Note About the Future of this Blog

Hello readers,

I'm sure a few of the regular readers have noticed the inconsistency in most posting lately. Through a combination of things I've been finding it a lot harder to post with the usual regularity I did even a few months ago. I'd like to talk a little bit about that and what it means going forward.

The news is depressing. It is frustrating to say the least to look at the litany of bad news and talk about it. The worst part about that is that it's often the same news in different flavours. While Trump manages to be racist, sexist, and damaging to democracy in many different ways, I only have so much will to talk about it. Likewise, the Doug Ford government could be given the same treatment. I've wanted to write about issues that came up in their convention, but it's all a bit draining. Ditto with Patrick Brown about to become mayor of my city.

Next, I'm tired. In the last few months I have gotten more hours at my part time job, but that also means that I get home later, I'm more tired when I do go home and often after finishing dinner and unwinding for a bit I just want to sleep. I'd rather write something well than write something fast and some post feel like I'm just going through the motions to meet my artificial schedule. I also suffer through periods of insomnia, which compounds these issues. I am currently in one of those periods.

Finally, this year I've tried to put more effort into fiction writing. I think I've had some real successes and I find it very satisfying. This is especially true when measured against the political pieces I write.

So, what does this mean for the future? First, I'm scrapping any notion of a schedule. I know it's death for blogs, but I'll be writing when and if I feel like it. I don't think that this will mean a permanent hiatus, but it's a possibility if nothing inspires me to write. I will say I invite feedback. This blog is a very solo project. If you enjoy it, or want my take on something in particular feel free to reach out. It would certainly encourage me to continue.

Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter at @SLee_OT, where I tweet about politics and retweet smarter people and interesting reads.

I hope you see something up here before too long.
Steven

A Century After the War

Earlier this week marked the one hundredth anniversary of the end of the First World War. I have a hard time imagining what event in the relatively recent past has shaped the world more than that single conflict. When I read the news, especially international news, or news that covers post-colonial nations I can still vividly see the scars there. Europe paid a devastating cost during the conflict, and so did the peoples within their empires. The transformative impact of the war can still be seen inside much of Europe domestically, not just internationally.

Over the last couple of years my interest in the First World War has grown considerably. I still have a stack of books that I intend to read that explains the time period. However, I've read and watched some content that may be of interest to others.

Recently I have been reading The War that Ended Peace by Margaret Macmillan. Macmillan, as the title suggests, is attempting to explain why a century of relative peace came to an end in 1914, rather than why did the war start. The context, personalities and history makes for a fantastic read. I have yet to finish the book and expect I'll write a review when I do. It reminds me a bit of the Guns of August but with a broader scope and a longer view.

Next, I've been watching a YouTube channel called The Great War. The Great War has been a project that lasted four years and released weekly videos describing the events of World War One week by week. I'm about mid-way through 1915 myself. Most of the videos are under 10 minutes long so it can be very easy to fall into a rabbit hole. Perhaps the best feature of the videos is that the examine the truly global nature of the war. There is a tendency to become fixated on the Western Front, but around the world tragic and incredible stories were playing out.

Finally, I already reviewed this on my blog, but Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan seems a valuable tool to expand one's understanding of the war. How World War I ended and the motivations behind the victors is an important. Most people know that the events and decisions of World War I set up the Second World War, but it also clearly determined the stage for all the following decades. Countries created from that time period persist. Mistakes made continue to cause problems. Historic arrangements continue to endure.

The First World War had many causes, but one of the big ones was that the Great Powers, concentrated in Europe, could not come to a peaceful understanding with one another. Ego, arrogance, hubris, and so on culminated to make leaders make disastrous decisions that resulted in the deaths of millions. It is difficult to truly comprehend the horror. However, Europe has, for the most part, overcome the divisions that led to the First World War. Germany and France united in shared grief to mark the anniversary this week, along with other countries that participated.

Leaders of Germany and France mark Armistice Day together.

We should never forget the lessons of World War One and be conscious of how it shapes us today. Never forgetting requires us to know first.

Book Review: It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis

It seems with great irony that I finished reading It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis on the day of the American midterm election. I've known about this novel for many years, and it popped back into my consciousness as it regained popularity in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election. I picked up a copy for myself when a friend of mine read it and posted particularly effective excerpts from the book that seemed to stab at the character of American politics, and perhaps Canadian politics as well, lest I be accused of deriding America and glorifying my own country's virtues.

It Can't Happen Here is remarkable in a few ways, but perhaps the most important one from my point of view is that it is a product of its time. Oftentimes that can hinder a work. Not in this case. Lewis was critiquing fascism and communism in real time when authoritarianism seemed to be on the rise around the world. As much as I love Nineteen Eighty-Four it is easy to look coldly at the tactics of the Soviet Communists and the Nazis and deride them. Lewis' scathing examination of fascism does not have the horrors of genocide or war to enforce his case.

The novel is set in a small Vermont town on the brink of the 1936 elections. As the Great Depression drags on American politics is increasing mired and dogged by extremists. The story opens at a society debate where speakers and supporters of a radical candidates couch their language in 'Americanism'. Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip is a populist modeled in part on Huey Long. His folksy charm and extravagant promise to deliver $5000 to every American garners him a great deal of support.

The protagonist of the piece is Doremus Jessup, a newspaper editor in Fort Beulah, Vermont. Jessup, his friends and family provide the main lens from which we view the story. Doremus is a classic liberal and democrat. He cherishes the republic and the ideals which he believes it stands. He is also remarkably privileged. I think Sinclair is trying to comment on class and the rise of radical movements. The Jessup's hired man ends up a major leader within the fascist party.

Jessup witnesses with horror as people naively and enthusiastically embrace Windrip to become president. He replaces Roosevelt as the Democratic nominee and defeats an inoffensive Republican candidate - Walt Towbridge - to become president. Not long after Windrip is elected and his cronies get themselves into office does the hammer fall. Congress and the courts are repressed and bullied into submission. The Corporatist Party becomes the only legal party and the Minute Men become the paramilitary apparatus similar to the Stormtroopers or Black Shirts.

Something that makes the novel more effective in my opinion is that Lewis sets the story in a small town. It allows him to quickly sketch the power dynamics at the outset and show how the Corpos corrupt and deform relationships within the community. It is far more effective to see the liberal-minded teacher kicked out of his position and ostracized than have it be theoretical. Or the harassment the few Jewish residents must endure under the new anti-Semitic state. The Jessup family endures incredible hardship under the regime even though they occupy a privileged position. Members are murdered, imprisoned, and routinely threatened. It adds gravity to the horror of the situation. It gives faces and voices to the tragedy.  

As the afterward writes the novel is not a how-to guide in resisting fascism, but a simple case that America (and other democracies) are not immune to populist autocrats who will rob and abuse the citizens of a country for their own personal gain. Germany and Italy were democracies before they succumbed to fascism. No country is immune and requires vigilance. The story is rooted in enough real history and figures to be believable even if some of the details seem incorrect.

It's  a short read. Those interested in dystopian political visions, the 1930s, fascism, etc. will find something worthwhile in these pages. I think it's also valuable as a historical document. Check it out.

Worth Reading - October 25, 2018

The NDP face challenging by-elections before the next federal election. 

The Ontario government cancelled funding for three university campuses after millions of dollars were spent. 

Why does conservative nonsense dominate American politics? 

After the election, Toronto City Council has as many people named Michael as it does visible minorities. 

A 32-year-old woman defeated the incumbent mayor in Peterborough. 

Patrick Brown says that Doug Ford has to take Brampton seriously, or he'll face real issues. 

Dear God Brampton, What the Hell Were You Thinking?

Last night about 35% of eligible voters in Brampton cast ballots and elected a new mayor, council and school board. Patrick Brown defeated incumbent mayor Linda Jeffrey by around four thousand votes. Patrick Brown, as thousands of Brampton voters seem to have forgotten, was a long-time resident of Barrie, served on its city council before becoming a Conservative MP. He then became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario until credible allegations against him abusing his position of power to make advancements on young staffers became public known. He was unceremoniously kicked out as leader.

But fear not, Patrick Brown can continue to survive off the public purse because the citizens of Brampton, forty-six thousand of them had the bright idea to elect him as their mayor.

Sigh.

Nights like last night sometimes honestly make me feel like I should hang up the keyboard and quit. Too many defeats. Too many bad losses to awful candidates.

Trying to be positive, the victories of Paul Vicente, Martin Medeiros, Gurpreet Dhillon, Rowena Santos, Jeff Bowman, and Charmaine Williams are heartening.

However, the election of Doug Whillans, Pat Fortini, and Michael Palleschi does not fill me with hope.

I've left Harkirat Singh's name off either side because I don't know him well. I included Ms. Williams because she is the first black woman elected to city council, an important and growing community in this city that needs representation. It will be difficult to tell until some issues come up, but the council may be slightly more progressive than the last one. I thought some members were more progressive and then their voting record said otherwise.

Despite what some might say, I think it should be noted that by far not everyone forgives or forgets the allegations made against Patrick Brown. His election is not carte blanche forgiveness. Citizens in this city will be watching, and errors and mismanagement will be noted. Hopefully then the people will have the good sense to hold him accountable.

Now I'm going to try not think about this election for a while.

Worth Reading - October 18, 2018

Patrick Brown, who hopes to become mayor of Brampton next week, spent $300000 in two months on staffing in his final days as a MPP.  Respect for the public purse?

The Toronto Star endorses Linda Jeffrey for re-election as mayor of Brampton. 

New Brunswick's strange election outcome means that no party wants to volunteer a MLA to become speaker.

  

Now that Canada has legalized cannabis, the next move is to address harder drugs. 

This article looks at when public transit meets on-demand service. 

Francis Fukuyama sat down for an interview and shared some of his thoughts on the state of politics and the world. 

Here's a story on people who are moving to the Chernobyl radioactive zone. 

Strong Towns looks at how efficiency is not the same thing as strength. 

Why does John Tory want to be mayor? What is his vision for Toronto? 

Book Review: The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith

Every once in a while you're lucky enough to read something that changes the way you look at politics and the world in general. That is how I felt after finished The Dictator's Handbook. Written by political scientists the book is written for a general audience and provides clear examples and demonstrates the central thesis. De Mesquita and Smith seek to uncover the true incentives behind the actions of leaders. Their thesis has given them new insight and understanding of how leaders and governments behave.

The title of the book is a bit misleading. It is not about how to become a dictator, or something like that. The book is focused more on how do leaders gain power and hold power successfully. They argue that leaders in democratic countries, ruthless dictatorships, corporations or small towns are all operating under the same basic principles.

Leaders wish to obtain and maintain power. In any structure where a leader is selected, the authors write, there are the interchangeables, the influentials, and the essentials. The names for these three categories is perhaps the worst part of the book from my point of view. The interchangeables, or nominal selectorate, are the entire population that can choose the leaders. The influentials are the 'real' selectorate, or the group who actually chooses the leader. The essesntials are the group of the influentials who make up the winning coalition.

I know that was a lot to parse, so I'll use an example from Canada. In Canada every adult citizen has the right to vote. That is the interchangeables. However, we know for a fact that a lot of the population does not fall into the category. For example, a significant population of the country does not vote, so you lose about 30-40% right there. From there the leader cobbles together a coalition to win, those become the essentials. This coalition are the voters who elect Members of Parliament for the winning party. In the end only about 15-25% of the Canadian voting population has a role in selecting the Prime Minister. The PM then has the sole duty of keeping that coalition happy in order to maintain power.

America provides an easy example for the presidency. The electoral college is the true real selectorate for the president. He/she must the 270 electoral votes to assure victory. However, in most recent elections some states are absolutely guaranteed in their leanings and the outcome assured. As a result candidates for president can focus on the essentials in a handful of states. In an autocratic regime the selectorate may be the single legal party, like the Communist Party of China, or the support among the military and its key officers.

Once in power leaders have to find a way to reward their supporters to ensure their continued loyalty. Leaders who fail to do so risk encouraging new coalitions forming that will turf them from office. For this control of resources and redistribution is important. The authors have found direct correlation between the size of the coalitions required and the disparity of rewards. In a democracy benefits have to be distributed widely in the form of social programs or tax cuts, as an example. In a dictatorship, or small coalition country, leaders can steal - literally - from the population to reward their backers. This is how you get situations where some small, select minority loyal to the leader, such as his home tribe, becomes enormously enriched. The leader wins their absolute loyalty.

The authors investigate how this lens can interpret things like corruption, taxation and foreign aid. The come to an interesting conclusions and extrapolation, backed by case studies. Countries that have a plentiful resource, like oil, are at greater risk for shrinking the coalition of support. Taxes tend to be higher because regimes in small coalition countries can afford to squeeze their populations more. Foreign aid props up dictators and gives them and their supporters tools to enrich themselves. It's sort of stunning. When developing countries are forced to rely upon their populations to be productive they invest in them and the coalition grows.

The book is deeply cynical, one could argue, but there is an undeniable logic to it. We see these factors play out all the time in democracies as well as dictatorships. The actions of leaders can be explained by these central motivations. The books is well-written as well as dryly humourous. It was a deeply pleasurable read and has definitely given me a lot to think about, and explains why bad behaviour can often be good politics.

Worth Reading - October 11, 2018

Big long list. It's what happens when I miss a week.

Andrew Coyne takes a look at former PM Stephen Harper's new book. This one is not about hockey.

How small changes in an Arkansas town made a big difference. 

If we refuse to take climate change serious preventatively, we have a duty to prepare for the consequences. 

A right-wing candidate who has said positive things about dictatorship won the first round of the Brazilian election. 

John Michael McGrath looks at the state of the Liberal Parties across Canada and centricism. 

Toronto is facing a financial crisis, but no one is talking about it. 

The Montreal Gazette reports on the divisions in Quebec society revealed by the election. 

John Geddes writes on Stephen Harper's interpretation of conservative populism. 

Jen Gerson writes on the political utility of the carbon tax for conservative politicians in Canada. 

From the Globe and Mail, Sidewalk Toronto is no smart city. 

Toronto will be hamstrung by the provincial government no matter who wins. 

The Kavanaugh hearing proves what was widely known - there is no conservative resistance to Trump. 

Why did the 2018 Ontario election go the way that it did? 

Progressive Conservatives in Ontario refused to denounce a white nationalist. 

Quebec's election signals a new era. 

Is former Liberal MPP and Mayor of Brampton Linda Jeffrey getting a boost from Doug Ford? 

Why fascists never think they're fascists. 

Brampton Election 2018 - Endorsements and Thoughts

Later this month, on October 22nd, voters across Ontario will cast ballots to elect representatives as part of the local and regional governments. I want to spend a little time looking at the local races here in Brampton, and sharing my own feelings. The Brampton elections are more interesting than normal given that there are a number of openings on council and serious challenges to incumbents.

I cannot cover all the candidates here, but here is an article that at least lists all of them. 

The biggest election in Brampton is the contest for mayor. Linda Jeffrey is seeking re-election. Her tenure of mayor has been difficult. Early on Jeffrey got in a massive disagreement with members of council. A majority voted against her on the Hurontario LRT and since that time she seemed to have lost the council. She is running on a fairly modest platform to improve safety, keep taxes at the same rate, and be a good steward for the future.

Jeffrey's primary competition, as far as I can tell, is from Patrick Brown. I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here, I think if Brampton elects Brown as mayor it'll be a humiliation for the city. Brown was running for Peel Regional Chair before the position's election was eliminated by Doug Ford. Brown was the former leader of the Progressive Conservatives until he was pushed out by scandal. He is from Barrie and a lifelong politician. His platform is fairly boilerplate, and so it becomes about personality, and I don't think Brown can be trusted.

Two other prominent candidates in the race are Baljit Gosal and John Sprovieri. Gosal is a former Conservative MP for Brampton. His prominence and name recognition makes him stand out, but I do not believe he has found much traction in the race. Similarly, Sprovieri has been a long-time councillor in Brampton. He was a vocal critic of Jeffrey, however he is seen by many to be out-of-touch and insensitive.

I'll be voting for Linda Jeffrey. I found I agreed with her more often than not in her term and her opponents either do not seem credible or are unacceptable to me.

One of the biggest races this time around will be in Wards 1 and 5. Brampton combines two wards for the purposes of elections. Grant Gibson and Elaine Moore are both retiring, creating vacancies and fierce competition. Eleven candidates are running for city council, and six for regional council. An interesting twist in this election is that Rowena Santos and Paul Vicente are running as 'a team'. Their signs are often on lawns together and I've seen them campaigning together. I have met with Santos and Vicente prior to the election at political events. I like the progressive agenda they are presenting.

In wards 2 and 6 the incumbents, Doug Whillans and Michael Paul Palleschi are seeking re-election. Given the benefits of incumbency I would expect both to be safely returned to office.

In wards 3 and 4, my area of town, the incumbents may both be facing stiff competition. City Councillor Jeff Bowman faces challenger Harpreet Singh Hansra, a local activist along with five other challengers. I've seen significant support for Hansra in the neighbourhood, so Bowman may be up for a fight. I think Bowman has been a good councillor, but I do not think I agree with him on the issues.

Despite my disagreements with some of Bowman's positions over the last few years I know that he is a thoughtful voice on issues. He was opposed to Jeffrey on key votes, but I trust he thought through his choices. Also, many of his challengers don't even have websites.

The more dramatic contest in 3 and 4 is between Regional Councillor Martin Medeiros and former Councillor John Sanderson. Sanderson ran against Jeffrey for mayor in 2014 and lost. In the four years since he has been a strong, outside critic of her mayoralty. Medeiros is a staunch supporter of Jeffrey on council, so the election has significant importance. Three other candidates are running but these two veterans seem to be dominating.

I voted for Sanderson for mayor in 2014, however, the aftermath of the campaign and his opposition to progressive transit and other policies bothered me. I'll be casting my ballot for Medeiros. I've dealt with him on a couple of issues that I've raised and he has been a strong local representative in that regard.

In wards 7 and 8 long-time councillor Gael Miles is retiring and the city councillor Pat Fortini is running for her spot on city council. So, Fortini is sort of the incumbent here. Fortini will have to overcome three other candidates to become replace Miles. One of the candidates is Bruce Marshall. I've met Bruce on a number of occasions and have found him to be a thoughtful, direct man. If I lived in wards 7 and 8 I would be voting for him.

The city council spot vacated by Fortini has nine challengers. One, interestingly enough is Martin Singh, former NDP candidate in 2015. Karla Bailey, if I'm not mistaken, has run before, and I like the experience in the community she brings to the table.

Last, but not least, wards 9 and 10. Sprovieri's run for mayor creates an opening and city councillor Gurpreet Dhillon took the opportunity to challenge for his former seat. I've really appreciated what Dhillon has brought to Brampton's City Hall. I without reservation would endorse him to become the regional councillor. He will have to overcome Vicky Dhillon, who lost to Gurpreet in 2014.

For the city council spot the current Peel District School Board trustee is running, Harkirat Singh. The rest are relative unknowns, so Singh has an advantage there.

I unfortunately cannot do the school board races. It's just too much to sift through and this post is long enough. I want to comment that overall I have been disappointed by the issues-content of this election. Aside from a recent series of crimes that has made policing and safety the top priority few other topics seem to be on the table. Many candidates are running on a soft "keep taxes low, bring in business, make small investments" platform. It is not particularly inspiring. Few are offering any sort of bold vision, and those who stretch seem to be missing touch with reality.

Best of luck, voters of Brampton, make good choices for the coming vote!

Worth Reading - September 27, 2018

A bridge collapsed six hours after it opened. 

Some areas of Los Angeles have vaccination rates lower than South Sudan. 

Smith Falls, Ontario may be revitalized by the marijuana industry. 

Some in Ontario are concerned that Doug Ford's obsession with Toronto is a problem for a province overall. 

What does Maxime Bernier mean by 'extreme multiculturalism'? 

Trump's trade wars are hurting Republicans in the midterms. 

Do we need to let communities fail in order to redeem more? 

Will the PCs committee to investigate Liberal spending become a show trial? 

Doug Ford was photographed with Faith Goldy and took days to distance himself from her. 

Unconvinced Faith Goldy is a Nazi? Check out the evidence Faith Goldy compiled. 

New Brunswick had an election and the outcome is somewhat crazy. 

Brantford was one of the worst parts of Ontario's rust belt. Sean Marshall asks if it has bounced back. 

Steve Paikin writes about the current state of the Ontario Liberal Party. 

Frustration with the Ebb of Progress

I sit on the left side of the political spectrum, generally speaking. Lately it has hard not to be pessimistic (not that there are many times when I'm optimistic). We'll keep things mostly to narrower topics though the consistent failures of the Trump White House and actions of the Trudeau government are draining.

I should say this isn't exclusively about Doug Ford either. With the unpopularity of the Wynne government this sort of outcome was highly likely. What I find most galling is the simple stupidity of this government. I don't mean that the leadership is stupid, I mean that the policies are. I want to talk more about policies than politics for this piece and how it feels like the left is painted into a corner on so many topics.

This week I was watching a panel discussion on Ontario's climate change 'plan'. Basically the plan of the current provincial government is to scrap the cap-and-trade system and fight the federal government's right to impose a carbon tax. In its place will be nothing. It's a terrible policy, but it's damn popular broadly speaking. Even I, a person who believes we should make interventions to halt climate change had to admit I was pleased when the cost of gasoline went down, to my shame. However, it was a crystalizing moment when I realized it just feels like the collective left is fighting an uphill battle in policy.

Climate change will need policies that will hurt society broadly to prevent worse injury later. Increasing the price of gas discourages excess driving, or at least the development of more fuel efficient, or electric vehicles. But, it's unpopular. The right-wing around the world can even accept that climate change exists and simply refuse to do anything about it and the electorate doesn't care.

Many elements of our system of elections and government is undemocratic. Reforms could be introduced to greatly improve representation at city councils, provincial legislatures, and the House of Commons. These ideas are laughed out of the room when people bother to stop yawning.

Laws that infringe on civil liberties can generally be passed with impunity. Bill C-51 was reviled for the potential it opened for abuse. It was a major election issue in places like Downtown Toronto. The Liberals broke their promise on the main aspects that brought issues, but now that the bad Conservatives are out of office... no fuss.

Our cites, all our cities, need to radically change policy to end sprawl and incrementally improve their density for their fiscal and environmental sustainability. Not to mention, housing affordability. Even modest proposals to densify certain communities is met with tenacious resistance, so much so that most politicians fear to address it.

Transit projects have either been nickle and dimed or become boondoggles to win suburban votes. People are committed to their cars and efforts to improve transportation that isn't more highway lanes and asphalt meet stiff resistance.

The sex education curriculum is rolling back two decades because a vocal minority is afraid of sex and bought lies told about it. I presume a silent majority doesn't care, or finds the birds and the bees "icky".

On any number of criminal justice issues the overwhelming tide of the population wants more cops, harsher sentences, profiling and executions. It hardly matters that experts say this often makes the situation worse, or that resources are better spent elsewhere.

Speaking of spending, good luck on having a conversation about raising taxes of any kind to better serve the public good.

Perhaps to end on a doozy: First Nations and Indigenous issues are consistently dismissed. Their rights, their existence and respect for their communities is routinely overruled for the benefit of the state or the majority. If you talk to Canadians about indigenous issues that answer I've heard far too often is that "they have it too good as it is." 

Conservatism has its roots in preserving the status quo. The left is traditionally a reforming element in society. Pushing change is always difficult. Cobbling together coalitions to push for uncertain change against a known present is never going to be automatic. However over the last week I keep thinking of a line from the HBO series The Newsroom. The character Will McAvoy asks a liberal pundit, "If the left is so smart how come you lose so goddamn always?" The right can become more radical and odious while the left can only seem to cobble together the most minor of victories.

I do not expect to be on the winning side continuously. The pendulum swings, ideas come and go, parties win and lose. Perhaps it's my perspective, but the swing to the right is scary given its radical element at present. We quite literally have white supremacists in the public discourse. Sigh. How is the left not able to win these fights overwhelmingly?

Worth Reading - September 20, 2018

Apologies for the concentration of stories on a series of topics, but I found myself focused on this issue above all other this week.

In an episode of TVO's the Agenda this week Steve Paikin assembled a panel to examine the reduction of Toronto's City Council by the Ford government. 

John Michael McGrath writes that many things could be done to help fix Toronto's municipal government, but Bill 5/31 is not it. 

Andrew Coyne has been strongly critical of Ford's move to cut Toronto's council. However, he points out Ford is not solely responsible. 

Strong Towns is putting out a series of articles looking at why Austin, Texas' attempt to redesign their code failed. 

If you think Ford's fight with Toronto was not your concern, it appears that the provincial government will be looking at other municipalities later. 

In Vice, they give their own take on Ford's governing style. 

Martin Regg Cohn looks at the treatment of our democracy during this 'debate'. 

Worth Reading - September 13, 2018

Lindsay Ellis made a video essay about selling authenticity and YouTube. 

Emmett Macfarlane is a respected academic and is one of the few intellectual voices I trust who supports Doug Ford against the judge's striking down of Bill 5. 

Former Conservative MP and former PC MLA Steven Fletcher has become leader of theManitoba Party.

  

Paul Wells takes a look at Doug Ford's governing style. 

For more background, John Michael McGrath writes about the notwithstanding clause. 

Patrick Brown reveals a plan to make Brampton safer. Sigh. 

Quebec votes on October 1st, currently the CAQ leads but the incumbent Liberals are not far behind. 

TV Review: Ozark - Season 2

Warning: The following will contain spoilers for season one and may contain spoilers for season two of Ozark.

I had some very good luck in August. I was talking up Ozark's first season with a friend and decided to rewatch it. When I was coming to the end of that I heard the news that season two was returning on the Friday before Labour Day. I'm not sure I could have been more perfectly prepared to enjoy Ozark's second season.

The second season begins with where the first season ends. There is no jump in time, the narrative just keeps rolling. At the end of the first season Marty Byrde (Jason Bateman) manages to convince the Snells to work with the Mexican cartel to build a casino and go into business together. Things seem to be going well in general and the agreement will defuse many of the barriers that have impeded Marty, but then Del Rio makes a comment and Darlene Snell kills him.

Marty's beautifully constructed plan is left bleeding on the floor, except the Snells argue this changes nothing. Marty has to do his best to salvage this agreement and avoid consequences with the cartel. In some ways that could be the entire synopsis for the seasons. The Byrdes ended up in the Ozarks in a desperate attempt to escape execution in Chicago and Marty does the same by proposing the casino. Now he has to make it happen.

The Snells and the Cartel offer two contrasting forms of violence. The Navarro Cartel presents an ominous, looming sense of danger. They are ruthless and calculating and heartless. They don't let sentiment or emotion impede their business in anyway. The Snells are quite the opposite. They operate close to home and are a constant presence for the Byrdes. They act on passion and emotion to a great degree. Marty often has to act as the interpreter and middle man between these two factions.

Wendy Byrde (Laura Linney) grows further into an active part of Byrde Enterprises. In the first season there was definitely an element of detachment and plausible deniability that Wendy relied upon. That is entirely gone in the second season. Wendy rarely hesitates to roll up her sleeves and get her hands dirty. Wendy displays a certain ruthlessness that Marty doesn't have. Her checkered past is no doubt a part of that.

One of the major ways the season excels and Wendy plays a greater role is the part of politics. Very early on the focus shifts to the legal process of how to get the casino approved. The path is rife with a kind of corruption that seems all too believable in 'small government' states. The first state senator Marty meets with his hauling lumber because being a senator is only a part time job. It gives tremendous incentive for bribery and corruption. The Byrdes do not corrupt good people, instead they find a world already deeply rotten and try to manipulate it to their own ends. They do so partially with the help of a big-time financier that seems to control a significant part of the Missouri Republican Party.

An idea that was present early on in Ozark is the decay or consequences of the money laundering that Marty does for the cartel. There are some, I am sure, who could look at Marty's work and say that his crime is relatively minor. Washing the money and getting back to the cartel in a useable form may not in and of itself being 'bad' but the presence of the drug trade and the temptation the money creates contaminates all around them. In the second season we see these consequences impact a variety of characters, including the children of the Byrdes. Such vast sums of wealth inspire crime, fraud, bribery, and theft. In addition we see how drugs poison and hurt people in the story.

That said, as an audience member I could not help but watch the series with a perverse desire to see Marty, Wendy, Charlotte and Jonah pull it all off with the help of their allies and friends. I felt for the innocent people hurt along the way, but those are awfully few and far between. Ozark tends to paint with a dark or gray brush. That said, I do not find the show overly serious or depressing to consume, not does it seem to luxuriate in violence in horror. Violence seems to disgust and disturb the Byrdes. The show has a few delightful moments. Wendy and Marty will update someone on their recent activities and amusedly comment, "I just made a deal with the Kansas City mob." The characters laugh because it seems so surreal. In some ways the Byrdes have not shaken that suburban, upper-middle-class sensibility that makes them seem so out of place.

Ruth Langmore (Julia Garner) is once again a tremendous force in the show. Her character journey from the first season to the end of season two is a fascinating thing to watch. Ruth brings something to the show which I think is incredibly powerful. She had a variety of impulses and motivations that keep her going. She is the guardian to her cousins and must navigate dangerous domestic relationships. Season two explores her relationship with her father a great deal. There is different subtext about her trying to find her place and the idea of the stain her Langmore reputation gives her. It's hard to put clearly, but it is clear that the opportunities to be respected the Marty's criminal enterprises gives her by appearing legitimate on the surface is very tempting. She hungers to work in an office, to live in a house instead of a trailer and guide Wyatt on to college. Ruth is both a child and an adult and struggles to navigate both worlds, as well of the worlds of poverty, thuggery, and white-collar crime.

I also briefly wish to add that Jimmy "Buddy" Smalls Dieker (Harris Yulin) has a tremendous arc over the season. He definitely becomes a member of the Byrde family and a critical member of it. He does a great deal to bring levity and humour to the series. The cartel in season two is represented by a lawyer, Helen Pierce (Janet McTeer) who brings a cold, calculating menace to the scenes the appears in. Perhaps she offers a window on another direction for the Byrdes, a white-collar worker whose choices led her down a more vicious path.

Ozark is great television. It is about a desperate family doing their best to navigate a complicated web to save themselves. Constantly actions have unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable consequences which require new interventions and responses, which in turn cause their own problems to solve. Unlike similar programs in the last few years I feel Ozark actually wrestles with the questions it poses and the characters carry the weight of their choices. More importantly, the characters, a huge swath of them, are fascinated to watch and as a viewer I pull for them to find their own successful resolution. I eagerly await a third season.

Worth Reading - September 7, 2018

An explosive op-ed appeared in the New York Times stating that federal officials work around and block the President of the United States. 

Jen Gerson writes a piece examining the federal parties' position on supply management. 

Why did Americans give up on mass transit? 

Eric Grenier looks at the state of the NDP after their 2017 financial numbers came in. 

Justin Ling asks if Andrew Scheer has what it takes to become PM. 

John Ivison reports that the NDP caucus is unhappy with Jagmeet Singh's leadership. 

Chuck Marohn and Strong Towns takes a look at crony capitalism. 

Reconsidering John Tory

In the 2014 Toronto mayoral election the people of Toronto were faced with a pretty start and alarming choice. After four years of chaotic mismanagement by the Rob Ford administration they were offered three practical options for who should become the next mayor: Olivia Chow, Doug Ford and John Tory.

Though voters don't collectively make a decision I think it is possible to look at the outcome and see some of the mood in the public. Chow came third. In public polling she never exceeded 30%. She in many ways represented the very justified anger on the left side of the spectrum at the Ford term. Decision after decision rankled and so many policy choices just plain seemed wrong. As Chow faded the race for mayor became more of a two-person race between Ford and Tory.

With Ford it was definitely an endorsement of the way things had gone in the first term. For right-wing residents of the city and especially those who wanted suburban, car-oriented, low tax government this promised more of the same. That said, one could easily argue about the low tax given the levy needed to fund the disastrous Scarborough subway.

However, I think a huge chunk of Toronto fell somewhere in the middle. I think it is a common misconception that Toronto is a left-wing city. I think certain areas are quite left-leaning, but the success the Progressive Conservatives, Conservatives and difficulties of the ONDP and NDP have had should be a lesson, as is the popularity of Rob Ford and the composition of Toronto City Council. John Tory came forward as a centrist option, though in truth centre-right would probably be more accurate. However, Tory offered something else for Torontonians - he's boring and safe.

Four years of Rob Ford I think turned many people's stomach. While there are those who will cheer the deceased mayor for decades to come it is also clear that he brought a deep sense of embarrassment for regular Torontonians who just wanted a quiet, well-functioning city government. I once observed that Canadians sometimes seem to hire (elect) prime ministers and premiers like they might hire an accountant. I think that's what allowed Stephen Harper to do well, in part.

Tory delivered for the most part. After being elected he has provided Toronto with stable and sober government. There have been no major scandals and he seems from the quiet business of city hall to be a competent administrator. However, this stability has come at the cost of an innate conservatism. By conservatism here I mean it quite literally - the desire to preserve things or keep them the same. This might not be a problem, except that Toronto is going through a period of intense change and requires leadership to guide it, shape it and make it happen.

There are a number of portfolios where Tory has stuck with the status quo despite public pressure and a great deal of evidence that change is required. I think the clearest example of this is on the question of policing and carding in the city of Toronto. Vocal critics such as Desmond Cole have made the case time and time again that the policing service requires reform and change especially in order to better serve people of colour. Tory has reflexively supported the police.

John Tory had a close relationship with Premier Kathleen Wynne. Politically the two seemed quite aligned, but also Wynne was interested in keeping Toronto happy on a number of fronts being a Toronto politician. However, as Ford moves into office I wonder if Tory merely wishes to get along with Queen's Park and the Premier and will not be a passionate defender of the city when it needs it against Doug Ford.

At the moment John Tory seems like he will return to office. He is polling 65% to 35% against his rival Jennifer Keesmaat. However, the vote is seven weeks away, and a lot can change. Tory has moved to the right for the sake of the campaign and this could harm him among the centrists who elected him in the first place. Keesmaat got off to a poor start, but she may be just the type of candidate to galvanize the centre and the left around a different more activist vision of Toronto. In 2014 Tory was the better of a bad choice, in 2018 he is going to have to do more than that.

Worth Reading - August 31, 2018

A video essayist named Contrapoints produced a fascinating examination of the Incel'community'. 

Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto mayoral candidate, released her transit plan. 

Seven NDP MPs are not running in 2019, which may weaken the party going into the election. 

Strong Towns takes a look to see how fast American cities are actually changing. 

Eric Grenier writes about the possible impact of the Bernier-led right-wing party. 

Much hope is being pinned to retrofitting suburbia, but that path is not simple. 

Chuck Marohn writes about how grow can strangle and kill a community. 

Andrew Coyne looks at the disturbing turn the immigration debate in this country. 

Martin Regg Cohn looks at the Ontario government's hysteria over refugees. 

John Michael McGrath writes that to govern well the Tories in Ontario will have to admit that some problems don't have simple solutions. 

Paul Wells writes that the next federal election will be about the heart of Canada. 

The Bernier Party

First, I'd like to apologize for the missing posts over the last couple of weeks. During August I went on a brief trip to southwestern Ontario and then followed that up be a few days out of town at a wedding and some social functions at work. Long story short, it has made it so I've been both busy and disconnected from current events.

It was a bit of a shock when I learned the dispute between Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer within the Conservative Party of Canada ended with Bernier quitting the party and vowing to start his own as an alternative.

From reports this break-up was brewing for a long time. Bernier and Scheer had been quietly and not-so-quietly disagreeing in public. Earlier in the year he was removed from his critic portfolio. When Scheer reorganized the caucus he put Bernier in charge of developing policy, a bold move that seemed to endorse his more libertarian ideals. Clearly this was a consistent source of friction between the two men.

Bernier's exit from the party is a grave concern. Let it be remembered that Bernier lost to Scheer for the leadership of the party 49-51%. Bernier built a base of support within the party and across the country, as well as significant fundraising capacity. Now, to be fair, that does not necessarily translate into backing for his own alternative party, but no doubt a few will follow him.

Assuming Bernier is sincere in his promise to start a party the real question is the impact that will have on the 2019 federal election. There are already those who fear (or gleefully hope) that this may fracture the Conservative Party the way the Reform/Alliance split the right from the Progressive Conservatives from 1993-2003.

I think there are a few generally safe assumptions to make. First, with a little more than a year to go until the election it is unlikely that Bernier will get a full party off the ground to run the 338 candidates across the country. It seems a tall order. Second, I think it is likely that if Bernier sticks with it that it will result in him being re-elected in his riding under a new party banner. The question becomes how much of a tail, or how broad will his support be. Will the Bernier Party mirror Elizabeth May's Greens and simply elect the leader and no one else? Or, will it manifest into the seat of a truly national party and have competitive candidates and multiple MPs from across the country. Or, will it become a local phenomenon in Quebec?

I see a real possibility for Bernier's Party to perform better than the Greens, though I will not guarantee it. Bernier, from the leadership race, gained a lot of traction in Alberta. It is possible that his more libertarian vision may catch on in Alberta the same places that the Wildrose Party did.

Overall, I don't think this will much impact what I think will happen in October 2019. I tend to believe Canadians are inclined to give governments two terms. Even if Trudeau is less popular than he was, I think he is on track to win a second term. Weakness in the NDP's numbers secures the Liberals' left flank with the Tories united or divided.

Frankly, I am all for more parties with representation in the House of Commons. It's a sad truth that our electoral system penalizes that, but I think a greater diversity of voices should be welcome, even if I strongly disagree with Maxime Bernier's position. I'm sure it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Worth Reading - August 16, 2018

Sorry I missed Tuesdays post, I was off taking a little break and didn't make arrangements to have post ready to go. Hopefully you all are enjoying your summers as well.

Josh Dehaas writes that Canadian universities need to diversify their sources of international students so they are less vulnerable to geopolitical changes. 

Jagmeet Singh has been touring Quebec to try to shore up NDP support in that province. 

Chantal Hebert argues that Canadians deserve an election this fall. 

Can outsiders with no stakes in a community really care enough to revive it properly? 

Steve Paikin writes that the first tears in the 'big blue tent' of the Ontario PCs have formed. 

Staffers at Queen's Park have been applauding to drown out troublesome questions from journalists. 

Worth Reading - August 9, 2019

Polls show that Francois Legault and the CAQ have the lead in the upcoming Quebec provincial election. 

Affordable housing in Toronto could be the top issue in the fall election. 

How a suburban county in Georgia squandered its wealth. 

Jagmeet Singh is running in a by-election in British Columbia, but he will not find it an easy experience. 

The piece in the Toronto Star advocates for a new freeway in the Western GTA. 

With criticism landing on Toronto's City Hall, the Star looks at what councillors do. 

The New York Times looks at research that shows how when a woman has children is shaped by their circumstances and reflects on different realities in America. 

Also from the Times, daughters are paid less for chores than sons. Huh.