The Cheque Was In The Mail

Yesterday, retrieving the day's delivery from our mailbox, I really was not surprised to find an envelope from the Ontario government. It contained my licence sticker rebate for the past two years, plus another $100, the latter of which I do not understand. But it doesn't matter; I'm not keeping it.

With the Ford government's largesse now in full bloom (in May, child-care rebates will be issued now that a deal has been struck with Ottawa), it would seem that its beneficence will be unquestioned by millions of Ontarians on June 2, our provincial election date. I will be very surprised if the Ford government is not re-elected with a resounding majority. Even the workers of Ontario may line up with them, given Monte McNaughton's recent efforts at labour reform.

All will now seem right with Ontario-world until, of course, it isn't. Once the election is over and the provincial Liberals and NDP continue to carp impotently from the sidelines, the hammer will come down, all in the name of 'fiscal prudence.' Where the big cuts in spending will be made, I do not know, but given the annual revenue loss of at least $1 billion from eliminating the licence-renewal fee alone, only a naif would place his/her trust in 'Our Ford' to behave with justice and compassion. And people, both individually and collectively, will suffer as a result.

Which is why I am not keeping my renewal rebate. Before I proceed, let me assure you that I am not claiming any particular virtue here. My life is comfortable; the bills are always paid; I have a good pension. The modest way we have always lived has served us in good stead. Our financial future is secure. 

Obviously, many people are not in my position, but if you comfortable, you may want to consider redirecting Mr. Ford's bribes rebates to causes you deem worthy. My personal choices are the following:

Indspire, a national Indigenous registered charity that invests in the education of First Nations, Inuit and Metis individuals, providing them with the tools to live successful lives. I previously posted about the organization,  and you can check out its website here.

Because so many are precariously housed or entirely homeless, I also lend support to an organization called Indwell, a registered non-profit whose mission is to build supportive housing. With vulnerable populations likely to suffer even more when the cutbacks come, this seems like a logical, legitimate choice for a charitable donation, and they are definitely making a difference.

Given the rampant nature of food insecurity and poverty, my final choice today is Food4Kids, which serves a large number of communities, both in Ontario and in the U.S. Its mission statement:

To provide healthy food for kids from at-risk, low-income or disadvantaged homes with limited or no food during weekend periods or during the summer months.

So there you have it. Not all who may read this are in any position to give. That I understand. But there are other things you can do, not the least of which is to turn out to vote on June 2, ideally for a party that you feel best represents your values and your hopes and aspirations for this province.

A Sunday Reflection.

Reading the Sunday paper, there were a number of topics I entertained for today's post, ranging from political leadership to the Trump-Putin relationship and how it pertains to the current world situation to Ontario Liberal leader Stephen Del Duca's ghastly rally in which he showcased both his new 'look' and his obviously stage-frightened young daughters

However, those weighty topics will take a backseat to possible future posts. Today's, prompted by a local example, is about social media, public shaming, and the errors we can make in being too lustily engaged in what we perceive as justice issues.

The local example pertains to a restaurant that has closed its operation in Parkdale, one of Toronto's poorer neighbourhoods (that phrase apparently not yet quite an oxymoron). Known as Vegandale, the chain ran a restaurant called Doomie's Toronto, its purpose to promote veganism. Due to Covid and post-Covid exigencies, the owner says it was not profitable to operate in Parkdale.

Part of the problem, it would seem, was the negative reception it and the chain got from some community groups, which 

opposed the chain’s “moral imperative messaging,” which suggested veganism was superior to other lifestyles.

While they were no doubt well-intentioned, it occurred to me that some people just have too much time on their hands, time that leaves them thinking they should be the arbiters of what others think and feel. Until coming across the article, I had no idea that food-shaming is a thing.

Which brings me to the larger topic: public shaming. It is something I have some experience in, a story I shall leave to the end of this post.

There is no doubt that when we write on social media or retweet or share a story about someone's apparent wrongdoing, we feel a sense of smug moral superiority. However, often the fuller context is missing, or social media is being used to create mischief or malignity, the consequences of which cannot always be foreseen.

A good documentary on this topic is to be found on Crave Canada called 15 Minutes of Shame, produced with the involvement of Monica Lewinsky, who has some experience in the subject:

If you do not have access to the documentary, I would highly recommend a book by Jon Ronson (who also appears in the above film) entitled, So You've Been Publicly Shamed. While it has been a few years since I read it, one story in particular stands out, but it is just one of many showcasing terrible consequences for the victims of social media attacks:

Two young tech guys were attending a computer convention. Both rather nerdish, during the keynote address one turned to the other and commented upon the attractiveness of the woman giving the address, saying something to the effect that she could certainly engage his 'hard drive.' Juvenile and predictable, of course, but unfortunately his comment was overheard by a woman sitting behind him. Knowing his identity through his nametag, she launched into a social media attack, averring how she felt 'threatened' by his remark. Things escalated, as they often do on social media, and despite his public apology to her, he was ultimately fired from his well-paying job.

I find it difficult to see the social justice in his fate. 

There are many people who deserve to be called out and condemned on social media, but I am concerned about how readily we (and I do include myself) jump at the opportunities to stigmatize people on social media.

I shall end with a personal story. Some years ago I posted about a small-business owner who had failed to pay back wages to one of her employees. It was quite a significant amount of money, and I felt good to play even a miniscule role in publicizing her dereliction. Several months later, I received a heartfelt letter from the woman's daughter, who was trying to eliminate as many internet references to her mother as possible. I won't go into the details here, but the reasons for her request were compelling, and I did as she asked. I removed the post.

There are foreseen and unforeseen consequences to all of our actions. Because of that, I think we all need to be a little more reflective and humble, especially in our social media behaviour. Life, after all, is about much more than getting an abundance of likes, retweets, and followers.

 

Our Unhealthy State

I am not one of those who chortles when political parties fall into embarrassments or controversy; such events only serve as fodder for opposing parties eagerly driven to earn more political street cred. Those antics do not benefit democracy.

I speak first as an Ontario voter, despondent at the meagre fare on offer June 2, our election day: Doug Ford's Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP, or, as I like to call the leaders of the latter two, Tweedledum and Tweedle-dee.

So the quality of leadership does matter regardless of political affiliation. And that especially includes the federal Conservatives, whose leadership choice in the fall puts under pressure whatever is left of its soul. Not to mention the pressure it puts on our own democracy. 

Being of a certain vintage, I remember well Progressive Conservative leaders such as Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark, both profoundly decent men who would today be labelled as Red Tories., Indeed, and I am not ashamed to admit it, I voted Conservative when these two men led the party. It was a time when viable political alternatives existed, alternatives that always serve as a much-needed check on whatever party leads the government.

Unfortunately today, and here I state the obvious, rabid polarization has robbed us of measured choices, the result being that democracy is deeply wounded.

A letter-writer reflects on what the choice of Pierre Poilievre to lead the Conservative Party of Canada would mean for both the party and the country. Neither is an appealing scenario:

I hope that prospective voters in the upcoming Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership read the Justin Ling column on the convoy background, but it is probably in the wrong newspaper for them to see it.

A significant number are apparently preparing to vote for Pierre Poilievre, glad-handing supporter of the Convoy of Anger as possible Prime Minister. Of course, he is already running for Prime Minister, believing that the interim step of leading his party is a foregone conclusion.

Some CPC MPs are so blinded by hatred of Trudeau that they will support any movement that attaches his name and a profanity to a sign, even if some of the so-called leaders have advocated violence, spouted conspiracy nonsense, and carried with them a ridiculous MOU.

There are two possible outcomes from Poilievre becoming CPC leader. Perhaps the most likely is more years of a Liberal government that always promises more than it delivers. The more dire consequence would be a cabinet full of convoy supporters.

David Steele, Regina, Sask.

Those who are eager for the implosion of the Conservatives, or any other major party for that matter, need to consider the implications fully before so lustily cheering on political demise.

An Interesting But Not Surprising Correlation

 

With apologies to Eleanor Rigby: All the stupid people, where do they all come from?

Pollster Frank Graves may have found a partial answer.

Unvaccinated Canadians are about 12 times more likely than those who received three doses to believe Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, according to a new survey by national polling firm EKOS.

The poll found 26 per cent of those who identified as unvaccinated agreed the Russian invasion is justified, with another 35 per cent not offering an opinion. This compared to only two per cent of surveyed Canadians who said they had three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and who supported the attack, and four per cent who offered no view.

Of those Canadians who received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine, the study found 82 per cent agreed with imposing tougher sanctions on Russia even if it meant higher fuel and food prices at home. Only 18 per cent of unvaccinated people concurred.

Eighty-five per cent of vaccinated people agree the country should take in Ukrainian refugees versus 30 per cent of unvaccinated Canadians.

 While 88 per cent of vaccinated Canadians agree Russia is committing war crimes during the widely condemned invasion, 32 per cent of unvaccinated people do.

Why the great disparity? The unvaccinated are apparently drinking from the same disinformation wells. Susan Delacourt writes that 

the same forces that were feeding people rubbish about vaccine mandates during the Ottawa occupation in February are now feeding them nonsense in March about Russia and Ukraine.

Graves is still working on tracking the sources of disinformation, but he cites YouTube as one of the big culprits so far.

A Phd in political science, Kate Graham, was doing some door-to-door canvassing in London, Ontario around the same time the poll was being conducted. Here is what she found.

Knocked on a door today. Person asked my thoughts on Ukraine. I expressed my horror at what is happening. Response? “Oh, you don’t know then. It’s all fake.” Went on to talk about lots of other issues: convoys, Trudeau, media. “CBC is the biggest terrorist going.”

  I asked where this person gets their information.

“The internet. TikTok. Joe Rogan.” What struck me about the discussion was how genuinely fearful the person seemed. They have kids. Had tears in eyes when talking about future of our country. Overwhelmed and afraid.

What is to be learned from all of this? In my view, as I was telling my wife last night at supper when talking about how continued masking may lead to confrontations with some, it is that our species is still in its infancy. When even the most common and least intrusive disease-prevention measures become a source of baffling tantrums, one knows one is not dealing with an evolved, mature life form.

Susan Delacourt puts it another way:

... conspiracy theories don’t just go away anymore; nor do they continue to exist on the fringe. Like the COVID virus, they’ve developed a remarkable ability to mutate — or “pivot,” in Graves’ words. While many of us see the pandemic and the war in Ukraine as separate, albeit world-shaking crises, the disinformation machine has managed to connect them.

 

 

Sometimes I Am In Awe

As bad as the world is these days, there are people in it that prevent us from complete despair. Maina Ovsyannikova is one such person. You will recall she risked the almost certain wrath of Vladimir Putin by holding up a sign on the Russian state broadcaster decrying the war in Ukraine. 

Although thus far Ovsyannikova has only received a fine, I have every expectation that in a country that threatens to send its citizens away for long periods of time for merely protesting the war in the streets, she will face much harsher punishment when the publicity around her brave deed dies down.  

“The war was the point of no return, when it was simply impossible to stay silent,” says Marina Ovsyannikova, after she protested Russia’s war in Ukraine live on Russian state TV. “I was afraid until the last minute that I won’t be able to do it.”

On Risk Calculation

Is Putin insane, or does he just want everyone to think he is? The world can't afford to get the answer wrong.

H/t Michael De Adder

A Short Follow-Up

As a follow-up to yesterday's post about the many bribes Doug Ford is offering voters to win their support in June, here are two letters that offer interesting perspectives:

Ontario drivers to save $120 per year through Premier Doug Ford’s cancelling of licence renewal fees — but it will cost Ontarians about $1 billion worth of services. Tolls are to be eliminated on Highways 412 and 418 — offering savings to drivers in Durham Region.

Now, nurses are being offered $5,000 as a “retention” bonus — but still face wage caps under Bill 124.

As a senior I am asking you, Premier Ford, what pre-election goodies are you offering to buy my vote this June?

Norah Downey, Midland, Ont.

 Ford offers nurses ‘retention’ bonus, Mar. 8

Once again, Doug Ford continues his method of governing: too much too late. I am neither an economist, nor a financial expert. I retired from a medical business, where I employed 20 folks, who, at the time I left, had worked with us for eight and a half years, an astounding rate of employee retention for our field.

In part, this was due to higher-than-average wages for our industry, along with generous vacation periods, and automatic sick pay.

With the nurses, wouldn’t it be much more prudent to increase their wages, rather than throwing money at the situation, after which the nurses might leave, in any case?

Mel Tonken, Toronto

The question remaining to be answered is how many voters will Ford have been able to corrupt by June 2, our election day?