Ontario's teachers are at it again. The feisty teachers' unions of Ontario are calling for a public apology from Education Minister Liz Sandals for having the temerity to suggest that maybe teachers were abusing their sick days plan. Quite frankly, I think she's probably dead right.
In 2012, the Ontario Liberal government cut full-pay sick days for Ontario teachers from 20 to 11 per year (plus an additional 120 short-term leave days at 90% of their salary), and took away their ability to bank unused days indefinitely. It was found that teachers were saving up these sick days, and then claiming a cash payout of up to $45,000 for them on retirement. The government estimated that the new plan resulted in almost $1 billion in one-time savings, as well as substantial annual savings.
A recent report from the non-for-profit School Boards’ Co-operative Inc., based on date from 55 school boards in Ontario, shows that teachers are taking more sick days as a result of this policy. According to the report, education workers took an average of 10.29 sick days each in 2014-15, as compared to an average of 8.86 days before the changes were implemented in 2012. And yes, you guessed it, Fridays are when illness strikes most often (although there MAY be some good reasons for that).
So, it seems clear that Ontario teachers are in fact taking more sick days as a result of not being able to bank them. However, Ms. Sandals made the mistake of publicly pointing this out, adding, "There's no reason to believe that they're actually sicker than they were two years ago".
Teacher union responses to this, perhaps predictably, have been along the lines of: "provocative, presumptuous and completely unsubstantiated"; "Her comments demonstrated a lack of respect for the dedication displayed every day by Ontario’s education workers"; "We hope the Minister will learn to more carefully consider her public musings in the future"; "Minister of Ed should publicly apologize to teachers in this prov for her unacceptable & unfounded comments"; etc.
Provocative? Yes. Presumptuous? Not so much. Unsubstantiated? Not at all.
Friday, April 01, 2016
Is women's soccer worth as much as men's?
There seems to be almost unanimous support (in the largely liberal media outlets I tend to read, at any rate) for the US women's soccer team's legal suit alleging wage discrimination. I'm not so sure.
I would usually be gung ho for anything to do with women's equality, but I think we have to be a bit careful about what precedents get set along the way, and about providing excuses for a potential backlash, which might actually put the process back more than it advances.
The point here is that women and men should be paid equally for equal work. Now, the US women's team have actually been substantially more successful than the men's team in terms of winning matches and competitions, and I'm sure that they put in at least a much effort during their performances. But the men's game generates much more money from TV rights and match attendance and, however much you might like to believe otherwise, top-level soccer today is a business, it's about the money. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that, according to the US Soccer Federation itself, the women's team is actually expected to generate a $5 million profit, as compared to a $1 million loss for the men's team, regardless of gross revenues.
If a corollary is helpful, it seems to me that the situation is a bit like comparing a National Hockey League team with a Canadian Hockey League team, and claiming that the CHL team deserves equal pay because they regularly win in their league and put in just as much effort. Unfortunately, they are just not as good as a NHL team, and hockey fans are less likely to want to pay big money to see them. Or you could take the example of British Premier League and Championship League teams, or for that matter any other sport where there are different level and the higher levels get paid more than the lower levels. Professional tennis is one of the few major sports which has gone the route of equalizing men's and women's pay, largely due to the pioneering activist work of Billie Jean King.
So, I think it behooves us to take a bit of care here. We probably don't want to get into technical analyses of whether women's soccer is as fast, skillful or as "good" as men's (like it or not, due to biological reasons, there are very few sports where women could compete against men on their own physical merits), or even whether their game is as entertaining or exciting (there may conceivably be a case for that). But we should probably take a good hard look at why women's sports attract fewer viewers and sponsors, and see what can be done in that arena.
In the meantime, would you pay more for an inferior product at the supermarket because it was made by women? Perhaps, as a matter of principle, similar to buying fair trade coffee, or if you were a supporter of affirmative action or positive discrimination. But you would probably be in a small minority, and the market as a whole would probably not support you.
I would usually be gung ho for anything to do with women's equality, but I think we have to be a bit careful about what precedents get set along the way, and about providing excuses for a potential backlash, which might actually put the process back more than it advances.
The point here is that women and men should be paid equally for equal work. Now, the US women's team have actually been substantially more successful than the men's team in terms of winning matches and competitions, and I'm sure that they put in at least a much effort during their performances. But the men's game generates much more money from TV rights and match attendance and, however much you might like to believe otherwise, top-level soccer today is a business, it's about the money. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that, according to the US Soccer Federation itself, the women's team is actually expected to generate a $5 million profit, as compared to a $1 million loss for the men's team, regardless of gross revenues.
If a corollary is helpful, it seems to me that the situation is a bit like comparing a National Hockey League team with a Canadian Hockey League team, and claiming that the CHL team deserves equal pay because they regularly win in their league and put in just as much effort. Unfortunately, they are just not as good as a NHL team, and hockey fans are less likely to want to pay big money to see them. Or you could take the example of British Premier League and Championship League teams, or for that matter any other sport where there are different level and the higher levels get paid more than the lower levels. Professional tennis is one of the few major sports which has gone the route of equalizing men's and women's pay, largely due to the pioneering activist work of Billie Jean King.
So, I think it behooves us to take a bit of care here. We probably don't want to get into technical analyses of whether women's soccer is as fast, skillful or as "good" as men's (like it or not, due to biological reasons, there are very few sports where women could compete against men on their own physical merits), or even whether their game is as entertaining or exciting (there may conceivably be a case for that). But we should probably take a good hard look at why women's sports attract fewer viewers and sponsors, and see what can be done in that arena.
In the meantime, would you pay more for an inferior product at the supermarket because it was made by women? Perhaps, as a matter of principle, similar to buying fair trade coffee, or if you were a supporter of affirmative action or positive discrimination. But you would probably be in a small minority, and the market as a whole would probably not support you.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Political power for sale in Ontario and B.C.
Examples of, or at least media coverage of, priority access granted to top politicians in exchange for hard cash have proliferated in recent weeks and months, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia.
Usually, this comes in the form of exclusive, invitation-only dinners for corporate big-nobs, where the price of admission is a donation to the ruling provincial political party. In Ontario and B.C. at least, this method of selling preferred access to corporate lobbyists is entirely legal. So, for a bargain price of between $5,000 and $20,000 (depending on the exclusiveness of the affair), B.C. company heads can have one-on-one access to Premier Christy Clark, or to the Energy and Finance minsters of Ontario, or even Premier Wynne herself. Even more egregious, high-ranking Ontario cabinet ministers are routinely assigned individual annual fundraising quotas of up to $500,000, which they look to fill through just these kinds of events.
In provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia, union and corporate donations to political parties is illegal. In one of its few democracy-promoting actions, even the Harper federal government banned such donations federally in 2006, although the individual annual donation limit of $1,525 per person per party is still rather high, and still slants political influence towards the rich. Ontario, B.C. and Saskatchewan are now the only Canadian jurisdictions of any size to allow union and corporate donations.
This should change now. Ontario's Kathleen Wynne has recently said that she will look to toughen Ontario's rules on political donations later this year, but probably fall short of an outright ban on union and corporate donations. Christy Clark has made no promises at all, and appears to see it all as just an integral part of the democratic process, although B.C.'s NDP opposition have vowed to ban union and corporate donations if they ever get back into power (as has Saskatchewan's NDP, even if their chances of election are much slimmer).
Many people are calling for a nationwide application of Quebec's rules, which ban corporate and union party donations completely, and limit individuals to donations of just $100 a year, with a further $100 allowed during elections. It is worth noting that Quebec brought in these donation rules after the Charbonneau Commission, in direct response to a series of political corruption scandals there.
Yes, I understand that, even were that to happen, corporations will probably find loopholes to exploit, as they always seem to do. But I think it has to be an important and necessary step in the right direction.
UPDATE
To her credit, responding to the intense political and media pressure in recent days, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has since announced that she will bring forward Ontario's legislation on the subject from the fall to the spring - i.e. very soon - and that it will probably involve the outright banning of political donations by corporations and unions. It is still not clear what individual donation limits might be set at (they are currently set at a ridiculously high $9,975 per year), and it seems unlikely that constituency associations, which have separate additional donation limits, will be included in the ban.
Ms. Wynne has also cancelled all her upcoming private fundraisers, and those of her cabinet minsters, and it looks like she really is taking the issue seriously, and not just concerned for the optics of the matter. I confess to have been sorely disappointed with the Ontario Premier, in spite of her early promise. But her reaction here has been spot on, and she presents a huge contrast to Christy Clark, who remains completely unapologetic and unrepentant on the issue.
Usually, this comes in the form of exclusive, invitation-only dinners for corporate big-nobs, where the price of admission is a donation to the ruling provincial political party. In Ontario and B.C. at least, this method of selling preferred access to corporate lobbyists is entirely legal. So, for a bargain price of between $5,000 and $20,000 (depending on the exclusiveness of the affair), B.C. company heads can have one-on-one access to Premier Christy Clark, or to the Energy and Finance minsters of Ontario, or even Premier Wynne herself. Even more egregious, high-ranking Ontario cabinet ministers are routinely assigned individual annual fundraising quotas of up to $500,000, which they look to fill through just these kinds of events.
In provinces such as Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia, union and corporate donations to political parties is illegal. In one of its few democracy-promoting actions, even the Harper federal government banned such donations federally in 2006, although the individual annual donation limit of $1,525 per person per party is still rather high, and still slants political influence towards the rich. Ontario, B.C. and Saskatchewan are now the only Canadian jurisdictions of any size to allow union and corporate donations.
This should change now. Ontario's Kathleen Wynne has recently said that she will look to toughen Ontario's rules on political donations later this year, but probably fall short of an outright ban on union and corporate donations. Christy Clark has made no promises at all, and appears to see it all as just an integral part of the democratic process, although B.C.'s NDP opposition have vowed to ban union and corporate donations if they ever get back into power (as has Saskatchewan's NDP, even if their chances of election are much slimmer).
Many people are calling for a nationwide application of Quebec's rules, which ban corporate and union party donations completely, and limit individuals to donations of just $100 a year, with a further $100 allowed during elections. It is worth noting that Quebec brought in these donation rules after the Charbonneau Commission, in direct response to a series of political corruption scandals there.
Yes, I understand that, even were that to happen, corporations will probably find loopholes to exploit, as they always seem to do. But I think it has to be an important and necessary step in the right direction.
UPDATE
To her credit, responding to the intense political and media pressure in recent days, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has since announced that she will bring forward Ontario's legislation on the subject from the fall to the spring - i.e. very soon - and that it will probably involve the outright banning of political donations by corporations and unions. It is still not clear what individual donation limits might be set at (they are currently set at a ridiculously high $9,975 per year), and it seems unlikely that constituency associations, which have separate additional donation limits, will be included in the ban.
Ms. Wynne has also cancelled all her upcoming private fundraisers, and those of her cabinet minsters, and it looks like she really is taking the issue seriously, and not just concerned for the optics of the matter. I confess to have been sorely disappointed with the Ontario Premier, in spite of her early promise. But her reaction here has been spot on, and she presents a huge contrast to Christy Clark, who remains completely unapologetic and unrepentant on the issue.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Supporters of St. Joseph's Health Centre are cross(less)
My last diatribe for today, after perusing the day's news, is reserved (once again) for the Catholic Church.St. Joseph's Health Centre, a Catholic hospital in southwest Toronto, has just announced their new logo, and - shock! horror! - it does NOT incorporate a cross. The faithful were predictably incensed, seeing this as a selling-out and a distancing from the hospital's religious history, and an online petition was hastily initiated. There were even suspicions (totally unfounded, as it happens) that the huge cross on the physical hospital would be removed.
Just in passing, I note that St. Joseph's Health Centre's sister hospitals in Hamilton and London have logos that do not feature a cross at all, and the Guelph hospital has a kind of stylized font-based cross-ette as part of its logo. But, for all I know, maybe there was major soul-searching and acrimonious protests accompanying these changes too.
Frankly, the whole concept of a Catholic hospital - like that of Catholic school boards, for that matter - is bizarre and anachronistic, and has no place in the modern world. OK, the hospital was originally opened by the Catholic order of the Sisters of St. Joseph nearly a century ago, and kudos to them for doing that. It clams a "tradition of care that reflects the universal values of respect, dignity and compassion", although such values are by no means exclusive to the Catholic Church, and I'm sure most hospitals would subscribe to such a description. The hospital serves people of all religions and cultures, as it has to by Canadian law, although it makes a big deal of the belief that "life is sacred from the moment of conception until death", and so it may be out of step with mainstream Canadian values as regards abortion and the new right to doctor-assisted death.
Anyway, my point is that, rather than listening to these people whining about political correctness and those poor nuns spinning in their graves over whether a logo features a cross or not, shouldn't we be bringing such institutions into the 21st Century (or even the 20th), and do away with archaic and outmoded ideas like tying basic public services like hospitals to specific religions and denominations? Isn't the point that a hospital is there to treat injury and illness, not to promote religious views?
Uber in Toronto? It's inevitable
I have also avoided commenting on the Uber ride-sharing service until now, but as Toronto City Council moves to draft new regulations which might allow Uber to operate legally in the city, the issue is becoming more and more urgent and unavoidable.
It's difficult for me to get too excited about Uber. I can't remember the last time I used a taxi in my own city - I use public transit, or, when that is impractical, I use our car. Rarely am I in so much of a rush, and without access to a car, that I need to employ the services of a taxi. But I do know people that use taxis, and some that swear by Uber.
Currently, Uber is operating illegally in Toronto, in contravention of city by-laws. This is partly what irks me about the service: there is a law that they are perfectly aware of, but they are happy to skirt around, and even to unequivocally break, that law for their own commercial gain. They argue that the taxi by-laws just do not apply to them, that they are a ride-sharing service not a taxi service, but they know perfectly well that this is completely spurious and disingenuous.
Uber has been unsuccessful in some places they have tried this (e.g. Calgary), and these cities have been able to regulate Uber into submission without requiring an outright ban. In other places (e.g. Edmonton and, very soon, Ottawa), they have succeeded in getting the city to change their regulations to accommodate the service. In yet others (e.g. Halifax, Winnipeg), where Uber deems that the costs may outweigh the potential benefit, or that the expected political push-back is perceived as being too strong, they have chosen not to force the issue at all. It is a very canny company.
Meanwhile, in Toronto, Uber's intention is to make itself all but indispensable to the people of the city, so that the populace will then rise up against their masters and insist that the service be legally allowed. And they have been very successful at doing just that.
I can see that Uber is indeed the way of the future, and its advantages, in terms of technology, convenience and efficiency, are quite apparent. That said, I also empathize with the heavily-regulated regular taxi drivers of Toronto (usually middle-aged, over-qualified immigrants, for whom nothing else is available), who are stuck with an antiquated and inequitable system of overpriced taxi licences, and who see their already precarious livelihoods trickling away towards the upstart Uber. Some taxi-drivers have sunk their life savings into taxi licences that would lose a large proportion of their value if Uber were to be allowed as competition.
The solution, though, should not be to ban Uber - thereby condoning and endorsing the existing ridiculous taxi system - but to reform that system, to do away with absentee plate holders charging an arm and a leg on the "free" market, in order to give drivers the privilege of working long, depressing and often potentially dangerous shifts driving rented taxis, all so that they can earn a pittance. Indeed, many taxi drivers now moonlight with Uber to supplement their paltry earnings.
As I see it, Uber (or something very like it) is inevitable. How we get there - with some measure of grace, or with strife and acrimony - is the issue now.
UPDATE
After a predictably fractious and long day of debating, Uber is now technically legal in Toronto as of 3 May 2016. Mayor John Tory's observation that "there is no ideal answer that is going to satisfy everybody" was something of an understatement, and it looks like neither the taxi industry nor Uber itself is entirely happy with the outcome. Over 100 amendments were added to the initial motion, and the 27-15 final vote probably does not do justice to the level of uncertainty and tension within the Council.
The new rules are an attempt at compromise between two highly antagonistic camps. Uber is now allowed to legally operate under a new class of licence (a "private transportation company" licence), albeit with a higher minimum fare than it wanted, and with other regulatory rules, such as on mandatory insurance, etc. Taxis, on the other hand, will now be allowed to use Uber-style "surge" peak-hour pricing, or discounts at other times. However, some of the attempts to level the playing-field seem to involve a dumbing down of both taxi and Uber requirements - for example, Uber drivers will not have to take training programs in order to get a licence, and taxi and limousine drivers will no longer have to take CPR and first-aid training - which is not necessarily a good thing.
So, no-one is fully satisfied by the outcome, but would they ever be? Uber argues that the rules are still too restrictive, and will not allow the "ride-sharing" industry to grow (which seems unlikely to me). Taxi divers, meanwhile, say that the very existence of Uber will still cut deeply into their bottom line (which does seem likely).
But a full of day of negotiating and arguing has still done nothing to address one of the main problems with the taxi industry, the unregulated sale and rental market in taxi licences.
It's difficult for me to get too excited about Uber. I can't remember the last time I used a taxi in my own city - I use public transit, or, when that is impractical, I use our car. Rarely am I in so much of a rush, and without access to a car, that I need to employ the services of a taxi. But I do know people that use taxis, and some that swear by Uber.
Currently, Uber is operating illegally in Toronto, in contravention of city by-laws. This is partly what irks me about the service: there is a law that they are perfectly aware of, but they are happy to skirt around, and even to unequivocally break, that law for their own commercial gain. They argue that the taxi by-laws just do not apply to them, that they are a ride-sharing service not a taxi service, but they know perfectly well that this is completely spurious and disingenuous.
Uber has been unsuccessful in some places they have tried this (e.g. Calgary), and these cities have been able to regulate Uber into submission without requiring an outright ban. In other places (e.g. Edmonton and, very soon, Ottawa), they have succeeded in getting the city to change their regulations to accommodate the service. In yet others (e.g. Halifax, Winnipeg), where Uber deems that the costs may outweigh the potential benefit, or that the expected political push-back is perceived as being too strong, they have chosen not to force the issue at all. It is a very canny company.
Meanwhile, in Toronto, Uber's intention is to make itself all but indispensable to the people of the city, so that the populace will then rise up against their masters and insist that the service be legally allowed. And they have been very successful at doing just that.
I can see that Uber is indeed the way of the future, and its advantages, in terms of technology, convenience and efficiency, are quite apparent. That said, I also empathize with the heavily-regulated regular taxi drivers of Toronto (usually middle-aged, over-qualified immigrants, for whom nothing else is available), who are stuck with an antiquated and inequitable system of overpriced taxi licences, and who see their already precarious livelihoods trickling away towards the upstart Uber. Some taxi-drivers have sunk their life savings into taxi licences that would lose a large proportion of their value if Uber were to be allowed as competition.
The solution, though, should not be to ban Uber - thereby condoning and endorsing the existing ridiculous taxi system - but to reform that system, to do away with absentee plate holders charging an arm and a leg on the "free" market, in order to give drivers the privilege of working long, depressing and often potentially dangerous shifts driving rented taxis, all so that they can earn a pittance. Indeed, many taxi drivers now moonlight with Uber to supplement their paltry earnings.
As I see it, Uber (or something very like it) is inevitable. How we get there - with some measure of grace, or with strife and acrimony - is the issue now.
UPDATE
After a predictably fractious and long day of debating, Uber is now technically legal in Toronto as of 3 May 2016. Mayor John Tory's observation that "there is no ideal answer that is going to satisfy everybody" was something of an understatement, and it looks like neither the taxi industry nor Uber itself is entirely happy with the outcome. Over 100 amendments were added to the initial motion, and the 27-15 final vote probably does not do justice to the level of uncertainty and tension within the Council.
The new rules are an attempt at compromise between two highly antagonistic camps. Uber is now allowed to legally operate under a new class of licence (a "private transportation company" licence), albeit with a higher minimum fare than it wanted, and with other regulatory rules, such as on mandatory insurance, etc. Taxis, on the other hand, will now be allowed to use Uber-style "surge" peak-hour pricing, or discounts at other times. However, some of the attempts to level the playing-field seem to involve a dumbing down of both taxi and Uber requirements - for example, Uber drivers will not have to take training programs in order to get a licence, and taxi and limousine drivers will no longer have to take CPR and first-aid training - which is not necessarily a good thing.
So, no-one is fully satisfied by the outcome, but would they ever be? Uber argues that the rules are still too restrictive, and will not allow the "ride-sharing" industry to grow (which seems unlikely to me). Taxi divers, meanwhile, say that the very existence of Uber will still cut deeply into their bottom line (which does seem likely).
But a full of day of negotiating and arguing has still done nothing to address one of the main problems with the taxi industry, the unregulated sale and rental market in taxi licences.
Please ... Rob Ford was no working class saint
I have resisted thus far commenting on the death of ex-Toronto mayor Rob Ford, who died recently of a rare form of cancer at the tender age of 46.
Over the years, I have spent more than enough time in this blog vilifying the guy, as have many others. He was, without doubt, one of the worst mayors Toronto has ever had, and has caused significant damage to the city, its institutions, and its reputation.
All of that still applies even though he is now dead. But it seems I am now suppose to suddenly mellow and forgive all the bad stuff, and admit that - aw, shucks - he wasn't such a bad guy after all, just misunderstood, and the victim of a vindictive press and his own personal failings.
Well, I am sorry, but I just can't do that. Yes, I feel sorry for anyone dying of cancer before their time. I can even empathise with those suffering from various addictions. But that is as a person, an individual, and I didn't know Rob Ford as a person, I only knew him as a mayor. And as a mayor, he sucked.
If he had addiction issues with crack cocaine and alcohol, I kind of understand that, but that just made it inappropriate for him to have continued as mayor of a huge city, and he should have stepped down. He only became mayor in the first place as a protest vote, a change-for-the-sake-of-change appointment, a serendipitous case of being in the right place at the right time. He was Toronto's Donald Trump of the period, and his appeal was to a similar demographic and political profile as Trump's constituency.
He didn't achieve half of what he campaigned on, and most of what he did achieve is unlikely to be remembered fondly in the clear light of the future. Personally answering constituents' phone calls is really not an efficient use of a mayor's time (even if it does make for good optics and PR), and Ford's "respect for taxpayers" mantra was a cynical twisting of what he actually offered the people of Toronto. A recent article by Marcus Gee provides an excellent perspective on Mr. Ford's (few) achievements and (many) failings as Mayor.
So, rest in peace and all that, but please, let's not resurrect Rob Ford as some kind of working class saint. He was a rich man's son with less interest in the working man than in his own career and media profile. He will no doubt be much missed by friends and family, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to follow suit.
UPDATE
Rob Ford's funeral yesterday was an appropriately bizarre mix of solemn service and raucous Ford Nation rally. Although the ill-defined "Ford Nation" is much reduced from its heyday, many of its more rabid supporters turned out to the funeral to say goodbye, some bedecked with flags and buttons and chanting slogans like "Best Mayor Ever" and "Mayor Rob Ford Forever", and in one memorable case, "Rob Ford, Son of God".
Ford's 10-year old daughter read a eulogy concluding with the cringe-worthy, "He's the mayor of Heaven now", and his brother Doug (failed mayoral candidate, and no longer even a councillor) used the occasion for a quick political plug, vowing to carry on the work Rob started.
All in all, it was a combination of earnestness and crassness entirely appropriate as a public farewell to a divided and divisive man.
Over the years, I have spent more than enough time in this blog vilifying the guy, as have many others. He was, without doubt, one of the worst mayors Toronto has ever had, and has caused significant damage to the city, its institutions, and its reputation.
All of that still applies even though he is now dead. But it seems I am now suppose to suddenly mellow and forgive all the bad stuff, and admit that - aw, shucks - he wasn't such a bad guy after all, just misunderstood, and the victim of a vindictive press and his own personal failings.
Well, I am sorry, but I just can't do that. Yes, I feel sorry for anyone dying of cancer before their time. I can even empathise with those suffering from various addictions. But that is as a person, an individual, and I didn't know Rob Ford as a person, I only knew him as a mayor. And as a mayor, he sucked.
If he had addiction issues with crack cocaine and alcohol, I kind of understand that, but that just made it inappropriate for him to have continued as mayor of a huge city, and he should have stepped down. He only became mayor in the first place as a protest vote, a change-for-the-sake-of-change appointment, a serendipitous case of being in the right place at the right time. He was Toronto's Donald Trump of the period, and his appeal was to a similar demographic and political profile as Trump's constituency.
He didn't achieve half of what he campaigned on, and most of what he did achieve is unlikely to be remembered fondly in the clear light of the future. Personally answering constituents' phone calls is really not an efficient use of a mayor's time (even if it does make for good optics and PR), and Ford's "respect for taxpayers" mantra was a cynical twisting of what he actually offered the people of Toronto. A recent article by Marcus Gee provides an excellent perspective on Mr. Ford's (few) achievements and (many) failings as Mayor.
So, rest in peace and all that, but please, let's not resurrect Rob Ford as some kind of working class saint. He was a rich man's son with less interest in the working man than in his own career and media profile. He will no doubt be much missed by friends and family, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to follow suit.
UPDATE
Rob Ford's funeral yesterday was an appropriately bizarre mix of solemn service and raucous Ford Nation rally. Although the ill-defined "Ford Nation" is much reduced from its heyday, many of its more rabid supporters turned out to the funeral to say goodbye, some bedecked with flags and buttons and chanting slogans like "Best Mayor Ever" and "Mayor Rob Ford Forever", and in one memorable case, "Rob Ford, Son of God".
Ford's 10-year old daughter read a eulogy concluding with the cringe-worthy, "He's the mayor of Heaven now", and his brother Doug (failed mayoral candidate, and no longer even a councillor) used the occasion for a quick political plug, vowing to carry on the work Rob started.
All in all, it was a combination of earnestness and crassness entirely appropriate as a public farewell to a divided and divisive man.
Spring is the season for suicide
Contrary to what I (and probably most other people) have always assumed, it seems that statistically most suicides actually occur in the spring.
While this may be counter-intuitive to most people (spring being the season of new life, renewal, hopefulness, improved weather, etc), most longitudinal studies in Europe and North America seem to confirm it. In Canada, suicides tend to peak in May, with fully 21% more suicides than in the month with the lowest suicide stats, which turns out to be (again counter-intuitively) December. The spring suicide phenomenon even applies in the southern hemisphere, according to Australian data.
But no-one really seems to know why. Various hypotheses have been put forward to explain this phenomenon, including: that it is a delayed reaction after the gloomy winter months; or that the brighter, symbolically more positive days of spring throw a person's depression into even more stark relief; or even that it is due to sleep disturbances caused by the spring clock change. But none seems entirely convincing or definitive.
The latest hypothesis, still under investigation, is that suicide rates are linked to pollen counts from popular hay fever allergens like flower, grass and tree pollen, which also tend to peak in spring and early summer. Hungary is a particularly cogent example: it has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, as well as one of the world's highest ragweed pollen counts, and the suicide incidence in Hungary peaks notably at the same two times of year as peak pollen production.
This unlikely-sounding connection is not actually as far-fetched as it might seem. Allergies cause, in addition to the usual external nasal symptoms, a spike in the production of a kind of protein called cytokines, which are able to pass the blood-brain barrier, and which have been separately linked to depression and suicidal tendencies through a variety of possible mechanisms (including the suppression of serotonin production, and the activation of microglia immune cells).
At the moment, the link, which has been indicated by several, but by no means all, studies on the subject, can not yet be considered causal, and many more studies need to be done. But I was intrigued by the thought that something as apparently trivial as hay fever might be linked to something as dramatic as suicide.
While this may be counter-intuitive to most people (spring being the season of new life, renewal, hopefulness, improved weather, etc), most longitudinal studies in Europe and North America seem to confirm it. In Canada, suicides tend to peak in May, with fully 21% more suicides than in the month with the lowest suicide stats, which turns out to be (again counter-intuitively) December. The spring suicide phenomenon even applies in the southern hemisphere, according to Australian data.
But no-one really seems to know why. Various hypotheses have been put forward to explain this phenomenon, including: that it is a delayed reaction after the gloomy winter months; or that the brighter, symbolically more positive days of spring throw a person's depression into even more stark relief; or even that it is due to sleep disturbances caused by the spring clock change. But none seems entirely convincing or definitive.
The latest hypothesis, still under investigation, is that suicide rates are linked to pollen counts from popular hay fever allergens like flower, grass and tree pollen, which also tend to peak in spring and early summer. Hungary is a particularly cogent example: it has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, as well as one of the world's highest ragweed pollen counts, and the suicide incidence in Hungary peaks notably at the same two times of year as peak pollen production.
This unlikely-sounding connection is not actually as far-fetched as it might seem. Allergies cause, in addition to the usual external nasal symptoms, a spike in the production of a kind of protein called cytokines, which are able to pass the blood-brain barrier, and which have been separately linked to depression and suicidal tendencies through a variety of possible mechanisms (including the suppression of serotonin production, and the activation of microglia immune cells).
At the moment, the link, which has been indicated by several, but by no means all, studies on the subject, can not yet be considered causal, and many more studies need to be done. But I was intrigued by the thought that something as apparently trivial as hay fever might be linked to something as dramatic as suicide.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
A few observations on Guatemala
I have visited most countries in South America and a few in Central America, but a week in Guatemala gave us the chance to experience another Mesoamerican culture at first hand.
Arriving in Guatemala City airport was no problem. Getting from there to the nearby old colonial capital of Antigua was another matter entirely. What should have been a leisurely 50-minute drive actually took us two-and-a-half hours. Because there was no left turn from the airport road to the Antigua road, we had to turn right followed by a whole series of u-turns, some of which were being disallowed by traffic police seemingly at random. We only passed one traffic light, which was being overruled by traffic police, again seemingly at random, much to the consternation of the drivers, who leaned liberally on their horns in response. It took us an hour and a half to get back to the airport road where we should have turned left. And all for want of a simple system of traffic lights.
Once on faster roads, our taxi driver Manolo made up for lost time by driving like a maniac on the vertiginous winding roads up into the mountains, all in the dark and while talking on his cellphone. It was quite an experience.
Chatting to Manolo, we touched tentatively on the political situation, knowing full well how Guatemala has always been one of those countries, full of potential and natural beauty, but left to teeter perennially on the edge of ruin and collapse by corrupt and selfish politicians. However, Manolo gleefully related to us how the last president and vice-president had recently been arrested for corruption and graft, and face up to 10 years in jail. In their place, a new president has just been elected who just happens to be Guatemala's most popular television comedian. It seems, though, that, despite his rather lewd and tasteless comedy routines, Jimmy Morales is actually quite a bright guy, affiliated to neither the left nor the right wings, and people have high hopes for a little bit of political stability from him. I was just amazed that I had missed a news story like that in the mainstream news. But then I guess that Guatemala is not exactly a major player in world affairs.
The little town of Antigua Guatemala is the perfect antidote to the big, brash, noisy new capital city. All cobbled streets and pastel-painted colonial buildings, it is a serene and mellow town, nestled amid forested mountains and volcanoes. At 1,530m above sea level, it has an almost perfect climate, with warm sunny days and pleasantly cool nights. Many of the houses and restaurants have adopted the lovely old Spanish tradition of building around a shady and leafy green courtyard or patio, often with a water feature taking centre stage.
Many of the very old colonial buildings, like churches, monasteries and priories, have been decimated by a series of devastating earthquakes over the centuries, particularly two or three really big ones in the 18th century. But the ruins have been preserved and are open to the public for exploration, and the replacement buildings are almost as grand and majestic as the originals. There are churches and/or ruins almost on every street corner in the centre of town.
Antigua boasts the biggest Holy Week and Easter celebrations in the Western hemisphere and, basically by coincidence, our visit coincided with some of it. There were huge religious processions pretty much every day, with various Catholic icons and statues being paraded around the streets from various churches on extremely heavy-looking plinths or floats, often for hours at a time, and accompanied by the ubiquitous untuneful brass bands and drums, playing their lugubrious dirges and hymns. Apparently, the biggest processions, like those on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, can involve 10,000-15,000 participants (and many more spectators), and floats weighing 3.5 tonnes are carried by up to 80 men at a time, changing personnel every city block. And we are not talking about one or two processions here: there were several each day, early in the morning, late at night, sometimes mores than one at a time, and at times we were almost tripping over them. It is certainly quite a spectacle, whatever you may think of the religion behind it.
The other thing Antigua is famous for is the tradition of constructing alfombras (carpets) out of flowers and brightly-dyed sawdust during Holy Week. These carpets, involving complex geometric shapes and designs as well as religious images are laid out on the cobbled streets, and can take many hours to create (some in the churches also incorporate fruits and vegetables). The Holy Week processions then trample all over these meticulously-designed crafts - ephemeral art in the service of religious symbolism.
There were much fewer tourists than I expected in Antigua, although the shady Parque Central is definitely ground zero for gringo tourists. Consequently, it is also ground zero for tour touts and the ubiquitous indigenous women selling their trinkets, weavings and bracelets. As in so many Latin American countries, the undeniably cute native children, most of whom should really be in school, are unabashedly used for commercial purposes, but what can you do?
About 40% of Guatemalans are indigenous, mostly descendents from various Mayan tribes (as we have been reminded many times on guided trips, the Maya did not actually die out, they just moved away from their ancestral lands, which they had.exhausted due to unsustainable farming practices, and scattered throughout the country). About an equal number are mestizos or ladinos (mixed blood), with only less than 20% being "white" or of European background. This is particularly apparent in the smaller market towns like Chichicastenango or Panajachel, and in the smaller and less touristy mountain villages nearby, but it can be seen even in cities like Antigua.
What else will I remember about Guatemala? A riot of bright colours, from the vegetable and artesan markets, to the dresses of the aboriginal women, to the many different kinds of flowering trees, and even the brightly-painted houses. Vertiginous roads winding through a rugged mountainous landscape. A severe garbage problem: most country roads are just lined with it, even if tourist towns like Antigua are kept meticulously clean. Excellent coffee and chocolate, although the good dark chocolate with candied ginger or almonds is quite expensive. Friendly, polite people, speaking probably the clearest, purest Spanish I have ever heard. Almost NO-ONE smoking, in restaurants, in bars, even in the streets and parks, except for a few gringos. Restaurant bills that automatically include a 10% tip, which takes all the stress and calculation out of the tipping process. Little mountain villages exhibiting grinding poverty, but full of happy kids and sleeping dogs.
Alll in all, for a supposed perennial basket-case of a country, it is really a very pleasant place to spend some time.
Arriving in Guatemala City airport was no problem. Getting from there to the nearby old colonial capital of Antigua was another matter entirely. What should have been a leisurely 50-minute drive actually took us two-and-a-half hours. Because there was no left turn from the airport road to the Antigua road, we had to turn right followed by a whole series of u-turns, some of which were being disallowed by traffic police seemingly at random. We only passed one traffic light, which was being overruled by traffic police, again seemingly at random, much to the consternation of the drivers, who leaned liberally on their horns in response. It took us an hour and a half to get back to the airport road where we should have turned left. And all for want of a simple system of traffic lights.
Once on faster roads, our taxi driver Manolo made up for lost time by driving like a maniac on the vertiginous winding roads up into the mountains, all in the dark and while talking on his cellphone. It was quite an experience.
Chatting to Manolo, we touched tentatively on the political situation, knowing full well how Guatemala has always been one of those countries, full of potential and natural beauty, but left to teeter perennially on the edge of ruin and collapse by corrupt and selfish politicians. However, Manolo gleefully related to us how the last president and vice-president had recently been arrested for corruption and graft, and face up to 10 years in jail. In their place, a new president has just been elected who just happens to be Guatemala's most popular television comedian. It seems, though, that, despite his rather lewd and tasteless comedy routines, Jimmy Morales is actually quite a bright guy, affiliated to neither the left nor the right wings, and people have high hopes for a little bit of political stability from him. I was just amazed that I had missed a news story like that in the mainstream news. But then I guess that Guatemala is not exactly a major player in world affairs.
The little town of Antigua Guatemala is the perfect antidote to the big, brash, noisy new capital city. All cobbled streets and pastel-painted colonial buildings, it is a serene and mellow town, nestled amid forested mountains and volcanoes. At 1,530m above sea level, it has an almost perfect climate, with warm sunny days and pleasantly cool nights. Many of the houses and restaurants have adopted the lovely old Spanish tradition of building around a shady and leafy green courtyard or patio, often with a water feature taking centre stage.
Many of the very old colonial buildings, like churches, monasteries and priories, have been decimated by a series of devastating earthquakes over the centuries, particularly two or three really big ones in the 18th century. But the ruins have been preserved and are open to the public for exploration, and the replacement buildings are almost as grand and majestic as the originals. There are churches and/or ruins almost on every street corner in the centre of town.
Antigua boasts the biggest Holy Week and Easter celebrations in the Western hemisphere and, basically by coincidence, our visit coincided with some of it. There were huge religious processions pretty much every day, with various Catholic icons and statues being paraded around the streets from various churches on extremely heavy-looking plinths or floats, often for hours at a time, and accompanied by the ubiquitous untuneful brass bands and drums, playing their lugubrious dirges and hymns. Apparently, the biggest processions, like those on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, can involve 10,000-15,000 participants (and many more spectators), and floats weighing 3.5 tonnes are carried by up to 80 men at a time, changing personnel every city block. And we are not talking about one or two processions here: there were several each day, early in the morning, late at night, sometimes mores than one at a time, and at times we were almost tripping over them. It is certainly quite a spectacle, whatever you may think of the religion behind it.
The other thing Antigua is famous for is the tradition of constructing alfombras (carpets) out of flowers and brightly-dyed sawdust during Holy Week. These carpets, involving complex geometric shapes and designs as well as religious images are laid out on the cobbled streets, and can take many hours to create (some in the churches also incorporate fruits and vegetables). The Holy Week processions then trample all over these meticulously-designed crafts - ephemeral art in the service of religious symbolism.
There were much fewer tourists than I expected in Antigua, although the shady Parque Central is definitely ground zero for gringo tourists. Consequently, it is also ground zero for tour touts and the ubiquitous indigenous women selling their trinkets, weavings and bracelets. As in so many Latin American countries, the undeniably cute native children, most of whom should really be in school, are unabashedly used for commercial purposes, but what can you do?
About 40% of Guatemalans are indigenous, mostly descendents from various Mayan tribes (as we have been reminded many times on guided trips, the Maya did not actually die out, they just moved away from their ancestral lands, which they had.exhausted due to unsustainable farming practices, and scattered throughout the country). About an equal number are mestizos or ladinos (mixed blood), with only less than 20% being "white" or of European background. This is particularly apparent in the smaller market towns like Chichicastenango or Panajachel, and in the smaller and less touristy mountain villages nearby, but it can be seen even in cities like Antigua.
What else will I remember about Guatemala? A riot of bright colours, from the vegetable and artesan markets, to the dresses of the aboriginal women, to the many different kinds of flowering trees, and even the brightly-painted houses. Vertiginous roads winding through a rugged mountainous landscape. A severe garbage problem: most country roads are just lined with it, even if tourist towns like Antigua are kept meticulously clean. Excellent coffee and chocolate, although the good dark chocolate with candied ginger or almonds is quite expensive. Friendly, polite people, speaking probably the clearest, purest Spanish I have ever heard. Almost NO-ONE smoking, in restaurants, in bars, even in the streets and parks, except for a few gringos. Restaurant bills that automatically include a 10% tip, which takes all the stress and calculation out of the tipping process. Little mountain villages exhibiting grinding poverty, but full of happy kids and sleeping dogs.
Alll in all, for a supposed perennial basket-case of a country, it is really a very pleasant place to spend some time.