Connecting The Dots

Were we abundantly blessed with critical-thinking skills, we would have no problem asking some serious questions about the direction in which Ontario is headed with Doug Ford at the helm. As well, we would be able to discern a pattern that suggests the premier is leading us nowhere good.

I am hardly the first to note that this Progressive Conservative government has been progressively and relentlessly paring down the revenues we need to fund our healthcare, our education system, our infrastructure and our social safety net; to be fair, this process long predates Ford's ascension. But since the time of Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution, it has only gotten worse.

• In the guise of helping 'the little guy',  Ford has kept extending a popular gas-tax cut that, while saving the average household about $130 per year, has thus far cost the treasury, since its inception in 2022, a total of  $3.2 billion. 
• Then, of course, there is the ending of licence plate renewal fees, again costing the treasure about $1.1 billion per year.
• Additionally, as I pointed out in a recent blog post, there is the war against the LCBO, a public institution that on average contributes about $2.5 billion to the provincial coffers.
• And on the expenditure side, it has been estimated that the early cancellation of the Beer Store agreement in order to get more product into private hands could cost upwards of $1 billion.

So where does all of this lead? To an impoverished public purse and a turn to the private sector to fill the void. 

Jordan Roberts writes of the move to put more alcohol into stores, now that the way has been paved for beer and premixed cocktails:

Having won this major battle for beer and wine revenue, Ontario’s big box stores and grocery stores will put additional energy into lobbying to sell spirits like gin, vodka and whiskey. “Hard liquor” is currently only sold at the LCBO or LCBO-licensed outlets. The inclusion of ready-to-drink products (like hard seltzer) in the announcement will help support industry’s argument that they should be allowed to sell all kinds of alcohol, because they are already selling products which include spirits.

The chains have also been lobbying for the right to be wholesalers and distributors of alcohol, taking advantage of their own integrated distribution systems and subsidiaries. Currently, only the LCBO and the Beer Store can run alcohol distribution in the province.

The fate of the LCBO becomes increasingly precarious, as the prospects of grocery and big-box store  profits soar, especially if one considers  the following:

Claudia Hepburn, who was appointed to the board of the LCBO in 2021, is Galen Weston’s first cousin. Galen Weston, of course, is the chairman of Loblaws’, and stands to benefit enormously from these changes. 

The there is the chair of the LCBO, Carmine Nigro,

a developer (CEO of Craft Development) who was hosted at the premier’s table at Kayla Ford’s wedding reception. Nigro’s company benefited from a number of MZOs (or Ministerial Zoning Orders, which are fast tracked zoning approvals) from Ford’s government. Prior to MZOs being issued to his company, Nigro was also vice president of the PC Ontario Fund, a fundraising arm of the Ontario PC party. Nigro is also part of the controversial scheme at Ontario Place, as chair of the Ontario Place Corporation. 

Thanks to available public sources, all of these facts are fairly accessible to the public. But it is up to all of us to connect the dots to see the larger picture, one that Jordan Roberts concludes is pretty grim:

Within this strategy, a key tactic is making sure government coffers are empty, so that government cannot provide services to its constituents, ensuring the only options for services are private ones. In that regard, the Ford government’s moves on alcohol sales are not only a gift to friends and donors in the private sector, and a way to reduce the influence of labour unions, but another nail in the coffin for Ontario’s government revenues.

Thinking Clearly

Those who read this blog with any regularity likely know that I make frequent reference to the importance of critical thinking. As I have said before, it is an ideal toward which I am always striving, never claiming to have perfected the skill.

When I was teaching high school seniors, we did a unit on Orwell and the use of language combined with an examination of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. I would have the students clip things out of the newspapers (yes, they were still fairly widely-read in those days), and they would tell the rest of the class what language errors and logical fallacies they found. The results were mixed, as there is a certain maturity, intellectual level and contextual knowledge needed for sustained critical analysis.

Nowadays, given the bombardment of arrant nonsense that social media and extreme websites embrace and spread, critical thinking is more important than ever; admittedly though, it goes against a strong and widespread inclination to indulge in what I call lazy thinking. 

Real thinking can be hard work, but the following helps in our efforts to spot and refute bad arguments.

1. Appeal to ignorance

This is when a lack of evidence is interpreted to mean a claim is real – rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It's a fallacy that commonly underlines arguments for conspiracy theories. Ask one of the estimated 10 million-plus people who believe that lizards run the world about the evidence for their claim, for example, and they might counter, "Well, these lizards are too clever to leave any evidence – that's what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it's not true?" You might wind up scratching your head, but, hopefully, it's not because you've been persuaded; it's because they've set you the trap of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

 

 2. Ad hominem

This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others. Think of the health professional who is told that they are only recommending vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists being dismissed on the basis that they must be ideologically motivated.

3. Slippery slope -

This is the argument that taking one step, or putting into place one measure, will inevitably lead to more and more drastic measures – like an object sliding down a slippery slope. [It could be called the Domino Theory of the mind.] It's particularly common in debates over policy. Think of the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage made against legalising it in places like the US or Europe. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity across society, and threaten their own way of life. This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalised), the policy was dismissed because of the fear of its predicted outcome (the breakdown of traditional society).

4. Strawman

I see this one on social media, especially, all the time. It's misrepresenting the argument of the other side to make it seem more ridiculous, and therefore easy to defeat. Think of someone who puts forth a nuanced argument that excessive sugar intake may raise the risk of health issues like heart disease. A strawman response would be, "Oh, so what, sugar is killing everyone and should be outlawed? That's absurd!" This distorts the original argument, making it easier to defeat – a strawman.

 5. Appeal to authority

This pernicious argument holds that someone's credentials, fame or reputation alone prove that they must be right. If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias to assume they have expertise in all things (even subjects they have no background in). 

More problematic still is the version known as "appeal to irrelevant authority". Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity states it, even if they have no expertise at all in the topic at hand – a classic tendency in today's influencer-obsessed world. But "irrelevant authorities" aren't always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when sceptics quote someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert – despite the fact that theoretical physics generally has very little to do with climate science.

 

6. False dichotomy

Presenting a complex scenario as if there are only two either-or, often opposing options, rather than multiple options. Think of that famous, often-recycled and even ancient phrase, famously used by President George W Bush shortly after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us." It implied to the international community that they had only two options – back the United States completely, including in its invasion of Afghanistan, or consider themselves enemies. In reality, of course, there were a spectrum of other options nations could take, and kinds of allies (or enemies) they could be.  

7. Whataboutism (also called whataboutery)

Sometimes considered a type of red herring – a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to redirect away from the argument's flaws – whataboutism is intended to distract attention. It describes when, normally in response to an accusation or a question, someone responds with their own accusation. 

In politics, one of the most infamous examples has been when Russia is accused of human rights violations, and its leaders respond "Well, what about the West?". While a whataboutism can serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deflects from the original argument.

There is no magic elixir that inoculates us against the ignorance so pervasive in the world today, and the problems will only be compounded by the increasing use of AI. Whether it will prove a winning or a losing war remains to be seen, but do we have any real choice other than to fight the good fight?

 

 

A Hot Summer

While it is shaping up to be a summer of meteorological heat, there is another kind quickly building in Ontario. And, despite a summer sojourn at his new, palatial cottage, Doug Ford cannot escape it: the political fallout of the LCBO strike.

After For's release of his cottage video touting an interactive map where Ontarians can buy their booze despite the strike, people have reacted swiftly and decisively:

The announcement is stirring up angry reactions from many residents and city officials, who accused Ford of union busting and failing to address pressing socio-economic issues.

“While the Ford government wastes billions of tax dollars, schools need fixing, hospital wait times need attention, cities need support for transit, services & infrastructure, the science centre needs saving and people struggle to make ends meet. Yet, this guy’s priority is beer,” Councillor Josh Matlow wrote on X on Monday.

“You’re using public dollars to break a strike, undermine workers rights and to destroy an agency that generates $2.5 billion for healthcare and other services. But this app looks cute. Why didn’t you use this kind of tech to save lives from COVID19 or to find ERs,” one X user wrote.

“Can I get a map of where I can find emergency clinics that are open?,” another person said.

“All this government cares about is alcohol, not education, not healthcare, not housing…alcohol,” someone else wrote.

“They rolled out that interactive map pretty damn fast. I guess he can be efficient when it really matters,” another person commented.

Businesses for whom alcohol is a big source of revenue are not reacting well either.

The strike by the 9,000 workers is a disaster in the making for a bar and restaurant industry that’s still struggling to recover from the financial hit of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Restaurants Canada CEO Kelly Higginson.

“The contingency plans are not working, and they didn’t work right out of the gate. It’s chaos,” said Higginson.

The strike comes in the middle of a patio season that’s even more crucial than usual, Higginson added. On top of increased debt load from COVID, customers having less disposable income and cost increases, restaurant and bar owners also had to deal with the usual slowdown in spring and winter. 

“It’s a must season. We need a good summer,” said Higginson.

For bigger restaurants and bars which have the money and storage space to buy by the case, the LCBO’s wholesale website has been equally frustrating, Higginson said.

“They’re struggling to get alcohol. The LCBO said there were going to be 168 different (products) available for wholesale, but in fact at this point there are maybe 30,” said Higginson.

And the people who perhaps matter least (except at election time) to Ford are offering their views:

I find it hard to comprehend why stores other than LCBO outlets should be allowed to sell alcohol. People want health care and education, and the LCBO profits help fund those things as a revenue stream for the province. We whine about lack of health services but seem too stupid to realize that sales go to the store, not the province. Do large stores such as Loblaws and Metro really need the money from alcohol? 

Barbara Tallis, Toronto

The LCBO strike is another big blunder of Premier Doug Ford. For starters, why would Ontario want to compete with itself? Taking business away from a well-managed, secure, and efficient LCBO does not make sense. Putting beer, wine and mixed drinks in the hands of private store operators is very concerning. The many concerns of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) are justified. Allowing  alcohol to be sold in other markets will ruin a strong organization that has worked well for many years. Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke!

Mark Borkowski, Toronto

One of Premier Doug Ford’s poorly-thought-out decisions that may prove disastrous in the future is the weakening of the mandate of the LCBO by allowing beer, wine and mixed cocktails into corner stores. I think we can all agree that the contributions made by the LCBO toward our health care and education systems are invaluable. In fact, I believe that the LCBO is the goose that lays the golden eggs. So, what smart person that owns such a goose would wilfully try to weaken it? It is all too obvious that Premier Doug Ford does not know how to play chess and is incapable of properly foreseeing the next move. Who in their right mind would want to weaken that asset for little return? Someone intent on the short term goal of reelection at any cost. Wake up, premier.

David Ottenbrite, Cambridge

Then there is this stinging indictment that carries so much truth:

Why is alcohol retail more important than addressing homelessness? The priorities of this government are skewed. Revenue for health care and education are much more important. Premier Doug Ford does not have my vote.

Ted Lister, Hamilton

It is my understanding that Ford has called a press conference for this morning. I think he may find that empty rhetoric, stock phrases and anodyne commentary will not quell the angry beast he has unleashed. 

Be A Strike-Breaker

 ... if not in actuality, then in spirit. 

I said this in my previous post regarding the current LCBO strike: The longer the strike goes on, the more opportunities thirsty Ontarians will have to discover new, private sector sources to slake their collective thirst. 

Now it seems that Premier Doug Ford is in fact encouraging a kind of strike-breaking, and is even providing an interactive map where Ontarians can slake their thirsts::

Make this summer an Ontario-made summer! Our new interactive map shows thousands of convenient options where you can still buy beer, wine, spirits and other drinks across the province. Check out a local brewery or winery for some fantastic Ontario-made products near you and check back for more options at convenience stores, grocery store and big-box stores starting later this summer!

Aiding and abetting Ford's efforts to weaken and eventually eliminate the LCBO are the media, who breathlessly tell us that soon select LCBO stores will be open for limited hours for our purchasing pleasure, not once questioning the ethics of crossing picket lines.

It would seem that in Ford's Ontario, moral scruples are merely pesky impediments to an unrestricted free market.

UPDATED: A Private Sector Addiction

 

I often wonder how many Ontarians realize that we are led by a premier addicted ideologically to the private sector. A man hobbled by a limited education and intellectual breadth, Doug Ford's paltry vision is one that extols all things private at the literal expense of the public. The signs are many.

One need only look at the Greenbelt Scandal, that, before it was stopped, was designed to rob citizens of necessary and valuable green space, wetlands and nature in general so that Doug Ford's developer friends could benefit to the tune of many billions of dollars. There is also the 'redevelopment' of Ontario Place handed over to a German company, Therme, to build a spa for the minority of people who will be able to visit it. And nothing is too good for the private sector; in the case of Therme, they have been given not only a 95-year-lease (whose terms are being kept secret from the public), but also a wholly taxpayer-funded underground parking facility that will cost over $650 million, as well as other untold costs that will no doubt be uncovered in future Auditor-General reports,

I could go on, but the most recent proof of Ford's follies are reflected in his obsession with privatizing more alcohol sales, despite the billions in revenue the LCBO puts into public coffers. And now, as a result of his monomania, we have a strike at the LCBO, one I suspect will go on for some time. It is going all according to plan.

The longer the strike goes on, the more opportunities thirsty Ontarians will have to discover new, private sector sources to slake their collective thirst. And as resentment grows over the LCBO's monopoly on liquor, fewer people will be concerned about the concerns that led to the strike - the protection of union jobs paying between $17 and $30 per hour, although apparently only 30% of those jobs are permanent and have benefits. Yet even that modest remuneration seems too much for Doug, because it is not going to the private sector.

Robert Kahnert of Markham, Ontario, offers his thoughts on the damage Ford's approach to policy is doing to this province:

What happened to our once civil society? We now live in an Ontario no one recognizes. Everywhere you look there is a crisis — homelessness, affordability, health care, education, building and infrastructure decay.

How did things that were once so good get so bad.? The answer is right in front of us. Most of the public wealth was transferred to the wealthy.  We have been fed a steady diet of tax cuts, deregulation,  and the need for privatization to get the “innovation and private sector efficiencies” with promises like “all boats will be lifted by the rising economy.” As we have clearly seen, false promises. Not only has our civil society been severely damaged but so had trust in democracy .

In the last provincial election, only 17 per cent of the population voted for Premier Doug Ford.  After slashing government funding to public services  starving them into crisis just to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and their corporations, they then present privatization as the solution to a problem they created. The only thing deregulation and privatization does is create more profit-making opportunities.

The gap between the haves and have-nots is huge and widening at an ever-increasing rate.

 Small tax cuts to the general population have been used as a cover for massive tax cuts to the wealthy and their corporations.

 Reversing tax cuts is not raising taxes, it is restoring revenue to rebuild our once civil society. Beware any politician promising tax cuts. We do not have a wealth creation problem. We do have a very serious distribution of wealth problem.

Where is the leadership? We have the power. Don’t leave, speak up and vote to stop this insanity.

Paul Kahnert, Markham

Worshipping at the altar of unrestricted free enterprise comes with great costs. It is time that more of us realize the extensive damage such fealty does to the things we hold in common, and act to stop any further erosion of our services, values and culture that seem so foreign only to those who 'serve' us.

UPDATE: If you're still with me, Brittlestar has an entertaining but accurate video about the importance of the LCBO to Ontario's development:

What The Transcript Shows

 

My previous post addressed a concern that the media are writing narratives for us, telling us what to think, creating a consensus that may be at variance with reality. I cited the conclusions drawn about the Liberal loss in the Toronto by-election of Toronto-St. Paul and the debate between Joe Biden and Don Trump.

A producer of nine federal leaders' debates in Canada, Mark Bulgutch, offers his view of the American debate, observing that if one were just to read the transcript and not fixate on Biden's weak performance, one might come away with a different perspective.

Compare the content, not the performance, and then decide who should be president.

For example, when Trump spoke about abortion, he claimed that Democrats, “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth — after birth.”

Biden responded, “He’s lying. That is simply not true.”

Trump: “Every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it [abortion law] brought back to the states.”

Biden: “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.”

Trump on illegal immigrants: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.”

Biden: “I’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.”

Trump: “And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

Biden: “Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.”

As I said in my post, Biden did, despite his muddling performance, had policy on his side, while Trump relied on his usual strategy of total fabrication.

When Trump was asked about climate change, the best he could do was, “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O.”

Biden pounced. “The idea that he is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it.”

Biden skewered Trump time after time. On Trump’s election denial: You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit.”

On Trump’s accommodation of white supremacists: “What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?”

And finally, on why those who have seen Trump close-up now flee from what they saw: “His own vice president — look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. They know him well. They served with him. Why are they not endorsing him?”

And I have nothing to add to Bulgutch's conclusion:

Yes, Joe Biden had some truly awful moments during the debate. But I’m not sure a president makes his toughest decisions in two-minute sound bites. Judge what he said, not how he said it.

 

 

Tell Me A Story

Regular readers of this blog will likely know that I have great faith in the so-called legacy media, especially newspapers. The reasearch and thought that go into articles and columns far surpass much of what one will find on the internet, especially that very poisoned segment known as social media. However, there are times when lazy thinking and herd mentality supplant reasoned commentary in the mainstream media.

I have been especially mindful of that fact given two recent events: the Liberal loss in the Toronto-St Paul by-election, and the Biden-Trump debate. A consensus narrative quickly emerged that has quickly become political orthodoxy, denying people the opportunity to analyse these two events for themselves.

By all accounts, the by-election loss was a devastating judgement of Justin Trudeau. Almost all of the ensuing stories concluded that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. While there is no doubt that his plummeting popularity played a significant role in the results, there are also other factors to consider, factors the press seems loathe to consider. 

First, there were over 80 candidates to choose from, giving voters the formidable task of wading through a jumble of names. Rather than enhancing democracy, this stunt served to make a joke out of the electoral process, as almost none of the alternatives were serious candidates. That the Liberal candidate, Leslie Church. lost by a mere 500 votes seemed to merit barely a notice.

Second, by-elections are traditionally seen, not so much as a referendum on the party in power but as a safe way to take them to task for perceived deficiencies; they are not necessarily an augury of future general election results. Instead, the narrative we have been handed almost exclusively focusses on Trudeau and his unfitness to lead the Liberals into the next election. While I am not suggesting there isn't room for such speculation, the fact that this is the sole interpretation of the result should disturb all of us capable of thinking for ourselves.

The same might be said about the Biden-Trump debate. While Biden's performance was not good, again, the media are presenting his performance as proof he will lead the Democrats to disaster in the November election. Having watched the entire debate, while Biden moments were indeed cringe-worthy, he did offer reminders of Democratic policies that have benefitted wide swaths of Americans, but did so in a less than strong, forthright way. On the other hand, Don Trump let loose with his usually litany of lies, but the attitude of the press seemed to be, "Well, that's just Donald being Donald." And, of course, little was said about his refusal to answer the questions asked as he indulged in efforts to refute previously-made points by Biden.

There are no doubt many amongst us who want to be told what to think. I am not one of them, and I am sure there are many more who prefer to exeercise their critical faculties rather than be force-fed what can only be described as media group-think.