Walk, ride, walk, ride. Repeat

This is a brief rant.

I like to ride my bike.

That’s not the rant, it’s something I like.

I live in the Niagara Region.  Again, not the rant.

The Niagara Region positions itself as a great place for cycling vacations (in the summer they managed to get GO Transit trains, equipped with bike lockup areas, to come right to Niagara Falls, so people could bring their bikes and ride around).  Environmentally friendly, let’s all get the kids together and ride.

Right.

For years, now, the Regional government has had a policy on adding bike lanes to new roads.  This is a policy they have consistently ignored.  Even when pressured, and when they’ve said “oh, yes, we’ll honour that policy” by the end of the construction, no new bike lanes are there.  Who audits these things?

That’s pretty shitty, let’s not fool ourselves.  But what’s worse is the haphazard way that bike lanes have been introduced.  You’ll be riding down a road, dodging cars that seem to have an uneven understanding of the need to share the road.   Then, suddenly, with little fanfare, there is a nicely paved section, with bike lanes.  Then, suddenly, with no warning, the lanes end.

What the hell?

Which genius in planning thinks that this is in any way useful?  What, are we supposed to walk until we get to a bike-laned area, then ride, then walk?

The worst part about all of this is the message it sends to drivers.  I don’t mind riding on the road without lanes.  No worries; I think that the more cyclists who do that, the more drivers will realize that we need to share the road.  Or at least they’ll get used to us.  But with bike lanes unstrategically placed along parts of roads, the suggestion is that this area is where bikes are permitted to be, but other areas are not for cyclists.  You then get very un-bike-friendly behaviour from drivers, like driving too close, or moving over right after passing a bike, so that, when the car slows down, the bike is edged into that lovely part of the edge of the road full of grit and broken glass.  Nice.

Of course, it’s not just random drivers.  Every time a cyclist rides on the sidewalk (coward) they are reinforcing the idea that the roads are for cars.  They are also endangering pedestrians.

The ironic other problem is that planners seem to like to make planning changes appear to be about pitting cyclists against pedestrians.  They argue that you either have good sized sidewalks, for people including those in those little electric scooters, or you have bike lanes.  To have anything else, the implication is, would be to limit the size of car lanes, and that, of course, would be the first step towards anarchy.

It’s a car-centred approach to planning.  This is the heart of the problem.  As long as planning is car-centred, the safest and easiest option will be the car.  As long as the safest and easiest option will be the car, development will continue to spread, because getting a mile away is not a big deal when you have a car.  Hospitals, arenas, other facilities that should be accessible to everyone, will be accessible only to the people who have cars.  John Stuart Mill referred to this sort of thinking as the “tyranny of the majority.”  Those without such access, are left out completely.  Usually, these people are of lower income, who normally would need to access the publicly-funded facilities (because they can’t afford private ones).

Rant over.

Dear Santa. Please bring me sincere local politicians

Note to reader. After the political brouhaha about the coalition opposition trying to overthrow the government, and being thwarted by a government playing fast and loose with the constitution, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting sent a message to all supporters on their mailing list to send a letter to their MP about support for culture. My MP is Rick Dykstra, a Tory.

The “Friends” had a form letter, which I modified as follows. Stick with me, it gets better in the response.

Dear Mr Dykstra,

Below you will find a standard letter that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are sending to all MPs. Even though you are a Tory, I know that you understand the value of culture to Niagara. St Catharines is currently in the midst of a cultural renaissance, with the proposed Niagara Centre for the Arts and Brock’s School of Fine and Performing Arts getting significant donations and interest in the community. This sort of initiative will spur both economic growth and the expansion of artistic creativity. They are intermingled. Consider Silicon Knights. They build video games and make money, and to do it they rely upon the creative minds of visual artists to visualize the ideas of programmers; musicians to score the games and actors to voice the characters. This is a booming industry, and is but one that needs artists. So apart from the direct artistic industries like theatre, music and film, other businesses require and thrive on the input of creative arts, aka “culture.”

Yet your leader has denigrated culture as irrelevant.

Mr Dykstra, you know otherwise. I am asking you to support funding to the arts in all forms (notably the CBC, which is often a platform for new and emerging artists) so that Canada’s cultural image is not turned into just a cheap knockoff of American entertainment.

Here is the “friends’” message, to reiterate.

I ask you to use your influence to make sure that investing in culture is a key ingredient in Canada’s plan for economic recovery. As the Conference Board has identified, Canada’s creative economy counts for $6% of the GDP – $85 billion – and is extremely labour-intensive. Public broadcasting and other cultural industries offer a chance to build economic recovery while enhancing cultural sovereignty – a winning combination! Please let me know what you are doing to make sure this investment happens.

Sincerely,

Dan M

Now, I just received the reply. Here it is

Dear Ms. T*****e

Thank you for your message regarding arts and culture. I appreciate you taking the time to write about such an important issue.

Since forming government in 2006 we have committed to maintaining financial support to our arts and cultural sovereignty. We have invested more in arts and culture than previous governments through our funding for the Canada Council for the Arts, our national museums, and supporting arts and heritage. We have also committed to creating a new, refundable tax credit on up to $500 of fees for children under 16 who participate in eligible arts or cultural activities. Measures like these will promote the arts and culture that are so important in enriching our community.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and share your concerns. If there is ever anything else I can do for you, please feel free to contact my community office at 905.934.6767.

Regards,

Rick Dykstra, M.P.
St. Catharines

Now, dear reader, I don’t know if you have noticed this, but I’m not a “Ms” and my last name does not begin with a “T”.  (I had to anonymize it for obvious reasons).

Here is my subsequent reply to Ricky D

Dear Tricky Rick

I don’t know who Ms. T***** is, but I’m glad you personalize your form letters so efficiently.  It shows that you don’t care about what we say, and confirms stereotypes about uncaring politicians.

Thanks for not caring.  I hate it when my view of reality is challenged.

Three cheers for the cut-and-paste function.

And long live the coalition.

Dan M.

How do you spell democracy?

Anyone who thinks Canadian politics is boring must be scratching their heads right now, because it’s become quite interesting.  Currently, for anyone who has not noticed, there is something happening that some might call a “constitutional crisis.”  Basically, the Conservatives were re-elected with a minority in parliament (they have more seats than any other one party, but not more seats than all the other parties combined).  The Liberal party lost a number of seats, and the leader resigned, thereby setting the stage for a leadership review.  The other two parties consist of a slightly-left of centre party (the New Democrats) and a Quebec-focused “Bloc Quebecois.”

The Conservatives (aka Tories), seeing a weak Liberal party, decided it seems to act as if they had a majority, thinking that they would not face any united opposition.  They presented some legislation that offered nothing in the way of economic stimulus to the economy, cut funding to all political parties, and denied federal civil servants the right to strike (among other things).  All of these may not be a big deal to you, but in this current economic climate, where a lot of industrialized countries are pumping billions of dollars into the economy to keep it going, to do nothing is tremendously irresponsible.

On top of that, the cutting of funding to political parties has a bit of a history.  Less than a decade ago the then-governing Liberal party passed a law that would limit the amount of campaign contributions parties could accept, in an attempt to reduce the power of lobbyists and corporate interests.  To avoid completely decimating the coffers of the parties, they included a proviso that gave each party money based upon the number of votes it received in the previous election.  I think the amount was indexed to inflation, and currently it is about $1.95 per vote.

The thing about that funding is that, not only was it created to reduce influencing peddling and pressure from rich interests, but it also allowed each person the sense that, even if their party did not win the seat or the election, each vote counted for something.

However paltry you think $1.95 is, it is the only truly democratic thing about our first-past the post electoral system.  In this system, a party that has 38% of the popular vote can still win a strong minority if not a majority government, because the other parties split the vote. At least with this funding structure, your vote counts even if your party loses.

This is what happened in October: the Tories returned to power with about 38% of the popular vote.  Although 62% or so of voters wanted other parties, the Tories got power.

So now, after the Tories presented this non-stimulus, heavily partisan and really quite right-wing policy (denying unionized workers the right to strike?), the opposition parties got together and negotiated an alliance to defeat the government.  This is how our parliamentary system operates, and while unprecedented in Canadian politics, it is both legal and, in my opinion, a very good idea.

You see, the last election was a mess.  The government was running along relatively smoothly, and although it had a minority government, the Tories seemed to be able to work with the opposition to make things work.  It was rancorous, and noisy, and messy, and required negotiation (characteristic of a minority) rather than (characteristic of a majority) pushing policy through without any need to negotiate (with the representatives of 60% or so of the electorate!).  But they decided parliament wasn’t working, and went to the polls.  Oh, and this is after they passed a law that mandated set election periods of every four years unless the government was defeated.  This government wasn’t defeated: they dissolved parliament in a way that  seems to have been contrary to their own legislation.  And what resulted was a slightly larger minority, and far fewer people voting at all–probably out of frustration.

Now the prime minister has decided that he will ask the governor general to “prorogue” parliament, essentially ending parliament early until after Christmas.  Parliament has been in session for two weeks, and has really gotten nothing done.  He has delayed this non-economic stimulus legislation to delay a “confidence motion” because he knows he’ll be defeated.

He made a deep strategic error, and as a result, showed his true colours as a vicious demagogue who sees opposition as a problem to be crushed rather than a voice of other Canadians who simply don’t agree with him.  It reminds me of what Hitler did after becoming Chancellor, declaring all other parties illegal and ignoring the constitution.

But I’d never call Harper Hitler.  Though both names begin with H, end with R and have six letter, Harper isn’t a failed artist.  He cut funding to the arts.

So here we are.  The Prime Minister is going to address the nation, justifying his vicious partisan attack and trying to spin this as the opposition’s attack on democracy.  Legal, constitutional and representative, but clearly not good enough for Harper.

Then I get this email from some dipshit friend of a friend.

I recognize that many of my friends vote differently than I do and that diversity makes this country the best in the world.

You may not agree with the present government but voting against this coalition is the right thing to do as consent will undermine all that our forefathers have worked hard to build: DEMOCRACY.

Approval of this coalition open’s a ‘Pandora’s Box’ and most importantly sends a clear message to our youth that their vote DOES NOT count.

(The best thing about Canada is that a democracy gives you the right to agree, sign & forward this e-mail, or disagree and delete )

Please take a moment to express your thoughts about our current political situation!  PLEASE FORWARD to as many CANADIANS as possible.

No – this isn’t a chain letter.  No, you won’t have good luck or win the lottery, but you may just get the opportunity to exercise your right to vote, instead of having your vote erased by those that claim to “know better” than we as the Canadian electorate.

Signing takes only a minute, forwarding just a second – the results can last a lifetime!

Dear dumbass.  Look up “democracy” and then look up “majority rules” and then

You’re an idiot.

Dear Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty

I would like to believe that you are competent.  That you understand economics, and that you have your finger on the vagaries of the nation’s economy that most of us don’t quite get.  With that assumption, I have to assume that during the election you willfully misled (aka: lied to) the public when you insisted that the economy was not going into a recession.

Today you noted that we are in a “technical recession.”

Is that like a technical knock out? Doesn’t a boxer felled by a technical knock out still lose the fight?

Let’s face it, you’ve been playing fast and loose with the economy for political gain for years.  You slashed the GST, knowing that there are better – but not as politically juicy – ways to relieve tax burdens on the people.  You then ate through the hefty budget surplus you had inherited, a surplus which, had it been better managed, would have put us in much better stead when this inevitable economic downturn arose.  Then you called an election that violated the election law you had passed, because you sensed that you could win a majority.  Or was it because you sensed the economic danger on the horizon?  Whichever reason, it demonstrates the cynical and condescending way you govern.

Thank you for showing, once again, that politicians deserve the reputation as opportunistic liars.

Your friend,

Dan

PS  A copy of this letter was sent to the prime minister of Canada, though he’ll never read it.

The doldrums

This is the first time in my three week NaBloPoMo extravaganza that I actually have nothing to say.  It’s a slow news day, so let’s think.  What do I think about today….?

Ah, thinking!  That’s it!  What is it about a leader that, if he is considered an intellectual, he’s not a good leader?  I am using the male pronoun intentionally, because I have not yet seen this same issue apply to women.  Usually when women are running, the salient issue is, first of all, their sex.   Sex is a category of analysis that eclipses many other factors, and colours different attributes quite differently.

I think about this because of the way Stéphane Dion has been analyzed in the press lately.  He’s a bookish intellectual.  He was a professor, carries around a knapsack, pencil neck and glasses.  He’s a geek.  (and I really mean that in the most affectionate way possible).  The connection with this and his inability to lead is often implied, sometimes made explicit.  Maybe it’s true.  But maybe, in the current hyperscrutinized short-sound-bite world, there is no room for the well-considered response, the nuanced analysis of a complex issue, the thinker.

But then again, I’m not sure.  Barack Obama is considered an intellectual.  Well, maybe I’m wrong there.  He’s considered by detractors to be a Harvard-educated elitist.  I don’t know if intellectual is the negative label attached to him, but he certainly bears all the hallmarks of intellectual leader.  Thinks things through; comes up with complex solutions to complex problems.  Not so great in the off the cuff debate (look at his comment in the second debate about McCain portraying him as “green behind the ears” when he meant wet behind the ears–a flub that is, to me, the mark of someone not so comfortable with the quick thought forum, something from which many academics shy away).  Is he a geek?

Then again, I wonder if it is a racial thing.  If Obama were a skinny white guy, with some very inspiring things to say but the tendency to be thoughtful and ponder his responses, and occasionally stumble over his words, would he have been as successful as he is?  Then, in this case, could it be that race is an issue, a major issue, but it serves to obscure something (his intellect, his willingness to consider thoughtfully complex issues) that would otherwise be a political liability? Suddenly, along with sex, class and race, we have geek as a category of analysis. (The research possibilities are endless!)

Like I said, it’s a slow news day… and I’ve been busy with other stuff.  But there you go, something to ponder.

The debate dilemma debate.

So on October 2 there are two election debates that are relevant to me.

The first is the leaders debate for the Canadian election.  Egads!  Something worth setting the PVR to facilitate sleeping?  Maybe, but also relevant to national politics.  Sometimes the important stuff isn’t edge-of-your-seat exciting, okay?!  And let’s face it, this one could be good.  Five parties, one fascist and four lefties.  Environment on the agenda.  A closeted totalitarian PM on the brink of a majority who doesn’t want to admit it lest the electorate balk at voting for him.  Very odd stuff here!

The other, of course, is the VP debate for the US election.  Now this should be fun.  Sarah Palin has already proven, in the few media interviews she’s held, that she is pretty much devoid of substance.  She can stick to a script relatively well, but ask her something that requires content or processing, and she seizes up.  But gawrsh, she’s purty! Joe Biden, on the other hand, is an experienced senator, but one who has himself shown, at times, that he didn’t quite read the briefing papers closely enough.  It has the potential of being the media event of the decade!

God, this is a tough decision.  Do I chose (personal) political relevance or pure, unadulterated train-wreck potential?  One will be a media snooze fest, but important to my decision, the other a truly transcendent experience for political junkies (like me), the pleasure equivalent of high-grade heroin (I imagine) or a well-aged 120 Minute IPA from Dogfish Head.

I’m really torn.  Whaddya think?