes; even in this case, it's clear that the message itself is a fraud. But I had a reality check when I watched an episode of CBC's Doczone called "The Disappearing Male" that was about how certain chemicals which are widely used in plastics and other consumer products appear to be causing damage to the reproductive organs of male fetuses and eventually fertility problems in babies, boys, and men. The documentary presents strong evidence from numerous independent studies that this is in fact the case, and these chemicals—bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates—are extraordinarily dangerous, but at the same time points out that the United States Food and Drug Administration and other public bodies—guardians of the public health all—have preferred to rely on industry-sponsored studies for their judgments and recommendations about these chemicals (remember the tobacco debates?). The point being that Snopes defers to the FDA on the matter, and, usually, I would be suspicious of the government in any matter like this.

The Snopes article then goes on to quote a presumably reputable doctor advising: use plastics "specifically meant for cooking" if you must, because "whenever you heat something you increase the likelihood of pulling chemicals out", but it's best to cook with glass, ceramics, or stainless steel (obviously not the latter in the microwave, no matter how curious you might be). In other words, if not quite refuting, then certainly diluting the claim that plastics are safe for microwave (or general) use. This particular Snopes article is strange actually, because it tries to present a balanced view by debunking the form of the message (the fraud disguised as a PSA), but offering another side of the content of the message (the grain of truth in the fraud)—which is fine—but it seems to me that the researchers were maybe more interested in shooting down another bit of presumed internet nonsense rather than providing a public service. I think Snopes too fell prey to the same internet arrogance that prevented me from taking that next critical step.

Anyway, I recommend you watch "The Disappearing Male" and take a look at where these chemicals are around you. Canada recently banned the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles, where it was very common, but they remain in all sorts of products and in the environment at large. From the Doczone page: "Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called 'hormone mimicking' or 'endocrine disrupting' chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development."

So, sorry Jane! I still don't like chain e-mails, but I'll pay better attention next time, and not be so quick to judge.
Read on..!

Entering the fray

I find myself in a strange position relative to the upcoming Canadian election. The choice seems so starkly clear: progress or regress, acting boldly or procrastinating weakly. But in Canadian politics no choice is clear. There are always so many factors at play: four or five parties to choose from, four of which are arguably on the progressive side, either socially, economically, or both; past behaviour, which in the short term almost invariably plays against the reigning party; the numerous cultural divides—East and West and Centre, French and English, Rural and Urban; the not-so-creeping advance of "American-style" attack and smear politics; and principles, those poor mistreated things.

It almost makes one admire the simplicity of our neighbour's two-party republic, and it certainly highlights the failings of the first-past-the-post electoral system in the present day, in Canada at least. Let me say this: Canada has a de facto two-party system. It has always been this way, and it will likely remain this way until we demand some form of proportional representation. What I mean by that is that there are two strong national political parties in Canada, which generally trade turns governing the country. They do this not by winning the most votes, but by winning the most ridings, effectively preventing any other party from gaining a significant hold on power. They win the most ridings by either dividing the activists from the moderates, or by playing on our fears and dividing and conquering.

There are other parties; indeed there have been quite a number in Canada's great history, spanning the political spectrum. The current Conservative party was actually formed from a coalition of two previous "right-wing" parties. These alternative parties commonly win large percentages of the popular vote (the NDP won 17.5 percent in 2006...), which rarely amount to a similar number of actual seats in Parliament (...but only 9.4 percent of the seats).

One thing is: our existing system favours the major parties; only partly because they are more centrist in scope. Certainly, the greater part of Canada's population falls in the centre of the political spectrum, but clearly, given the voting results, many people look to other parties, for many possible reasons.

Another thing is: political partisanship in itself simplifies politics and encourages simplistic views and opinions, particularly at this media-drenched time. It encourages our representatives to insult us during elections by attacking, dividing and lying. Moreover, for some reason, our system discourages multi-party coalition governments, though to me, this seems like an ideal solution, considering our several progressive parties. Instead, the system demands strategic voting in order to encourage a majority win for one party. Often—and currently—in order to prevent an undesirable party from gaining a majority, voters have to choose between voting for their preferred candidate or voting for the party most likely to win. This is usually an evil choice, offering no satisfaction for the undecided, and the incumbent party can easily take advantage of the situation.

And another: the media distort the messages of all the parties to support the one they believe in. They show ads that are offensive and often highly dubious; they irresponsibly base so much of their election reporting on polls, knowing that in our system these cannot represent the final numbers; they collude to exclude dissenting voices from the political debate.

Such is the state of our confederation. But I'm not pessimistic about the outcome. I believe in the Canadian spirit and Canadian intelligence. We are better and smarter than the current level of debate happening in the country right now and I think we won't be cowed by scare tactics and insults. It seems clear that many or most of us have been inspired by the dignity Barack Obama has shown in the U.S. election campaign, and I'm sure we dream that we could have a candidate of similar stature and oratory skill. Canada has not seen such a person since Pierre Trudeau.

But no candidate is perfect, and certainly no political party is perfect. Certainly, they must earn our trust and act responsibly, but we also must think clearly and vote responsibly. In our case, unfortunately, this means examining what you want Canada to look like in the coming years, and how you think your vote might best achieve that end. It's "strategic", and I hate it, but it's where we are and who we are, and it's our duty. Read on..!

Intercity squabbles ruin lives

This is a letter I wrote last year to Adam Vaughan, Toronto city councillor for the riding of Trinity-Spadina, a very large area where I used to live. Unfortunately, I received no response.

"
Hello Mr. Vaughan,

I would like to say that I appreciate the work you have done in this diverse and extremely busy ward. I have become increasingly frustrated with politics in this city (and region, province, and country!), and from what I have seen, you have added a measure of integrity to the process.

But of course, if everything were great, I probably wouldn't be contacting you!

I read this morning that there has been some sort of resolution reached in the ongoing squabble between Mississauga and Toronto regarding airport limos and taxis and where they may or may not pick up passengers. That resolution is that Airport Limos will no longer be allowed to pick up passengers in Toronto for their long drive back to Mississauga. (As I understand, the reverse is currently true and Toronto cabs are not allowed to take passengers from the airport to Toronto.)

I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, but personally I find the whole thing petty. This "resolution" seems more like it's out of revenge rather than thinking of the good of the region or its citizens. I can imagine no good reason why any cab, be it a taxi or a limo, should have to drive one way on its 30km trip with no passenger. To me, this flies in the face of reason, good civic relations, traffic responsibility, and our environmental plan. It is simply a waste of time, money, and resources.

Now, I am not concerned with "who started it", or anything like that. I am concerned that we reach an intelligent solution rather than continuing with this pointless politicking.

I am contacting you because you are the councillor for my ward, but I will certainly contact Mr. Moscoe, who I understand instigated the current solution, if that is more appropriate.

Thanks very much for your time! I look forward to hearing your take on this issue.

Regards and season's greetings,

Adam Gorley
"
Read on..!

The Honourable Mr. Ernie Eves is a buffoon, and his government is full of idiots for supporting him

I e-mailed this message to several friends five years ago, with the subject: "Difficult times, do not read if easily angered by anti-dubya Bush sentiment". The title above was the title I gave the message.

It was still early in my "active" political life, and goings on in my world could still incite me to write an angry missive and forward it to people I though might care.

I didn't have a blog at the time, or I might have posted it there. And now, I found it languishing in my e-mail archive, and I thought I'd offer it a more worthwhile place.

Below is the full (but newly edited for typos) text.

"
Mr. Eves and his cabinet, unfortunately in power in Ontario, have gone the route of the Honourable Mr. Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, by sending word to the American Ambassador Mr. Paul Celucci that they fully support the United States war effort despite the federal government's condemnation thereof.

Although all the members of the Tory government will no doubt deny it, it is difficult to erase the perception that this support is based entirely on monetary concerns. Indeed it is nearly impossible to miss or mistake this notion, as the economies of Ontario and Alberta rely significantly on investment by our neighbours to the South.

Certainly we are all allowed to have a difference of opinion with our national government—this is the hallmark of proper democracy—but it is at times like these that further divisions of opinion at the higher levels of government reveal all the more cracks and leaks in our country’s political well being.

Why would any provincial government go out of its way to officially state its support for an illegal war that is none of our business? The answer, if it is not the one I described above, may be difficult to ascertain.

The Canadian (and American) public has spoken overwhelmingly against the war, and has supported the Liberals’ decision to remain outside the arena of war, so this is a tough issue to stand by on the electoral front, especially with a provincial election looming.

Mr. Eves said, in a letter to Mr. Celucci, “I want to reiterate that I share your expression of disappointment in the response of the Canadian government. Having grown up in a border community, I appreciate the close relations we in Ontario have with our American friends.”

Obviously, neither of them understands that close relations imply honesty, trust, support, and maybe even friendship; all of which we are more than willing to give of ourselves. Indeed our support and hospitality following the attacks on the WTC and pentagon was enormous, and if that is to be so quickly forgotten…

We cannot be guilted into joining an illegal, immoral offensive. The same rules that apply to us regular folk should apply to our higher-ups, and most would agree that we should not be cajoled into joining a compatriot in a theft or vandalism or a murder.

It is our duty as “close relations” to confront and challenge our friends, not to be yes-men. Those who play that role are merely adding to the perception of the U.S.A. as an international bully.

Apparently Mr. Celucci suggested that if Canada were to go to war, the United States would lend all the help it could. But this statement is foolish in this circumstance (and perhaps any) because the likelihood of Canada declaring war, especially under illegal conditions, is next to nil.

It seems clear that all of this talk of support for the war from select provincial cabinets really amounts to a lot of political grandstanding; but if not for the general population—those who will elect our next governments—who are against the war, then for whom? It is all for the industries who take advantage of our plentiful resources and our lax environmental enforcement; who lay off thousands while their CEOs take home record-setting bonuses; whose products we don't need…

There are plenty more problems fomenting and fermenting in Eves' Ontario these days, many of which seem to aid the rich (supposedly for the good of us all). So why, Mr. Eves, are you and your cabinet giving your official support to the U.S. government and its war?

As a related aside, one of my favourite cabinet ministers (and my preferred candidate in the Tory leadership campaign ;), the Honourable Mr. Jim Flaherty, said, Americans “were expecting us to act like friends in this time of crisis, that we would be there for them.”

This doublespeak seems prevalent among certain groups of our elected representatives these days, but what exactly is the “crisis” that he is speaking of? And if indeed there is one, of whose devising is it?

Also, it has turned out that Mr. Klein was premature in his letter to Mr. Celucci. In his letter, he suggested that he and his entire cabinet was behind the U.S., but not long after he was chastised by several members of his caucus who did not want their names attached to any such declaration.
"

Read on..!

I don't believe the public should fund Catholic (or other religious) schools

This is a letter I wrote six years ago and sent to all the local and provincial politicians I could find, and the media.


"
Dear Sirs or Madams,

An issue has come to my attention recently that has put various pieces of news into clearer perspective for me. Of all the devastating news from the political world in the last two years, this is the first that has made me feel it warrants contact with the government officials or media outlets. The issue is that of state-sponsored and publicly funded homophobic discrimination and homophobia. I think you or anybody would find it hard to disagree that this is an issue of local, provincial, and national importance with extremely far-reaching implications.

Part of what brought this to my attention were the recent and continuing events concerning Marc Hall, a student in the Durham district Catholic school board. He is a 17-year-old high school student whose school has denied him permission to attend his high school prom with his boyfriend, because, while the Catholic church now accepts homosexuals as people, it has yet to officially accept homosexual behaviour. The apparent doublespeak of this contradiction does not seem to bother the church as a whole, but we can be assured that more than a few members find the discrepancy downright absurd. For surely there can be no separation of the individual from the individual's behaviour, homosexual or otherwise.

I have no exceptional complaint with the Catholic church and no comment on the specific case of Marc Hall vs. the church, which should, as part of its right to freedom of religion, be allowed to believe, teach, and proselytize whatever it wishes. The problem, however, arises due to the fact that in Toronto, all over Ontario, and, I assume, many other jurisdictions across Canada, Catholic education is funded with taxpayers' dollars.

Which brings me to the other news clarifying this issue. That was the announcement by the provincial government in Ontario of tax credits for parents of private and religious school students, which would make all education in Ontario (private, religious, or public) funded at least partially by the taxpayer.

My personal view is that in today's multicultural Canada, there should be no direct relationship between the church (any denomination) and the state, and our official policy should be secular. This is partially due to the near impossibility of meeting the demands of dozens of distinct faiths, but mostly because all levels of government in Canada have enough tasks and duties to take care of and certainly enough to fund that it is unreasonable to expect the delegation of religious principles be included in their agenda. Especially if those principles are those of only one religion. Personal opinion aside, state-sponsored homophobic discrimination violates the Canadian Human Rights Act (as amended in 1996) and certainly doesn't fit into Canada's mandate for its people.

I can no longer support any political party or individual politician that does not consider this issue seriously and move to take immediate action to ameliorate the situation. The solution seems simple:

Publicly funded Catholic schools (and those of any denomination) must be sold or otherwise divested from the state portfolio, and
No religious or private education should be funded by taxpayer dollars now or in the future.

It is impossible to expect and unnecessary to hope for the Catholic church to change its policy of condemning the lifestyles of homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people, but it is absolutely despicable that the discrimination is supported by all levels of government and the taxpayers of Canada.

Thank you very much for your time,
Adam Gorley
" Read on..!