The Most Dangerous Bribe

 

H/t Theo Moudakis

I wrote recently about the large-scale bribery that Doug Ford is engaging in during the run-up to Ontario's June 2 provincial election. Cheques in the mail, promises of gas-tax reductions, ending toll fees on some highways,  pending cheaper childcare - all measures to convince an often credulous public that his is an activist government concerned about making life more affordable for ordinary folks. 

While all of these 'giveaways' carry with them great potential harm to our economy, perhaps the biggest political bribe of them all goes much further, this time jeopardizing people's health, even their lives: the ending of all Covid-related mandates. Of those, the most injurious is clearly the termination of mask mandates almost everywhere, a massive gift to his base, and one that has given rise to a sixth wave here. 

Bruce Arthur writes:  

About a month after the province announced masking was no longer mandatory, Omicron is everywhere. With testing limited and hobbled, wastewater data shows there is more COVID in circulation than there was at the peak of the January Omicron wave. According to Dr. Peter Jüni, the scientific director of the province’s independent volunteer science table, Ontario is seeing an estimated 100,000 COVID infections per day right now, give or take. That number will continue to grow. 

As Arthur points out, the ending of the mandates was in essence a message to the public that they could relax their guard, that the government can handle anything untoward arising thanks to fictitious hospital and ICU space. If you have been to grocery stores or pharmacies of late (the only two public places I go to these days outside of the library), you will know by the number of maskless you encounter that Ford's message has been lustily received by many. 

Linda McQuaig has little but contempt for this tactic.

... the throng of anti-vaxxers, white supremacists and other assorted hate-mongers who held Ottawa hostage for three weeks are a key part of Doug Ford’s base, and he’s managed to quietly deliver them a victory while seemingly just lifting constraints because the COVID situation has improved.

Except that it hasn’t. And it’s absurd that the premier is trying to pass things off as fine when they’re not. Estimated infection levels are now almost equal to the Omicron peak in early January and hospitalizations across the province are up 40 per cent this week.

Ford insists that the province can “ramp up” to 3,000 ICU beds if needed. But all those beds won’t help without nurses to staff them, and the province has the lowest number of nurses per capita of any province in Canada.

None of these facts, however, are of any consequence to the base; all of us, however, will potentially pay the price for this pandering. For example, this morning we got a call from my brother-in-law who, despite being triple-vaxxed and religiously mask-wearing, has contracted Covid. Right now, it sounds like he has a very bad cold, but even if it does not progress beyond that, who is to say what his chances are of having to live with long Covid?

As I have written before, this entire pandemic has been been a sobering revelation of what we, as a species, are made of. While many have made great sacrifices, both personal and for the collective good, others in substantial numbers have shown themselves to be reactive rather than reflective, railing against any restrictions on their personal freedom, as if the latter were an absolute.

We are all the poorer for the Ford government's abandonment of its responsibilities to its citizens. Clearly, in an election year, politics trumps the public good.

 

The Big Gamble

 

Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to gambling. For those who can afford it, it apparently provides a measure of pleasure and a flush of excitement. It is not a world I relate to, but that is of no consequence.

What is of consequence is the number of people gambling who can neither afford it nor easily stop. Although the percentage of such people is small, it is nonetheless alarming that the opportunity to overindulge is becoming much easier. No longer does one have to make the trek to a casino. In essence, the casino is brought to you. Temptation is amplified. 

Of course, governments have long been involved in imposing what is often described as a tax on idiots. Think of the array of lotteries available for purchase at your nearest convenience store or Shoppers Drug Mart. (Oh, how many times have I waited in increasingly long queues at the checkout while some old parties ditheringly deliberate about what ticket(s) to purchase after winning $10 - the announcement "Winner! Gagnon! strikes fear and loathing in me.)

But I digress.

On April 4, what is euphemistically called iGaming Market went live. Now, those who are so inclined can gamble away their savings knowing they are protected from shady operators:

To play with confidence knowing their money and information is subject to robust consumer protection measures, players in Ontario just need to look for the iGO logo on an operator’s site.

Operators who have successfully been registered by the AGCO and have executed an Operating Agreement with iGO have met rigorous standards of game integrity, fairness, player protections, and social responsibility [?], enabling players to play with confidence.  

The apparent benevolence of Doug Ford's government in promoting this is undoubtedly welcome news to many. It is now easy to place a plethora of wagers on sports, play the slots, baccarat. etc. However, checking one site, BetMGM, I could find nothing that suggested the social responsibility cited above by iGO, and everything to induce you to become a member, including free credits!

Interesting, BetMGM is the entity being widely promoted by the 'great one', Wayne Gretzsky. 

Full disclosure: Gretzsky has been dead to me since his shameful, full-throated endorsement of Stephen Harper in 2015, despite the fact that the retired hockey player does not live in Canada and is not eligible to vote here. Indeed, it left many wondering about the number of concussions he had sustained during his career.

I can think of no other reason that he would stoop to shilling for the online betting group other than money. But doesn't he already have enough of that? 

I doubt that Walter Gretzsky, his late father, would approve of his son's promotion of such a dubious activity. Surely Wayne could find something worthwhile to trumpet rather than prostituting his name and reputation in this manner.

But, of course, this is all just my opinion, one of the advantages of operating a blog. Feel free to chime in with your own views anytime.

Forgiving And Forgetting?

                           

I read an article recently that posed the question of whether or not relationships can be repaired that were damaged or torn asunder over disagreements about Covid restrictions, mandates and vaccinations. In other words, once the pandemic is over or even now, when it is at least manageable, is it possible to forgive and forget?

One of the stories in the article discussed an ICU nurse on the frontlines of trying to save those who had fallen ill, only to be met by a reaction from her husband that has torn her marriage apart:

“He just invalidated everything I said. He tried to turn it around on me. Nothing I said mattered. I just felt like it was my job to convince him.”

Marie said her husband and his friends get most of their information from far-right sources, such as U.S. conspiracist site Infowars, Rebel News and Canadian anti-vax activist Chris Sky.

Things got progressively worse when the vaccine came out and Marie, as a health worker, was one of the first in her city to get a shot.

“All of a sudden, he told me I was only going to live for a couple more years.”

Clearly, such lunacy would be hard to live with. Even those trained to deal with afflicted people are having a hard time here. One such person is University of Toronto psychologist  Steve Joordens, who

has a close relative who is against COVID-19 vaccines and masks. Initially, he tried to talk to the person about it. But after a few difficult and heated conversations, he stopped.

“We cannot agree to disagree. So, we don’t talk,” he said, “which is tough.”

Further complicating things, this relative has power of attorney over Joordens’s mother, and decided that she would not be vaccinated.

“I had this real worry that Mom is going to die alone. That’s what horrified me,” he said. “That’s a hard thing for me to get over.”

Another psychologist,  Hilary Bersieker, suggests the difficulty lies in how we see those who challenged and flouted Covid protocols:

[G]etting vaccinated and following public health measures are caring and socially conscious things to do, whereas refusing the shot and flouting health rules might be selfish. The more such decisions are moralized, the harder they can be to get over...

That really is the crux of the matter for me. Although I have no friends or relatives who fall into the refusenik camp, if I had, I doubt that I would ever be able to truly forget what the crisis revealed about a side of their character/level of cognition previously unseen. In being so selfish and benighted, how could I ever really respect them or feel any affinity for them again? 

People who discount the science, content with fringe sites filled with fake information, have a lot invested in their stances, one that suggests ego triumphing over goodwill and community spirit. I leave you with the following Twitter video that exemplifies such individuals. The woman in it cravenly claims to be taking a principled stand.

Be sure to watch to the end.

 

 

Seeing Through The Facade

 

If you didn't care for the suggestion I made in my previous post about what to do with the Doug' Ford pre-election 'inducement' you received in the mail, you might want to consider the following letter-writer's strategy:

Can Ford’s rebate buy voter love?, Mar. 23

I just received my cheque for $340 for my vehicle sticker rebate. It might as well have come with a Please Vote for Me! sticker personally signed by the premier.

With all the shortcomings illuminated by the pandemic in long-term care homes, hospitals and schools (to name just a few threadbare social services provided by the province), Premier Ford plays his “Buck a Beer” game again.

With Ontario falling behind other provinces in preparation for the transition to electric vehicles, the Ministry of Transportation could have used those funds to accelerate construction of Ontario’s charging network.

We should all judge a political party/government by what it does in the first year of its mandate, not in the months leading up to an election.

Early on, Premier Ford’s Conservatives cancelled the final $1 increase in the minimum wage in their first year, only to reinstate it within the last year. They played hardball with the parents of autistic children and limited nurses and teachers salary increases to one per cent, then labelled them as “heroes” during the worst of the pandemic. They cancelled climate change programs watched our greenhouse gas emissions grow. Most recently, they finally agreed to a child-care deal with the feds — they were the last province to do so — because the optics of being the lone holdout weren’t good going to the polls.

I think I’ll take my $340, which comes from my taxes anyway, and give it to another political party, one which will replace this government and address more responsibly the many pressing issues facing the province.

Frank Goldthorpe, Toronto 

Another letter-writer  reveals what should have been done with this thinly-disguised act of political bribery: 

I have just received the rebate for my licence plate stickers. I was surprised to learn that the rebate is not only for the current sticker, which I purchased in January of this year, but also for the sticker I bought in 2020.

My cheque came to $460.

What a waste of taxpayer dollars!

I do not need this.

This money should have been directed to the services that cry out for more funding: health care, education, poverty, homelessness and so on.

Granted there are those who will need and welcome this, but that help should have come in some other way, not to people like me.

Let’s hope this election bribe does not have its intended outcome.

Blaine Adams, Burlington

It would seem that the upcoming June 2 election will be a contest not only of contending political parties but also of the collective character of the electorate. How many will sell their vote for $340+?

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.