government

Mental Health and the National Discourse

Monday, December 17th, 2012

In North America, unless you’ve been under a rock you’ve been inundated with news about the tragedy in Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.  As is common after these tragedies people try to find a reason, they attempt to make sense of the insensible.

There are talks of gun restrictions (the  Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, used in the shooting is a commercial model of the military M-16).  However, any time someone begins to mention gun control they get a backlash of “don’t politicize the tragedy!” and if someone does voice a pro-gun stance they get the same backlash. As a result, the NRA and their proponents are sensibly silent at the moment, but there is still the undercurrent of the right to bear arms in the US that is very hard to shake.

And while the second amendment isn’t something that is likely to be dealt with soon, there is another issue to deal with, mental illness. A former co-worker posted this heartbreaking article.  Just as my mind repels from the idea of losing a child, like two magnets whose poles repel each other, I find it equally unfathomable to have a mentally ill child.

The description in this article of the mother dealing with an episode, chills me to the bone.  ”His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to.” I cannot imagine what it would be like growing up with a sibling like that, or what it must be like to live in a situation where you would even have to have a safety plan like that.

I can’t imagine the fear and worry the mother must go through.  Every time one of these tragedies happens she sees a possibility of what her child could become.  She must worry about who will take care of her child when she is no longer able to (I think all parents probably worry about that even after their kids are grown up).  But she also clearly loves her son. “When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out.

Mental health has to become part of national discourse, even more than gun control. Just as our bodies get sick, our minds can as well.  Too much of one brain chemical or not enough of another and the delicate of the wiring of our brains goes askew. But we don’t talk about it.

Never is it okay to say, “I think my brain is sick.”  Do that, and you are stigmatized for life. But it makes sense that our minds can sometimes get unbalanced, produce too much of one chemical or another.  Most of the time we are supposed to tough it out, or occasionally get a therapist.  But what about people like the Michael in the article.  What is a mother to do when she already identifies her son as being a danger?

Mother Jones concurs, “No less than 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 61 cases [most recent mass murders in the U.S.] obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 35 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene.

I used to live near CAMH a hospital for people with addiction and mental health issues.  So frequently these two things go together. Whether it is self-medication to deal with the illness or the illness caused by the drugs, I don’t know…probably both.  But I do know that there is a correlation between crime and addiction, and through addiction mental illness and crime go hand in hand.  This sad correlation results in jails that struggle to deal with the mentally ill, which is not where they belong.

There is no consolation that I can give the grieving families, no pearls of wisdom or insight, like I wrote I can’t even begin to fathom the depths of their loss. All I can offer is the suggestion that we take this opportunity to begin a discussion on  how to help people with mental illness before they hurt themselves or others.

Share

So now what?

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

Now that the hubub over Rob Ford is dying down Toronto needs to start thinking about what happens next. Rob mentions he will fight the ruling “tooth and nail”.

He has also mentioned he will try to run in a by-election, although the city lawyer believes he may not be eligible until 2014.

If there was a by-election in a month two potential front runners would be Adam Vaughan and Olivia chow.

Adam Vaughan is the councillor for Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina and has been involved in politics for about 20 years. The best clip I have seen of Adam and his particular brand of politics is in this clip of him discussing privatization with KPMG after Toronto looked at the privatization of TTC streetcars

His biggest opponent and coincidentally his predecessor for Ward 20 councillor is Olivia Chow, wife of the late Jack Layton leader of the NDP. Olivia is currently the MP for the Trinity-Spadina area. She has lots of experience in Toronto politics. Here is a clip of her speaking out for equal marriage (love the fact Jack is sitting in front of her).

Toronto needs to pick itself up, dust itself off, and try to make up those lost two years when Rob Ford was our mayor. We need to learn from the mistake of putting too much stock in the sound clip “gravy train!” and realize that respect for tax payers should not come at the cost of self respect.

Toronto needs to elect a mayor who loves Toronto. Who loves ALL of Toronto not just parts of it; loves Chinatown, and little Italy, loves Danforth and the Beach, loves Markham and Scarborough. We need a mayor who appreciates the suburbs and the urban areas and wants to see Toronto move forward towards the unique city it is and can become.

Share

Rob Ford should not go down on libel issue

Thursday, November 15th, 2012

There are a lot of good reasons Rob Ford should be kicked out of office. Incompetence being the most obvious. His lack of care for urban Torontonians, their needs, or their opinions seems to border on pathological. His sound bite against the “gravy train” is in stark contrast to his actions; most recently the diverting of buses for his football team, his use of office to petition the government for money for his football team, or his use of city owned vehicles for his football team. (Apparently the man likes his football) What Rob Ford shouldn’t be in trouble for is saying the Tuggs Inc. deal stinks. It does, and it stinks to high heaven.

Sandra Bussin, former City Councillor of Ward 32, infamous for her poor handling of 204 Beech Ave, helped negotiate a sweet-heart deal for Fouldis.

The city council extended that arrangement until 2028 – without competitive bids and with sweetened terms, including the right to hawk merchandise on the boardwalk, sell booze in Ashbridge’s Bay Park and pay $50,000 less in annual rent than city council asked for more than five years ago. The deal would see Foulidis paying $1 million less in rent – some $4.75 million compared to the $5.75 million proposed by him in April 2007 – and only $340,000 in sponsorship revenue compared to the $750,000 he’d offered in his original proposal. This would occur over the 20-year term of the lease, which is to end in 2028.

What is truly mind boggling about this is how most government purchases have to jump through procurement hoops to get a $40,000 deal signed (including 3 RFP submissions) but this deal was allowed to be single sourced and is worth millions. The plot thickens when you add in that Bussin received $8,250 in donations from Foulidis’ company.

Rob Ford is now being sued for 6 million for stating it “smacks of civic corruption,” although he denies making that statement to the Toronto Sun. Now there is an audio recording which has surfaced and Foulidis crying on the stand claiming he was made to feel bad.

Imagine, Rob Ford goes down not because of a poor job, but because he said something everyone who lives in the Beach was already thinking.

Share

The problem with e-bikes

Friday, November 9th, 2012

There is a lot of confusion over e-bike and electric scooter. Many people mistakenly equate the two and think that electric scooters should be allowed in bike lanes and on bike baths. That is not only erroneous it is a terrible idea. It might have something to do with the whole “bi-cycle” meaning two wheels. But by that logic, glue a couple of pedals onto a crotch-rocket and bam you get another lane!

First the difference. An e-bike is a pedal assisted bike and they have been around for ages. They are used by people who have difficulty with hills or have weak staminas and use batteries to help propel the bike. They’re bikes because they are primarily powered by someone’s feet on pedals. They have limited speed and are essentially motors attached to bicycle frames.

Electric scooters on the other-hand are motorized vehicles that have pedals on them to meet some government requirement. They look like scooters, are on scooter frames, they just have electric engines instead of gas ones. Look at this picture of an electric scooter. Notice how this woman’s feet are on a platform, not on the pedals? That’s because the pedals are behind her centre of gravity and on the sides of a wide seat; in essence they’re useless.

Now I understand the desire to be in bike lanes. People don’t like to ride around cars I don’t like it either when I am cycling. But electric scooters should be treated like scooters. They should require a license and insurance. They should not be allowed in on bike paths, or bike lanes.

Here is my reasoning, even though e-Scooters have inhibitors which prevent them from travelling faster than 32km an hour and the average speed in a bike lane is around 25km/hr, (so not a huge difference) their momentum is a huge issue, and I will go in to detail in a bit. On bike paths like the Martin Goodman trail the speed is even slower (20km/hr) and a cyclist doing 25 is a lot closer to the speed limit than a scooter doing 32. You might say that police should just ticket speeders but the reality is they don’t and many of these people are not experienced riders. Martin Goodman trail is multi use, meaning there are people walking, roller-blading, skateboarding and cycling on it. It is not the place to have someone moving the same speed as cars in a school zone in close proximity to people.

Back to momentum. There is also the weight of the bike to consider. An e-scooter is 80kg and the average bike is around 9kg. As a result the amount of force behind each in the event of an accident is considerably different.

Momentum is calculated as mass times velocity (p=m*v). Assuming we have a rider of 80kg (I am being generous here since most e-scooter riders are larger than regular cyclists) we end up with 160kg for the scooter and 89 kg for the cyclist; I will even round up to 90 for easy math. As for the speed we will change it to meters per second:
32 km/hr = 8.89 m/s
25 km/hr = 6.99 m/s

When we run the math we can see that the scooter will carry over twice as much momentum as a cyclist. It is just a matter of time before someone is killed by an electric scooter.

Scooter
160 * 8.89 = 1422.4

Cyclist
90 * 6.99 = 629.1

If you are using an ebike or an e-scooter for environmental reasons I applaud your efforts; if you ride a pedal bike even more so, but you should be in the appropriate lane. The government should be clear about the rules, and remove any wishy-washy “should have pedals” loopholes. Everyone should know where they should be and stuff like this probably won’t happen as often.

Share

Your dog is not a child!

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

The Toronto Star posted an article about whether or not dogs should be allowed to run free in the city’s parks. Personally, I think dogs should have their own run parks, but any dogs off-leash elsewhere should result in a fine. While I am not a dog person, I can appreciate the companionship and company dogs provide. And there is a certain joy dogs have while running that can only be compared to children playing.

But they are not children, they are domesticated wolves. Have you ever looked at a dog’s form? It has evolved to be a hunter, the mouth takes up a large proportion of it’s head. The pointy teeth in your mouth are called “canines” after the dogs pointy teeth. Many people will point out that their dog has never hurt anyone, that it is calm and well behaved. I will point out this woman’s dog ate her face.

But even without the potential for violence, dogs make a mess. Some dog owners don’t pick up after their pets, and no one wants to step in shit. Worse, I have seen people let their dogs shit in playgrounds. I have seen people with their dogs loose running around a school ground. I’m not a parent, but one doesn’t need to be to realize kids playing in shit is not a good idea. There is a frightening list of diseases humans can get from dogs. No one should be endangered or risk diseases because someone else is lazy.

Dogs need to run; they need exercise otherwise they end up like this:.

Can we not allocate space in parks and fence it in like they did in Allan Gardens Park so that dogs have a space and people stay safe?

Share

No Casino in Toronto thanks

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

Every time I read about the city getting a casino I cringe. First off, let’s be clear: I don’t like gambling. Gambling is nothing more than a way of taking advantage of people who cannot do math. I would recommend the book “Struck by Lightning” by U of T professor Jeffery Rosenthal for a better idea of what I am taking about. It answer questions like:Are you more likely to win the jackpot from that slot machine, or catch the flu from the person who used it before you?

I have been to Vegas, and I have gambled in casinos before and what strikes me most about them is the façade of excitement and joy. Rob Ford and his supporters are pushing the idea of a casino as a way of invigorating the city and adding much needed revenue to the city coffers, as well as adding jobs. The truth however is much bleaker. When I was in vegas I saw people sitting at slot machines when I went out in the morning from our hotel to go to the Grand Canyon who were still there when we got back 12 hours later. Same clothes, same machine. The law of large numbers states simply that if you play long enough, the casino will take your money.

And let’s be clear, the city will not own the casino. The government may tax the casino, but we all know corporations of ways of avoiding taxes. Someone, presumable a private investor or investors who will be reaping the rewards of human misery. Don’t forget Vegas was founded by criminals looking to launder money, the fact the government takes advantage of it doesn’t make it any less seedy. There are talks of expanding the Woodbine race track, which if you live in the Beach you’re probably not keen on. There are numerous studies that show the impact of casinos on the local communities There are hundreds more if you just search.

But rather than just be a naysayer I have a simple solution if the city wanted to make money from the public. Sell Toronto Savings bonds. Offer 5% interest or a chance to win half the interest of everyone who chooses to gamble. For example if you buy a hundred dollar bond, you could cash it in for $105 in a year. Or people could choose to forgo the $5 to earn a chance to win half the interest of everyone who participates. They still get the hundred dollars back, so they don’t lose anything, but by rolling the dice (pun intended) they get a chance to win. If 100 people participate that is (100 x $5)/2 or $250 dollars as more people participate the bigger the jackpot is.

Before you ask, yes I am aware that this is gambling and I am sure there are laws around why we can’t do this but it seems like a simple way to get city the money it needs to operate, allow people to participate without huge risk, and offer the opportunity of a payout. This isn’t the first time someone had this idea, and it is not without it’s opponents, but I think it’s still preferable to a brick and mortar casino downtown.

Share

Democracy schmocracy

Monday, September 10th, 2012

Anytime the US has an election things get interesting. The bi-polarism of their electoral system cannot help but stir up the country much like hot and cold air make a tornado in a trailer park. What I find interesting is the notion that one must be a citizen to be able to vote, and yet so many do not participate. What is it about citizenship that magically confers the right to determine who leads? And what is it about elections that makes people apathetic? Republican Governor Rick Scott stated “The right to vote is a sacred right, We gotta make sure a U.S. citizen’s right to vote is not diluted.” Diluted by illegal immigrant votes one presumes.

I wonder however what happened to “no taxation without representation”, which one will remember, was the rallying cry of the American Revolution. The Republicans recently started several dragnets to thwart Democratic leaning Hispanics and Blacks from voting for Obama. I guess if you can’t win ‘em over with your billionaire policies you have to stop them from being able to vote in the first place. The dragnet turned up only one illegal immigrant, a Canadian, who had voted in 2004 and 2008 after moving to Florida. I would ask, why shouldn’t immigrants to able to vote? They get taxed, shouldn’t they get representation? Now I am not talking about people who enter the country through fraud or sneak in, but real landed immigrants.

Consider the amount of taxes paid by the GE corporation in 2010, $0.00. In fact it received a 3.2 billion dollar refund from the IRS. It has spent almost 12 million dollars lobbying in Washington so far in 2012. Clearly they have representation, in fact corporations have more represent than real people.

Here in Canada 3,100 people have been stripped of their citizenship because of fraudulant entries. The National Post reports, “Often facilitated by immigration consultants, this type of fraud has allowed foreigners to sponsor relatives and qualify for Canadian passports, benefits and the right to vote — all without ever having lived in Canada for any significant period.” Again that “right to vote” comes up. Considering that only61% of Canadians eligible to vote actually did in the last federal election. in the US, the last Federal election had about the same turnout. Compare that to Australia with a stunning 93.82%. My folks always told me, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Can you complain if you don’t have the right to vote?

I think in reality if we looked at why people become citizens, voting is fairly low on the list of reasons. I am pretty sure you will find things like security and opportunity are higher on the list. And there is nothing special about citizenship. Most of us didn’t do anything to earn it, we were simply born here. Anyone who lives in this country should have the ability to vote. If we tax them, they should have representation, but it should come with the expectation of participation.

Voting should be a sacred duty, not a sacred right.

Share

Record industry charges for dancing and Canada allows it

Friday, June 1st, 2012

The Copyright board of Canada has certified new tariffs that apply to music at events; like weddings.  It is called “Re:Sound”  Now I am getting married soon so I am keenly aware of the rubbish that SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) already pull.  Apparently though the record labels don’t get enough money so they decided to screw Canadians in the ass just a little more; and they must be lobbying like mother-fuckers since the government has okayed this.  Re:Sound claims to be dedicated to obtaining “fair compensation for artists and record companies” but I suspect the emphasis is on record companies.

Now here’s why I am pissed off.  First, I already own the music.  I bought the CDs and put the songs on my own iPod.  Both of which included special “fees” to make sure that everyone who was involved got paid. I should be able to listen to them when I want, where I want.  I am not making money from listening to them, I don’t sell ads against them,  I’m not a radio station. If artists are upset by how little money they make for their music, then they should negotiate a better deal or find a different business model. For example many bands choose to circumnavigate record labels and sell their songs online.

Secondly I am already paying a SOCAN fee to play music I already own at my wedding.  I have friends who are musicians and I know how hard they work,  and I want to support them, but what other job has a long-tail payment where you keep getting paid over and over for work you did years ago.  I think in cases like Radio or TV where someone is making money from the music then yes, by all means charge a fee, but at a wedding? And they want to charge double if people dance.

Ya, you read that correctly.  Double if the guests dance.

“For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. If there’s dancing, the fees double.”

“Recorded music is a vital part of the business model for many live events and, indeed, it is impossible to imagine a fashion show, festival, parade or karaoke bar without music,” Re:Sound’s director of licensing, Martin Gangnier, said in a statement.

What other industry charges you more money for something you already paid for?  To extend this fucked up business model, a copy of Microsoft Office would cost you say$200.  But if you produced a PowerPoint presentation and showed it to less than 10 people it would cost you an additional $9.25, if it was more than 10 it would be $39.33, and if they enjoyed it and clapped at the end it would be double.  Sorry TED, looks like you owe a lot of money….

Or how about this.  I am a painter, like any musician I produce works of art.  If I sell you a painting for your home, it is $1,000 but if you want to hang it in a public space there is an ongoing fee of $9.25 per day.  I know you already purchased it, but I need the ongoing revenue. If the foot traffic is more than 10 people an hour the fees double.  Since both sound and light travel in waves, and the enjoyment is temporal I can see no reason why I shouldn’t be able to file a visual artists tariff, and give the money to galleries and artists.

It boggles the mind.

If you are as outraged as I am,  you can write to the Copyright board of Canada here secretariat@cb-cda.gc.ca.

 

Share

Pride funding in jeopardy…again

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

The city of Toronto is again threatening the funding of pride if the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid marches.  Councillor James Pasternak likens the group to bullies, ”I think I’m looking for some leadership from Pride to finally say ‘No’ to this kind of bullying and demonization. We don’t pull funding just for the fun of it. If Pride feels that supporting QuAIA is more important than a cultural grant then that’s their decision.”

The group’s participation put the $100,000+ funding in jeopardy.  This is of course a red herring.  City Hall doesn’t give a shit about gays and would happily pull funding for the fun of it if there wouldn’t be a massive back-lash.

Please don’t think I’m an anti-Semite, or even anti-Israel.  I just think the city should stay out of it rather than getting involved in a very, very complicated situation.

By fighting against the QuAIA, the city is basically throwing it’s hat in the Jewish corner.  We all know how strong the Jewish lobby is; it makes the “gay agenda” look like a kid’s tea party.  The city has no business siding with one group or the other as long as no laws are broken.

Using gay Pride as the lightning rod allows City Hall to smack the gays while supporting their friends and all the while  ignoring the fact that Pride brings million of dollars into the city.  A benefit the city reaps, not the gay community.

Not to mention the fact that Pro-Isreali groups are in the march as well.  And so they should be!  Pride should be about freedom of speech and being proud of who you are.  Being pro-Jewish doesn’t make one Anti-Palestinian.  And speaking out against Israeli Apartheid, real or imagined, is not the same as speaking out against Israelis.  The city manager agreed that the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” does not violate the city’s anti-discrimination policy, so really the city has no business getting involved.

The  Jewish Defence League protested at Pride offices, which apparently degenerated into name calling and anti-gay slurs.  What are clearly signs of hate speech, likening Palestine to a plague, (ironically the same language used against Jews) and yet there is no protest from city hall, no outcry.  Why not?

The JDL’s facebook page also posted, “During the Nazi Era, many high-ranking Nazis were gay.” Which is clearly a stupid analogy.

Xtra, the queer newspaper reported: “That statement is ‘inane, meaningless and nonsense,’ says Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber. ‘Is the JDL trying to suggest that gays and lesbians are Nazis?’…’They shouldn’t be protesting Pride Toronto, anyway,” says Farber. “They should be protesting QuAIA.’”

Gay pride is about protests.  It started as a march through the streets of New York to protest the unfair treatment of gay men by police at the Stonewall Inn in 1969. And if it wasn’t for those drag queens and rent-boys taking a stand, we wouldn’t have a gay-rights movement and same-sex marriage today.

Toronto held its first Pride three years later in 1972. We now mark the infamous Stonewall Riots every summer with a parade through town. If you don’t like a groups politics, then just ignore them.

Share

How Canadian Banks are screwing Canadians

Thursday, May 17th, 2012

with the help of politicians of course…

Share