Moving Ontario Forward Together

Without a strong Progressive Conservative or NDP voice to force accountability, Wynne's new majority government could find itself overly comfortable and cocksure.  While partisan games created inertia in the last session, the Liberals need the opposition's balancing powers.

Ha ha, Toronto Star!  I beat you to the punch.

The message rings true whoever brings it forward - the absolutely wrong thing for the Wynne Liberals to do would be get cocky and bulldoze their way forward in a Harper-like manner.

I sincerely hope the Opposition does get their act together, but it doesn't have to take an external Party to ensure government discusses before they decide and do; the best leaders catalyze collaboration all on their own.

Were I the governing Liberals, the first think I would do is reach out to the Opposition with a couple pieces of common policy that all Parties agree matters and can build common solutions around - mental health, particularly as it applies to growth in the Knowledge Economy/justice and healthcare costs and Open Government, essential for avoiding future process scandals.

Then, I would take a look internally and wonder if the machine of the Party is as modernized as it needs to be.  Beating peers in a shrinking water hole does  not mean you're well-adapted for bigger changes in the world around you.  With four years to work at it, now's the perfect time to reflect on where you're weaknesses lie and what best practices exist out there to learn from.  

This is advice that applies equally to the other Parties.

It's unclear who's going to be wearing which hat within the Liberal Party, but you can guarantee there are more than a few folk who feel entitled to position or comfortable with where they are.  Comfort breeds complacency, a terrible state of mind to have in a dynamic landscape.

Fortunately, we have a Premier that gets the importance of engagement and knows a thing or two about unpacking assumptions.

Wynne isn't know for being cocky; she's know for her commitment to engagement.

Well, here's an unprecedented opportunity to show what it looks like when we've got a woman in charge who believes that moving forward together means leaving no one behind.

2014: The Year of Open Data and Responsible Citizens

 

 

 

The Toronto Star declared 2014 the "Year of the Idea."  But we can't keep turning to the same sources for innovation.  We can't keep having the same debates about the same questions.  It's time to think outside the box and turn to unexpected sources for new ideas.

 

 

Which Political Leader is the only one who can beat the other guy and single-handedly heal our community?  Exactly - but that's how we're sold our politicians, isn't it?  More and more resources are being spent in promoting people at the top of a given silo while at the same time, competing organizations keep taking pot-shots at each other's foundations.  Meanwhile, closed internal cultures are coming into conflict with social media and the emergence of Open Data and a newfound appetite for real accountability.

 

The Star's idea isn't new.  Versions of it have already manifested with Samara's Everyday political citizen project; from a different angle, organizations like Maytree with their non-partisan GOTV training and civic engagement groups like Why Should I Care are seeking to open up information, access and the confidence to reach out and lead from the front within non-traditional political/policy actors.

 

In other words, empowering everyday citizens to become hidden experts. 

 

These are exactly the sorts of people the catalysts of the Open Government/Open Data movement are looking to partner with and co-design processes and platforms with, using techniques and methodologies like those of Swerhun and Exhibit Change.

 

Open Data for a Responsible Society consisting of engaged citizens.  There isn't anything revolutionary about this idea, but it is good to hear it coming around again.

 

Government: It's Not a Race, Stupid!

But remember when the 1,500 metres was a tactical race in which runners jogged the first three laps, before settling in for a dash to the finish.  Not anymore.  It's now a long distance sprint.  You spring from start to finish or you're left up the track.

So it is with the modern mayoral campaign in the country's most saturated media centre, in a municipal campaign of Olympic proportion.  Go hard or go home - without climbing the podium.

For all those folk who tell me I'm too positive/need to rant more, here you go.

Politics/sports comparisons drive me up the wall, make me gnash my teeth and utter the odd profanity.

 

Seriously, people?
 

Let's think a bit about how we view actual sports.  They're like a religious ceremony, a rite of passage, something removed from yet parallel with the rest of society.  Like a doodle on a painting or a stain on our memory, we don't want to see them in any way sullied with something as mundane and dirty as politics.

That was a common refrain from Sochi, wasn't it?  And how many other international sporting events before that?  The Olympics is about national brand/the athletes; it'd be unfair to them and bad for our global standing not to be in the race.

"I remember being angry," Stockwell says, "taking it out by bashing through the water, and then thinking, 'Why am I training even if we're not going to go?"

All those poor athletes who invested so much time and energy into competing, we wouldn't want to deprive them of their opportunity, would we?  It should be about them and their competition, regardless of what's happening in the world around them.

It reminds me an awful lot of how the campaign team that worked to nudge John Tory into the race "put a lot of effort into this and will be very disappointed" if they didn't get to run.  If you look around the political landscape, you'll see organizers who get mad and turn against their team if they're left on the bench; same holds true for MPs who want a kick at the Ministerial can but aren't given the chance.

We talk about bench strength, don't we?  You want to have the best potential communicators on your team and need to make sure the nomination processes are designed to provide them - rather than people who are best able to represent their constituents.

Or how about how entire Party operations are aligned to support Leaders, like pit crews for race car drivers?  Money must be raised to support the leader.  Volunteers must be rounded up to support the leader.  Put them in the driver's seat, as it were, and then start peddling behind them.

We do use sports analogies for politics all the time - it's competition, its races, it's clocks counting down and tricky strategies to beat the other team.

Professional sports is one of those very rare fields where participants aren't allowed to have anything resembling personal lives - they're all-in if they want to win and if they aren't, they don't belong there.  For their efforts, they aren't really expected (or even welcomed) to engage in different fields - their job is to keep their heads down, perform, and entertain, not pundify on political issues.

Funny enough, the same applies to hardcore political operatives - they're all about the win, too.  They will dedicate their lives, sacrifice their relationships and hit up their family members for donations, maintaining a laser-like focus on the win. 

 

Except they aren't athletes and the choices they make/actions they take with their blinders-on functional fixedness impact real policy decisions and in turn, everything from taxation to infrastructure spending to public service delivery.

How many times have I heard war roomers talk about "picking fights" to take potential threats out of the race or mobilize their base?  It's like they're living out their failed hockey enforcer dreams, except in our Legislatures.

Leaders that think they're sports stars; political organizers that think they're sports teams.  Where does that leave everyone else in our Parliamentary democracy?

In the audience, that's where - as passive participants, cheering for the Reds or Blues, Greens or Oranges instead of proactively engaging in policy conversations around things like healthcare or foreign aid.

Maybe people want it this way - maybe they'd rather see politics as a bloodsport, something to be watched or avoided, but not engaged in.  Political operatives certainly want it this way - they constantly tell us we're not interested in the political sausage-making process and work hard to keep their training regimens out of sight.

But this isn't democracy.  Democracy isn't a spectator sport, it's civic engagement.  In democracy, leaders fuel their teams who in turn are supposed to engage with the audience in a conversation that results in the best outcomes for everyone. 

This is critical, because society is far more complex than any sport; when you choose to view politics as a simple competition between leaders and teams for market share, you're not looking for sustainable solutions.

Which is where we are now - increasingly competitive political parties that, surprise surprise, like the idea of reducing competition and adding more games per season, as that's where they flourish (and get paid).  They want more of your money so they can fight more effective campaigns, buy more ad space and put out more attack ads (of course you hate them, but they work, don't they)?

 

The focus here isn't on shared solutions, but individual or team wins.  The public are spectators, not participants.  Sustainable policy choices aren't even part of the conversation.

 

This is why I cringe at the adoption of political primaries - essentially, big game days - into our process.  The last thing we need is for citizens to have another reason to fully embody the role of side-line pundicators and jersey-wearers.

 

You want entertainment?  Watch an actual sports game.  Crave scandal?  Go watch Game of Thrones.

 

Democracy is not a fucking game.

 

When we treat it like one, we all lose.

 

The Opposite of Responsible Journalism

"Responsible journalism," as the Lords called their new defence, posited that if a journalist has taken reasonable steps to verify that a story is true, and has given the subject an opportunity to respond, he or she cannot be found liable for defamation, even if the story contains untruths."

The linked story about the machinations behind the Toronto Star's Rob Ford addiction stories is worth a read.  It demonstrates the tough balancing act reporters like Robyn Doolittle and their editors go through in trying to tell stories, but also maintain those stories' integrity.

Then read this rant by Christina Blizzard.  It's important to note that Blizzard is a columnist, not a reporter, but so far as the public knows there's no difference between the roles.  Which is a damned shame.

Reporters (if they are responsible journalists) will try to find balance in a story, to represent all sides. 

It's the story, not their take on it, that matters.

Columnists, however, only offer their opinions, which can be based on as much or as little information as they so choose.

Blizzard's bugaboo for the day is Chrysler's decision not to accept provincial funding because the matter has been politicized.  She mentions the fact that Opposition Leader Tim Hudak decried such funding as "corporate welfare" (a partisan dig that casts as much dirt on Chrysler as it does on the Liberals), but only after rambling about how unfairly Hudak is blamed for such irrelevant matters as baldness and climate change.

This is as childish an approach as Rob Ford's taunting the Toronto Chief of Police to arrest him - the intent is to polarize the conversation into such ridiculous extremes that objective assessment and conclusions are impossible.

Let's deconstruct some of her other points:

- the Green Energy Act has singularly driven Ontario's energy prices through the roof.

Is the assumption, then, that without the Green Energy Act that prices would have fallen?  What's that based on?  What specific line-item costs have directly impacted hydro bills over the past ten years?  What of all the other complex factors that impact the cost of electricity, like aging infrastructure or increasing demand?

Doesn't matter - doesn't fit the narrative.

Manufacturing firms are leaving Ontario solely because of electricity costs.

Nothing about companies looking to reduce overall cost and maximize profit, period.  Nothing about moving to places like Bangladesh where below-poverty wages are permissible and human rights aren't enforced.  Nothing about plants being closed and more work put on fewer employees.

Why would there be?  It doesn't fit the narrative.

Much like the Fair Elections Act, Blizzard's take on the Chrysler funding issue seems to be a solution (Liberals are evil, ignorant or incompetent, Hudak is maligned) in search of a problem.  This may be emotionally satisfying - it may even sell - but it is not responsible journalism.

It's just the Liberals who are playing political football.

Nothing about Chrysler looking for any excuse to cut corners; certainly nothing about Hudak taking whatever partisan position suits his purposes.  

Blizzard's been around long enough to see first-hand that they're all playing political football - it's a game that gets played with our money, but our democracy, but who cares?  Niggling realities like that don't fit the narrative.

Thankfully, at the end of her column she opts to open up her colour box a bit and recognizes that there could me more to the story that a simple narrative.

But that comes after playing a lot of political football.

Bizzard gets singled out for criticism because of the blatant partisan spin of her article but as we all know, there's more than enough criticism to go around.  Even the more contentious reporters (and politicians) are ready and willing to spin a story in a way that stokes fires and sells papers/encourages donations.

Maybe Blizzard's readers know they're getting a one-sided rant when they read her work; maybe they're actively seeking emotional validation for anger at the system.  It'd be nice if the Sun clearly advertized this fact, though.

You can love what Blizzard rights or hate it (and she's likely gunning for just those two reactions), but whatever you're emotional response to her columns, they are not responsible journalism.

Rob Ford in the Ring: An Alternative Interpretation of the Murder Video

No no no.  Not going to do it for five.  No  I'm gonna prepare for it.  I will call it.  And I will be in that ring.

Rob Ford is making a lot of headlines these days.  Of course, he's giving the headlines a lot of reason to favour him; lies, crack-smoking admissions, police surveillance, bad friends - the list goes on to now apparently include threatening murder.

But in his latest video escapade, was Ford really threatening to murder someone, or was he trash-talking, kinda like Patrick Brazeau likes to do? (there are a lot of personality similarities between the two)

We don't have context for this video, nor do we have anything to suggest when it was filmed.

Despite Ford telling us he was drunk while threatening to rip someone's throat out, his behaviour appears more cracked out than inebriated (I take this from the Toronto Sun; I myself have never seen a person high on crack).  The full transcript of the video, which has obviously been edited, can be found here.

Ford himself has suggested he only smoked crack one time and wasn't cogent at the time that he did.  I think it's fair to say the Mayor's credibility is shot at this point, so his word doesn't mean much.  Having said that, we can still dig a little deeper into his general drug-use behaviour, courtesy of all the police material about his drug-dealer friend Sandro Lisi.

The Toronto Police have clearly spent a lot of time following Lisi and Ford.  Surveillance photos of the two together have been released.  Lisi was busted for trafficking a Schedule II Substance (i.e. marijuana), not for trafficking a Schedule I Substance (like cocaine).  The guy who was charged with trafficking cocaine is Jamshid Bahrami, the dry-cleaner.  

His name hasn't gained the traction Lisi's had - if there was any photo evidence linking Bahrami to Ford, I'm sure he'd be a bit more famous right now.

So, if we go on what we have, it's clear that Ford spent a lot of time with a guy who dealt in weed; we don't have any suggested evidence that he fraternized to the same degree with a crack dealer.

We do know that Ford did smoke crack - he has said so himself.  There has been no release of information from the police that suggests a regular pattern of access to crack (just the Mary Jane).  So, what context do we have around the one recorded time the Mayor did smoke crack?

That brings us back to the account of The Crack Video as provided by Robyn Doolittle and Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star.  In their account, which has so far been vindicated, the reporters told us that Ford made homophobic comments about Justin Trudeau.  

This led to the suggestion that the video was likely filmed at a time when Trudeau was in the headlines (so that the filmer, who may not be as hooked on politics as some of us, would have had Trudeau's name fresh in his mind).  Such times include Trudeau's Liberal Leadership win, and that time he kicked Patrick Brazeau's ass in a boxing ring. 

What is the main throughline of Ford's comments (and those of the guy egging him on) in the new crack video?

Ford: 'Cause I'm going to kill that fucking guy.  I'm telling you it's first-degree murder.

Voice off-camera: Mike Tyson!

Ford: But I'll fight him.

Ford says he's going to kill a guy in a one-on-one competition and the off-camera voice shouts out the name of a boxer with a violent reputation.  "I'll fight him", Ford says.

Ford: I just need to go fucking myself.  In my fucking underwear.  I want to go with this guy.  I just need 15 minutes, that's all.  No fucking interference, brother.  If I win, I'll fucking donate...

Go himself... into the ring?  Wearing underwear for boxing shorts?  No interference, as in don't help him once he's in?  He needs 15 minutes in the ring?  What was going to happen to the money raised for the fight - as I recall, it was going to be donated to a charity.

Voice: Five minutes.

Ford: No no no.  Not going to do it for five.  I'm gonna prepare for it.  I will call it.  And I will fucking be in that ring.

There's a line about the boys being pros, too - well, both Trudeau and Brazeau had previous fight training, so that's kinda what they are.

What if Ford's bizarre rant that mentions him in his underwear was trashtalk about what he'd do if he were to square off with Justin Trudeau in a boxing ring?  

There's anecdotal evidence that it might not have been filmed the same day as the first video; according to Kevin Donovan, Ford was wearing a white shirt, top button open in that one - no mention of a tie, which does disappear by the third clip. 

Now, to me the shirt Ford's wearing in Video #2 video looks soft blue, but lighting can confuse the two.  What do you think?  What do Donovan and Doolittle think?

The tie could have come off later, when they retired to the basement.  Or, it could have been another day, but around the same time the Trudeau/Brazeau fight was in the headlines.  Either way, it suggests that Video #2 was filmed before the whole crack-smoking story came to light.

Granted, the connections aren't airtight - there's the crack, the Trudeau/possible Trudeau boxing references and the potential that the guy egging on in similar ways/filming Ford is the same in both.
There's the by-election reference, too - which could have been leading in to the August by-election that Ford's former Deputy Mayor won (at one point late in 2012, Rob's Councillor brother Doug Ford considered running for the seat).

Add to this some basic sales - if it's already out there that Ford smoked crack/called Trudeau a fag, how much money can you expect to get for a video that just repeats an old message?  Editing it a bit so that it sounds like Ford's threatening to kill someone, however, gives you a new product and something the Star clearly felt was worth buying.

If that's the case, I think it's fair to say Video #2 doesn't bring anything new to the table (like a direct connection to the murder of Anthony Smith, though it doesn't disprove such a link either) - it merely expands on the existing sad story of a disturbed man.

Which is, in my mind, the whole point.  Ford is a mess - he has substance abuse issues that are killing him as he tries to cope with a position that's out of his league (which might just be why he's having substance abuse problems in the first place).  That's been the case since day one.

While we wait for the latest zinger to come out, heaping more shame on our Mayor, the man beneath the chain continues to wither.

Jon Stewart said it best:

"Are you waiting for this man to hit rock bottom?  ... Mayor Ford's a lot of fun to ridicule, but my guess is not a lot of fun to eulogize and that's where this thing is headed."

Ford's down, but he's not out - yet.  If he does die it's because we, his enablers and ridiculers both, stood back and let it happen.

Nobody will be joking about murder then.

The #LawrenceHeights Headline You Won't See Tomorrow:

Thursday, June 6 2013

 

TORONTO RAPTORS HELP FLEMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL CELEBRATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

 

LAWRENCE HEIGHTS -  The students, staff and parents of Flemington Public School were joined by a special guest at this evening's Shine Bright Like a Diamond Talent Night.  The Raptors' mascot set the crowd on fire with a dazzling entrance and spirited contribution to the post-show Awards of Merit presentation.  One of the students turned the tables on the Raptor, surprising the mascot with a back flip of his own.  This led to a crowd-pleasing Raptor-Vs-Student dance-off.

 

The performing students played to a packed house of family, friends and supporters, wowing the audience with songs, dances and even a magic show.  Each performance was encouraged by the crowd with enthusiastic claps and shouts of support.  The Gangnam Style routine brought everyone to their feet, a perfect blending of audience and performers.  This, folks, was community done right.

 

Not that this support was mere charity - some true gems took to the stage, showing off remarkable physical and vocal discipline.  Asked what training they'd received to craft their fantastic singing voices, a set of twin sisters replied "we just love singing so we practise all the time."  One participant kept the crowd entertained through some technical difficulties with an improv stand-up routine (you can never go wrong with egg jokes).

 

Encouraged by the support and inspired by the visit of a Toronto celebrity, these talented students beamed as they left the school, adding "rock star" to their list of potential career paths.

 

-30-

 

You won't read this story in any paper, but it did happen and it was magical.  I'm no performance critic, but I know talent when I see it - there were some real diamonds in the rough on that stage, needing only a little polish and a bit of encouragement to shine to their maximum potential.

 

There are probably countless positive stories of this sort playing out in communities like Lawrence Heights, Rexdale and St. Jamestown every day that never hit the news stands.  Instead, Toronto only sees these neighbourhoods through the lens of body bags and police tape.

 

It doesn't have to be that way.  These kids and their accomplishments can be promoted by local papers, radio stations and through social media platforms like Twitter.  There's a funny thing that happens when you reinforce the positive - it sparks even more positive behaviour as those being recognized enjoy that powerful feeling you get when admired for what you can do, not discounted for who you are seen as.

 

There's nothing I would like more than to see this headline become a reality one day, with some of these talented kids being the celebrities setting home-community crowds on fire.

 

It can happen.  It should happen.  I encourage any media folk who read this piece to reach out to these communities and be part of making sure it does happen:

The Lawrence Heights Inter-Organization Network

Positive Change

Flemington Public School