A Bit More Detail

Graffiti spraypainted north of Bloor and Bathurst that was itself subjected to graffiti, all memorializing a viral movement that was a flash in the pan at least a decade too late, the lesson instructed by this whole thing is that politics gets everywhere.

Daren Foster’s Torontoist post is properly skeptical of the good sense of building a casino inside the city of Toronto, and of Rob Ford’s judgment in this regard. (Both his brother Doug Ford and the brothers’ political ally on council, Giorgio Mammoliti, are in support. So far, they seem relatively isolated. I think, and hope.)

To give the mayor his due: during Monday’s debate on the prospect of building a casino in Toronto, he executed what would not be considered a typical Ford manoeuvre. Instead of just blustering through, acting impulsively on gut instinct or what he believes some mythical taxpayer wants, Ford introduced a motion calling for further study and fact-finding before asking his colleagues to make a decision about whether to give a thumbs-up to the OLG and allow a casino in Toronto.

What’s that you say? A reasoned debate? A little of the old rational discourse? Well, I do declare.

Of course, the mayor made it clear what he personally thinks about casinos. For him, they are all upside. A hundred million delicious, lilac-smelling dollars would flow into our coffers—a number that, like many of the mayor’s boasts, is of uncertain origins. (Perhaps he simply multiplies 100 by 5 cents and arrives at the amount he needs to back a claim?) It’s never the same number, but it always works in the mayor’s favour. Call it the new math.

[. . . W]hat’s giving the mayor pause on the casino issue isn’t a new-found desire for informed debate, but rather the thorny matter of its location. Jane Holmes, Woodbine Entertainment Group’s vice president of corporate affairs, told the committee that a new casino anywhere else in Toronto would jeopardize Woodbine’s existing business—and by extension, the mayor’s much ballyhooed Woodbine Live complex. For Ford, the decision of where a casino might go clearly comes with much larger implications. How could he be seen championing a waterfront casino to the detriment of a business in his own backyard? Don’t us downtowners already get everything without leaving even so much as crumbs for the suburbs? The optics of that—not only for the mayor but for every pro-casino suburban councillor—are ugly.

It’s unfortunate that’s the direction it seems the casino debate will take: not if, but where. Because there’s a much larger conversation we need to have, one that bubbled up at Monday’s meeting: What is the net benefit of building a casino in Toronto?

Note the word net. Anybody who’s pro-casino can read off the reasons having one would be good by rote. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Added revenue to plug budget holes or build much-needed infrastructure. The zazz of a shiny new edifice dedicated to the pleasure of vice and a palace to watch Howie Mandel perform. Why would anybody be against that?

Besides, if we don’t build a casino, Mississauga will. And if Mississauga builds a casino then, well… Yes. What does happen to Toronto if Mississauga has a casino and we don’t? Do we get economic spin-offs, and do they mitigate massive traffic jams? That’s where the question of net benefits—gains minus the costs in receiving those benefits—enters in. The pros minus the cons. Just because the project comes with some advantages doesn’t mean we end up in positive territory.

It’s too soon to say what realistic revenue projections look like, but they won’t be nearly the amount Ford declared. It’s pretty well established that municipalities in Ontario with casinos get the short end of the stick, the slightest slices of financial pie. And the notion of our mayor marching into the premier’s office and striking a better casino deal for Toronto is delusional even by the hyper-delusional measure of this mayor. He’s missed no opportunity to alienate our current premier, regularly threatening him with electoral pain at the hands of Ford Nation. Not to mention that little bit of debt the province is wrestling with. Yeah, they’ll want to hand over more cash to us.

[. . .]

What downtown Toronto needs—especially along its waterfront—are more vibrant public spaces. Real, tangible, lived-in ones, not those manufactured by corporate entities catering to some projected desire we have to get away from it all. How much is it worth to us as a city to bargain away a chunk of our prime real estate in return for a whack of service jobs and an uncertain revenue stream that will invariably fall short of expectations?

linked to journalist Catherine Solyom’s interview in the National Post with fugitive hacker Christopher Doyon. Doyon, allegedly one of the coordinators of the Anonymous movement of cyber-hackers, here in this article claims to have global reach and access to everything.

Q: Anonymous started out as online pranksters but has gotten a whole lot more serious in the last two years. What happened?
A: I believe Egypt was really a turning point for us emotionally in Anonymous. Obviously there was always that sort of prankster edge to us. But people often ask me, “Why are you so mean nowadays?” It started in Egypt – when you work for days to set up live video feeds and the first thing you watch through those feeds is people killing your friends with machine guns – that becomes personal. And then it’s not just Egypt, it’s Libya, Tunisia, over and over again these Freedom Ops are really what gave us a sort of take-no prisoners attitude. We get to know these people. It may not be the same as you and I sitting here, but when you Skype with people and spend hours and hours talking with them on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and they share their hopes and their dreams with you for their country, their future, when they tell you how they’re risking their lives so their children can have a better future in some far-off land, you bond with those people and they become your friends and family.

Q. What’s next for Anonymous?
A: Right now we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government. It’s a matter of when we leak the contents of those databases, not if. You know how we got access? We didn’t hack them. The access was given to us by the people who run the systems. The five-star general (and) the Secretary of Defence who sit in the cushy plush offices at the top of the Pentagon don’t run anything anymore. It’s the pimply-faced kid in the basement who controls the whole game, and Bradley Manning proved that. The fact he had the 250,000 cables that were released effectively cut the power of the U.S. State Department in half. The Afghan war diaries and the Iran war diaries effectively cut the political clout of the U.S. Department of Defence in half. All because of one guy who had enough balls to slip a CD in an envelope and mail it to somebody.

Now people are leaking to Anonymous and they’re not coming to us with this document or that document or a CD, they’re coming to us with keys to the kingdom, they’re giving us the passwords and usernames to whole secure databases that we now have free reign over. … The world needs to be concerned.

Is this last sentence really true? Or is this just bragging?

One of the Andrews I know on Facebook linked to Canadian science journalist Bob McDonald‘s post describing why the Canadian and Québec science writers’ organizations received a press freedom award. He’s right to note that we really shouldn’t be proud of the reasons why.

Posted in its entirety, due to its importance.

This past week, the Canadian Science Writers Association, and its Quebec equivalent, received the Press Freedom Award from the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom and Canadian Commission for UNESCO for their efforts to stop the muzzling of Canadian federal scientists. The award was given on May 3, World Press Freedom Day.

The award is given to a Canadian person or group who has defended or advanced the cause of freedom of expression. The science writers collectively wrote an open letter to the prime minister last February, asking to free federal scientists from restrictions imposed on them when speaking to the press about their own work, especially those in environmental science.

This type of award is usually given to reporters working in countries where oppressive governments or dictatorships attempt to control the press and threaten the lives of journalists pursuing the truth. It’s not the type of issue we normally associate with Canada.

Every year, another organization, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, honours journalists, usually from a war-torn or oppressed country, who have risked their lives just doing their job – seeking the truth and informing the public. The huge gala evening, which I have had the privilege to witness, is attended by hundreds of journalists in all media from across the country who support our international colleagues.

The event is a highly emotional one, as we listen to the tragic and heroic stories of journalists who have had their families threatened, been shot at or even killed by governments that do not want the media’s message to be heard.

Hearing about the difficulties journalists in other countries face underlines how privileged we are in Canada to uphold the principles of journalistic integrity.

But this award to the Canadian Science Writers Association is a sign that the tip of that oppressive iceberg is showing here.

Of course, no science writers are being threatened, but there have been numerous incidents where journalists, including us at Quirks & Quarks, have requested interviews with federal scientists about their own work and have either been refused or delayed access until after our deadlines by government media relations.

The scientific perspective on the world is an important one because science is the pursuit of truth. Most of the universe is still unknown to us, whether it be the dynamics of our atmosphere and how it interacts with the oceans, land and life, or the dark matter hidden between the stars.

We know that human activity has had a negative impact on our planet and we need to make some hard decisions about ways to reduce that impact without destroying the economy or our way of life. Those decisions need the scientific point of view. Science is the voice of reason that is often overshadowed by political, social or economic priorities.

This is not to say that science has all the answers, nor should decisions be made for purely scientific reasons. But that perspective needs to be part of the mix, and for that reason, the scientists need to be heard.

So, congratulations to the Canadian Science Writers Association for the award – but it’s really a bit of a sad day for Canada.

The CBC’s reposting of this Canadian Press report on the changing political balance deserves to be reposted. The past decade’s ascent of the NDP from third-place national opposition party (fourth if you include the regionally-concentrated Bloc Québécois) to Official Opposition making inroads in Conservative areas is a fascinating story.

(The NDP’s ascent has strongly negative implications for the Liberal Party, especially if the apparent shift of voters from the Liberal Party to the NDP is sustained.)

The Canadian Press Harris Decima survey indicates that the NDP have 34 per cent of popular support, compared to 30 per cent for the Conservatives.

With a margin of error of 2.2 percentage points, support for the two parties could be equally split.

Still, the poll indicates that the New Democrats have become competitive in traditional Tory areas.

Among rural Canadians, the poll suggests the New Democrats have 31 per cent support, compared to 35 per cent for the Tories.

The NDP appear to have the support of 36 per cent of urban and suburban men, a number that has risen steadily since February.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are seeing their support in that demographic appear to hover around 29 per cent, down from close to 40 per cent four months ago.

As well, the New Democrats appear to have supplanted the Liberals as the natural party among women, said Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris Decima.

“Remember this is a party that a decade ago, half the electorate said they would “never” vote for,” he said.

In the comments to yesterday’s post regarding a guest on the brothers Ford’s radio show who launched into all sorts of homophobic speech without getting a reprimand, Livejournaler suitablyemoname alerted me to what’s probably the definitive word on whether or not Rob Ford is a homophobe. In his words?

All he has to do–literally–is read a two-minute proclamation, get his photo taken shaking a few hands, and he can move on with his life. He won’t even do that. He doesn’t even have to touch a gay person: this is PFLAG, so if he only wants to be photographed with heterosexual grandmothers, that’s entirely possible to arrange. But this is evidently still a bridge too far.

He’s a homophobe.

The Globe and Mail‘s article is below.

Mayor Rob Ford is passing up another opportunity to support the gay and lesbian community, this time opting to skip a flag-raising outside his office that will be attended by Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke.

The Toronto chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays has confirmed that Mr. Ford turned down its invitation to a flag-raising to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in Nathan Phillips Square on May 17.

The event was considered among the likeliest to draw the reluctant mayor – it’s low-key, conveniently located and not part of the formal Pride Week celebrations.

Irene Miller, the president of Toronto PFLAG, began sending the mayor’s office invitations in February.

In a letter she called warm and gracious, the mayor’s office replied in late April that Mr. Ford couldn’t fit the event into his schedule.

“We will continue to keep that door open in the hopes that … the mayor will one day come with us,” Ms. Miller said.

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, whose ward includes the Gay Village, described the May 17 event as “gentle” and “welcoming.” Among the confirmed guests is Mr. Burke, whose late son was gay.

“It would have been wonderful to see the mayor there,” she said. “In many ways, it might have taken the question away about whether or not he supports the LGBT community.”

The mayor will sign the proclamation – as he does for every official day or week the city proclaims through its protocol office – but Councillor Gord Perks will read it in his stead.

Librarian and blogger Michael Steeleworthy has made a stirring post regarding the strongly negative consequences of Canadian federal government budget cuts on the libraries of Canada: jobs lost, serviced dropped, the works.

These budget cuts are a knock-out punch to how public information is accessed and used across the country. The cuts not only affect the library community and possibly your civil-service-friend who lives down the road. They will affect the manner in which our society is able to find and use public information.  If public data is no longer collected (see StatCan), preserved (see LAC, NADP, CCA), disseminated and used (see PDS/DSP and cuts at departmental libraries), then does the information even exist in the first place? There will be less government and public information, fewer means to access this information, and fewer opportunities to do so.

Take a moment and recall the freedom you have been afforded to speak freely in this nation.  The utility of that freedom is dependent on your ability to access the information you use to learn, to criticize, to praise, or to condemn.  If knowledge is power, then a public whose national information centres and access points are ill-funded is a weakling. Libraries and archives provide Canadians with direct access to key government information, and for that very reason, they should be funded to the hilt.

This is where I get to my point: We are now facing a situation in Canada where government information has suddenly become far more difficult to collect, to access, and to use. The funding cuts that Canada’s libraries and archives face is an affront to the proper functioning of a contemporary democratic society. These cuts will impede the country’s ability to access public and government information, which will make it difficult for Canadians to criticize government practices, past and present.

I mentioned on Twitter that these cuts show us that the work of librarians and archivists are crucial to the nation’s interest. We are not mere record keepers, and neither do we spend our days merely dusting cobwebs off of old books. We are the people who maintain collections of public information, and we are the people who provide and nurture access to information. Many of us see ourselves as guardians of the public’s right to access information.  If we take on that guardianship, then we must defend and protect these collections and access points. I’m not talking about a Monday-to-Friday, 9-to-5 job. I’m talking about advocacy, which doesn’t have an on/off switch. Either you do it or you don’t.

Spread the word, as he suggests.

Torontoist’s Steve Kupferman shared the news about a particularly egregious statement made by Sun News personality David Menzies on the brothers’ Ford radio show. Menzies’ a personality, apparently, though not one I’d heard of before. I said “particularly egregious,” by the way, because as this Toronto Life blog posting makes clear he said quite a few other things.

“Could you imagine if I was at that all-candidates meeting and I went to George Smitherman and I said, ‘You know what—you know, George, being a practicing homosexual, and being the fact that you’ve been involved with all kinds of illicit drug use, how do we know you won’t engage in high-risk sex and drug use that will bring about HIV leading to AIDS, and you’ll die in office? I would be run out of town on a rail!… It is despicable, and it speaks of the double standard with the left-wing media in this city, Mayor Ford.”

—David Menzies, speaking on Mayor Rob Ford and Councillor Doug Ford’s weekly radio talk show on Sunday. The topic was the left-wing media’s supposed bullying of the mayor, as evidenced by the coverage of Ford’s run-in with Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale last week. The all-candidates meeting to which Menzies is referring took place during the 2010 mayoral election. During a q-and-a period with mayoral candidates, a man named Marvin Kay, who identified himself as a physician, took the mic and told Rob Ford, “I’m concerned about your weight. Do you think you’ll be able to handle the entire four-year term?” Menzies was arguing that the media would have thrown a fit had an equally rude question been asked of then-candidate George Smitherman, who is gay, and who has admitted to having used drugs in the past. Except, judging by the reaction on Twitter and elsewhere, Menzies seems to have overshot “equally rude” and landed squarely in “unbelievably offensive” territory. (Which he would doubtless say only proves his point.)

Two linked points.

1. Aren’t the brothers Ford responsible for what their guests say on their radio show?

2. Is anyone really surprised that Rob Ford isn’t going to attend Pride, after this especially?

• Centauri Dreams’ Paul Gilster raises the possibility of bringing an asteroid into lunar orbit, for scientific and space-settlement purposes both.
• Daniel Drezner is pleasantly surprised that the situation of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng hasn’t led to anything like a breakdown of Sino-American relations.
• Eastern Approaches notes the Polish holiday of “Flag Day” on the 2nd of May, commemorating the substantial Polish participation in the conquest of Berlin in 1945.
• Far Outliers’ Joel discusses the Canary Islands and the role they played in the emerging imperium, both vis-a-vis Portugal and the later imperial strategies of unified Spain.
• Geocurrents describes the Sino-Soviet border disputes in eastern Siberia in 1969 that killed hundreds of people, nearly led to a Sino-Soviet war, and played a critical role in deciding the future of the world.
• Language Hat starts a discussion about the depressing plight of non-Russian languages inside Russia that quickly expands to include discussions of Turkish immigrants in Russia, the situation of Gaelic in Ireland, and Canada’s own language situation.
• Laywers, Guns and Money reviews a book describing how environmentalism in the Colorado ski resort of Aspen helps to legitimate anti-immigrant sentiment.
• At NewAPPSBlog, Mohan Matthen makes the contrarian argument–compelling, but I think ultimately incorrect–that a “Oui” outcome in the 1995 Québec referendum would have been good for Québec and rump Canada both.
• Yorkshire Ranter Alexander Harrowell discusses the consequences of Bo Xilai’s wiretapping of other officials in China, in the context of ubiquitous state surveillance generally.

The Occupy movement has done very well for itself by any standards, never mind the standards of a somewhat controversial mid-ranking international magazine that made a one-off proposal that went massively, globally viral. The time was right for globally coordinated protests dealing with income inequality, unpopular political systems, and the like. (2011 was such a busy year.)

Is the Occupy movement purely something of 2011, though? Almost all the encampments have been taken down worldwide, by the protests or by police, the mass street protests have stopped, and the movement is dealing with some negative PR from (among other things) some violent protesters. (Black Bloc wrecks it for everyone.)

Do you think the Occupy movement is still relevant? Or is it useful now only as a reference point? What is to be done with the movement’s legacy if that’s the case?

Discuss.