Despite my intentions of burning off the surplus candy I had previously eaten,  I gave the kid a quarter and took a tiny box of smarties. Now, this kid caught me right after work and before eating dinner, which is that liminal time where I will tell anyone just what I’m thinking. I looked at this kid and said “You will undoubtedly be a very entrepreneurial and successful adult, but when you are, remember that you did not get there on your own.” He probably doesn’t know what entrepreneurial means, and probably considers me ‘the crazy lady’ rather than ‘the sage spirit guide” but what I said is true. I didn’t need the smarties, I just was getting behind this kid who was doing something that didn’t involve pokemon or video games.

Almost every rich or successful person I’ve had contact with always tells of how they had no help and did it all on their own. They have some ‘pulling up by the boot straps’ story that paints them as not only the hero, but the sole actor in their success story. Not only is this perspective untrue, it creates a feeling of entitlement to every excess thing you have and holds others to an impossible standard (impossible because, again, it’s a distorted lens with which to view your success). There are so many factors that got you where you are. They may be structural (gender, race, economic background) or they may be based on how much the community around you invested into you. And this is why community is a great thing to get involved in.

This isn’t just a finger pointing rant, in fact, this is more an expression of my gratitude. When I look back over the last decade I notice that by some amazing grace I have lived a life of provision and I recognize that even though I work hard, any success I have is covered in the fingerprints of the community of people around me. Just recently I got offered a new job. The amount of people who played a part in me achieving this far outweighs how well I typed up my resume or performed during my interview (now that I think about it, I also had help typing up my resume).

In the same way that we need to recognize what people and factors contribute to where we find our place in society, I’m urged to think about how I can further invest in the people in my community.

Is it too early for new years resolutions? for 2012 I resolve to give more freely and cheerfully of my time and finances so that others can experience the awesome provision of community.

Doing things efficiently can save time, energy, money and is over all convenient. It’s the Western way. We judge the value of everything against how efficient it is in hopes of having the ideal well-oiled and cost effective machine. In fact, as I write this I read the last two paragraphs over and over to see if there is anything that I can cut so I can get to the point sooner.

Here it is:

I’m afraid we’ve made efficiency a false idol.

Efficiency reigns supreme over everything we do and some most times it shouldn’t. Like when it comes to personal relationships…and Government services.

I work in Government services so I’m aware of my bias, but I’m also aware that more often than not people are more concerned with how long it takes and how much red tape there is rather than whether they are receiving the most out of the services they are eligible for and pay for through taxes.

This week the Toronto City Council voted to outsource garbage collection. The company who won the bid promises to offer the service for  $11.2 million a year less than unionized city workers AND with 30 less trucks.

The city sings Handel’s Hallelujah chorus in perfect harmony.

It seems people (outside of my circle) unanimously think this is the best thing to happen to Toronto since they erected that giant tower tourists love. Not because through thoughtful consideration of facts and figures it was revealed that outsourcing would a) have any tangible cost savings to citizens b) be more convenient and reliable or c) make Toronto a better and more livable city.

This motion was passed as payback for a legal strike the city workers (including garbage collectors) had in 2009. The union didn’t have the support of the general public* and the general public was generally pissed off that they had to deal with their own garbage- that they created and up until then had magically whisked away each week- that they couldn’t wait to give the union a spanking.

So what now? Well, Mayor Rob Ford is RAVING about the outsourced garbage collection in the borough of Etobicoke. I was looking through some jobs with a client today and my jaw almost dropped when I saw this.

I would say for dealing with waste during all types of weather, garbage collectors deserve their wage, which probably allows them to own a home, take their family on vacation and enjoy a pretty status quo life. But $12 an hour? how is anyone to support life on that wage?

I also come from a town that recently privatized their garbage collection. There were no tangible tax savings to citizens. Not only that but the company started allowing only one bag free and charging $2 per bag of garbage after that. Probably a good sustainable idea but NOT the cost savings the citizenry were looking for.

Friends, I love efficiency, but the associated- albeit questionable- capital savings just does not outweigh the human cost. We WANT good paying jobs in this city! without them it is a race to the bottom to see how much everyone’s wages can deflate.

*One of the main issues was the right to bank sick days. Very few people considered the fact that banking sick days was a concession for having a salary freeze for over 10 years, very few people also considered the fact that the length of the strike was caused just as much by management refusing to follow through on negotiations as it was the unions.

For those who skipped clicking the hyperlink, or would just like a brief synopsis, the author describes the rioting youth in London as the legacy of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher is best known for the idiom “There is no such thing as Society” as well as absolving most government services that helped provide for the most disadvantaged and adopted policies that destroyed the regulation of labour, causing a race to the bottom for wages across most sectors.  It was a decade of tearing down and building dividing walls. And the eventual outcome? “The rioters are Thatcher’s grandchildren”.

We’ve seen a lot of tearing down lately in our own political landscape; A return to Thatcher-era politics in Canada, in Ontario and in Toronto.  It’s easy to criticize the politics of anger and of tearing down because we know it doesn’t work (and just makes things worse). It’s enough to disappoint a romantic to the point of blogging almost exclusively about it (I’m holding up a mirror).

So, why has this article been on my mind upon hearing the sad news? Well, in part to avoid crying in public, but mostly it’s because Jack Layton helped usher in a movement with the complete opposite message. Society, and most of all community, is everything. There was a running joke in Toronto that where a community of 2 or more are gathered, Jack Layton is there. I don’t want to over-eulogize him, but his optimism and his advocacy for community and working people was so evident in his public and personal life (which were separated by a blurred line), he fought for the little guy (and we are all ‘the little guy’), he promoted good ideas instead of just criticizing bad ones and he didn’t play upon fear or populism to get votes. He was about building something better and finding new ways for us to take care of each other better, because in the end isn’t that all that matters? And he did so not with blind idealism or naivete but with the understanding that tearing down and criticizing won’t create a great country. (He also has a political science degree…which helps)

Layton’s legacy is an important one, and it’s a legacy that whiney lefties like myself sometimes fail to catch onto completely. Let’s face it, we’re really good at opposition but we kinda suck at proposition, Layton showed that these should not be mutually exclusive.  We (I) need to focus on bringing people out of the fringe, out of their mythical anger and into a community that has the common goal of making things better for everyone. It’s not utopian, it’s basic ecology.

If the grandchildren of Thatcher are rioting, what will the grandchildren of Layton be doing?

“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful, and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” – Jack Layton, 1950-2011

You could do a simple google ™ search of the Bullingdon Club but allow me to fill you in.

The Bullingdon club is an unaffiliated Oxford fraternity established over 200 years ago. It is ultra aristocratic and therefore ultra exclusive. Although it was originally for young men who liked to hunt it has always been most notable for their elaborate public outings and competitive destructiveness. Throughout the last few decades there has been regular anecdotes about the Bullingdon Club booking a restaurant under a fake name, drinking themselves silly, completely trashing the place- breaking every glass and window-then leaving and destroying everything in sight. This has happened more recently with them destroying a 15th century pub and a country home. They do this because their parents are rich, because they can pay for it.

This article depicts a certain event in 1987 when 4 of 6 in the club were arrested for throwing clay pots through store windows.

Belligerent, entitled, rioting youth.

you may or may not know that two of the members of the 1987 Bullingdon Club are Boris Johnston and David Cameron. For those not up on your anglo politics that is the current Mayor of London and Prime minister of England respectively. 10,703,754 people voted for Cameron and 1,168,738 Londoners voted for Johnson knowing their ‘violent pasts’.

"DESTROYING PROPERTY IS BAD! BAD POOR PEOPLE!"

Regarding the current state of the riots Mayor Boris Johnson notes:

“These are the actions of criminals who took part in premeditated acts of violence and theft… [N]othing can excuse the wanton destruction of property belonging to people who have been responding to the recession by working harder and getting up at 5am to prepare their shops.” 

Similarly, Prime Minister David Cameron notes:

“you will feel the full force of law… and if you are old enough to commit these crimes, you are old enough to face punishment…[T]his is criminality pure and simple and it has to be confronted and defeated.”

Regarding the good ol’ days of Bullingdon one of Johnson and Cameron’s colleagues looks upon a photo of the group fondly noting:

“A lot of people feel it’s frightfully embarrassing. But the more I look at it, the more I start to think it’s charming and quaint. We look like schoolchildren. It’s like a sort of page out of a high-school yearbook.”

Quaint indeed.

Through a lot of learning this year, I’ve made a conscious decision to embrace pacifism.  Note that pacifism does not mean being PASSIVE, but actively living IN the tension and creating peace in violent situations. It’s not a hippy cop-out, it’s a dangerous, vulnerable and frightening way of life, but something I try and live out when possible.

That being said, embracing pacifism has made me learn a whole lot more about violence.  Most notably, that I am able to be a pacifist because I’m in a position of power (however meagre) that I can choose to reject the use of violence.

There are a lot of people in a similar position, although they may not know it. They tend to disagree with violence, unless it’s JUSTIFIED (ie. sold to them in a palatable way- war on terror, or not overtly physical such as economic, social and cultural violence) To these people acts of violence, especially in a riot- type setting, is viewed as hooliganism and infantile. I was probably one of those people too. But I’m learning, and what I’m learning is this: we need to take a few steps back.

Rich white soccer player Wayne rooney's recent tweet

I’ve been following the protests-turned-riots in Tottenham, England these last few days.  Unlike other riots I’ve seen lately, there hasn’t actually been any specific policy or issue being protested. But this doesn’t make it any less important. Tottenham is a disenfranchised part of London and that’s important to remember. Watching all the BBC images and anti-rioting sentiments I thought of a quote from civil rights activist, James Forman

“If we can’t sit at the table [of democracy], let’s knock the fucking legs off!”

Violence is reactionary; it is cause and effect.  The stats in this article are hard to digest but may help point to the trigger: In these boroughs the unemployment rate is twice the national average, combine that with the recent austerity measures in a country where the richest 10% are 100 times better off than those that live in these boroughs, and an already fixed resentment towards the police and you can start to see why and how desperation turns into anger; turns into dissent; turns into violence.

Does desperation justify violence? I don’t think I’m in a position to say, However, when we start seeing this TYPE of violence for what it actually is: counter-violence against a state structure that pushes people to desperation, I think we can begin to understand and shift our sympathies towards those who are the actual victims. At the very least we shouldn’t act so surprised; When you take candy from one kid and give it to another kid that you consistently favour with lots of candy, expect some kicking and screaming.

I’m not prepared to condone the use of violence in protests because it’s broad in spectrum from those who target specific institutions to those who just go a’ lootin’. However, when we see these riots, and we will see many, many more, our frustrations should be towards the things that exclude people to the POINT of violence. We should be criticizing those who create situations that push people to the fringe and we should be advocating for these people-maybe not their violence, or looting, or what have you- but we should be actively living in that tension and finding ways to promote the basic needs of people (ourselves included).  If not, we can’t act so shocked when the legs of the table are kicked out from under us.

Get better soon, England.

…well…we’ll see.

Ok, to be clear — you believe that we should not be spending money we don’t have, which means finding wasteful things to cut and paying off debt with the end goal of a balanced budget.

Those are great personal principles. That’s actually how I plan my own finances and  also believe that living below my means is a great way to live (though not necessarily a great way to govern. More on that another time).

Some  people think that the best way to balance a  budget is to find more revenue ie.  investing. And that’s the (grossly simplified) difference between the left and right ideology (very, terribly absolutely simplified, but for the purpose of this post)

I currently live in a  liberal city lead by a (supposedly) Conservative mayor. But I’m not seeing conservatism, or even policy based on conservative ideology.Everything that comes out of a city council meeting seems to be tabled out of spite towards certain groups of people READ: most groups of people, or as a way of acting contrary to the former ‘pinko’ mayor.

Last week the Mayor voted to remove bike lanes on an artery road, voted against accepting 2 public health nurses for community outreach paid by the province and was the sole vote against grant funding for multitude of community groups  such as those that help to alleviate HIV/AIDs.

This stuff aint gravy, this is the beans and rice of our city. So, why the backlash?

There’s a deep seated myth of reverse victimization  in this city which, despite being  untrue, is a great campaign tactic to run with. If you can convince people that there is such a thing as reverse- racism, reverse-sexism, or more tangibly in the city of T.O: a war on the car; a war on the tax payer or a war on the average joe, then you can narrow and channel that anger into a protest vote allowing you 4 years of finding and eliminating the ‘gravy train’ READ: eliminating anything you want including 53K city jobs, city infrastructure and community groups.

In one of the world’s most multicultural cities, with a growing population of new immigrants looking to transfer their skills, increasing homelessness and lack of affordable housing, Toronto’s victims are car driving suburban folk  and Mayor Ford is ready to proclaim their rage from the tops of the mountains through irrational voting during council meetings and unexamined policies. Focus has shifted from city building to pandering the self entitlement of the few who live outside the city limits.

Don’t get me wrong. Anger can be a powerful and useful tool in mobilizing the disenfranchised, but if your biggest fit of rage is about how bike lanes will make you 4 minutes late for your family dinner, (as per the stats) you cannot count yourself among the suffering.

White people problems

In Ford’s Toronto no one wins and that’s because he doesn’t choose to see how interdependent we all are. We rely on city workers for services. As we realized a few years ago during the garbage strike and as we realize every winter during those huge down falls of snow- we are not prepared to deal with our own mess. We rely on good paying stable jobs to pay into the tax base (revenue!) and so people will have enough money to buy what ever silly thing you’re selling on Etsy instead of going to Walmart. We rely on people riding bikes so that we can breathe, and that there is less gridlock for those who have to drive.

I could go on and on.  The point is, yes, saving money is good; wasting money is bad, however you can never be too sure how the spending (or cutting the spending) will effect you and your community; some ‘waste’ is investment. There will always be some who take advantage of the system- hear me- ALWAYS! but there are a lot more people who benefit from city spending and give back in return.

By constantly and mindlessly cutting spending, instead of trying to generate more revenue, what will this city look like in 4  years? Well, one thing we can be sure of: There will be a lot less graffiti.

I can’t stop thinking about the people who have quit their jobs and given their life savings to help preach the messages that May 21st is Judgment Day. More than half of me wants to mock, but you know when you mock a family member than an outsider joins in and you all of a sudden feel defensive or sympathetic?

I kinda feel that way right now because I’ve experienced having to reassess everything I once believed to be true because of bad teaching. Continually. It’s a painful process. It’s like being cut to the root and forced to regrow. Have you? Taking ownership of all the stupid things you thought, or worst of all PROCLAIMED is humiliating but finding out it was UNTRUE is heartbreaking.

Based upon all the science and theology I know READ: knew, had to unknow, then relearn, and keep learning. there will be some people who are completely destroyed tomorrow if, in fact, they are not raptured up. Not Mr. Camping, he can simply PR his way out, blame it on a wrong calculation, come up with a new date, but the people who truly long to be redeemed to heaven, whether they be devout followers or those who long to escape their situations, whatever they may be, will be forced into the same position where they will be cut at the root. Some may give up all together, some may reassess and move along. Either way there is going to be a lot of hurt, anger and confusion (humiliation, heart break etc).

So, what do we do? How do we respond to this multitude of people who believed a lie? Okay, yes my first thought was to mock them to their senses too. Serves them right, they probably deserve a bit of shame, right? but I’ve been giving it a bit more thought and let me tell you, it’s hard to be empathetic let alone SYMPATHETIC to people you initially think are stupid.

I’ve watched a number of advertisements for May 21st and the thought that keeps resonating is “we are not meeting the needs of people”. I mean, it’s one thing to long for heaven and redemption, don’t we all kinda want to be in a place where we are at perfect peace and no suffering? I really do. However there are some (maybe most, maybe all) SO DESPERATE that they would sell everything and follow the first person who tells them it’s all going to be over soon based on….math? (Again, I sympathize. As a professional ‘math failure’ you could list numbers and patterns and I’d nod all throughout as if I wasn’t actually thinking about what I was going to eat for dinner.)

Call it ‘dumb as sheep’ or call it ‘the opiate of the masses’ (or, opiated sheep) I hope When Sunday May 22nd/2011 rolls around they remember where they kept their donation receipt and hopefully we can be a bit understanding of their heartbreak.

Some people think it’s okay to dress ‘slutty’ and some do not. This is not the discussion on the table though.

I will be participating in the ‘slut walk’ because I believe that sex is an intimate act between two loving consenting adults. I think most would agree with that statement but let’s look at the word ‘consent’ and what it currently means in our culture.

We’ve convinced ourselves that there is a fine line between rape and consent based solely on whether the (mostly) female said ‘no’. Consent is then defined as the omission of ‘no’.

the meaning of consent gets stretched further when  women are drunk or wear revealing clothing as they are now considered to be ‘asking for it, because if she didn’t want to have sex why would she dress that way?’ or ‘how could she remember whether she said no if she was drunk?’ This certainly does blur the line when we teach that ‘no means no’, but what if we redefined our cultural conception of sexual consent?

This is the main thesis of this book I’m reading. Instead of consent being the omission of ‘no’, instead of asking rape victims ‘did you say no?’ or men justifying their actions with ‘she didn’t say no’ what if we defined consent how we should define it- saying ‘yes’ “did you say yes? Did you want to have sex and with this person?’.  No more shaming of women, no more encouraging or enabling the culture of rape to function and hopefully, no more rape since the lines will no longer be blurry and we will teach our children accordingly.

Pretty simple right? well, yes. But apparently no, as well as we still have TV programs that encourage this rape culture, and even people enforcing justice that tow the archaic definition of consent.

I see the ‘slut walk’ not as a way of reclaiming the word slut, or an opportunity to dress like one (the event doesn’t encourage slutty wear, just ‘wear what you wear’) mostly because, well, I generally dress more modest than most people’s maiden aunts, but to me it’s an opportunity to spread this message: our definition of consenting sex should be ‘Yes means yes’ and no less.

Sexy female halloween costumes.

I feel like the subject has been exhausted in that a lot of people (save for those that wear them) find them ridicules.  It’s been written about, complained about and judged by everyone and their mother.  Last night a couple friends were laughing over an inebriated girl who was wearing only a bra and underwear and a butterfly clip in her hair ” I’m a buttterrrrflllyyyyyy” she slurred.

I’ve chosen to ignore how ridicules these types of costumes are (in effort to keep myself from being judgmental) but there are some that I cannot ignore. Particularly, those ‘sexy costumes’ that are of  vocations that women have had to really fight to be included as equal persons

Take for instance ‘sexy cop’ when I see females parading their asses into da’ club I think of my good friend Julie, a very dedicated female who worked really hard to get on the OPP force, pushing herself through physical trainings, achieving high academics and rigorous competitions in order to be hired on.  And then when she DID get hired on, having to establish herself in a male dominated profession as a physical and mental equal, even making her appearance as non-sexy as possible in order to be respected as an authority by both her colleagues and the citizens she serves.

A friend’s mom once shared that she wanted to be a police officer all throughout highschool, until she heard a police chief say at a career event “There will NEVER be a woman on my force” it’s a shame, I think she would have been really excellent in that career. We’ve made leaps and bounds since that time and it frustrates me to see it devalued by a skanky halloween costume.

The same rings true for other vocations: Sexy-pilot, Sexy-military soldier, Sexy- sailor, Sexy- public service officer (?)

Please ladies, I beg you. If you want more trick than treat this halloween, by all means, freeze your tatas off but please please PLEASE leave the sexy-professional costumes alone. For the sake of those who are trying to make it as professional equals.

Filed under: Uncategorized Tagged: costumes, Feminism, Halloween, professional equals, sexy cop ]]> http://ashleydrake.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/sexy-professionals/feed/ 1 ashleydrake http://ashleydrake.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/strategic-risks/ http://ashleydrake.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/strategic-risks/#comments Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:43:24 +0000 Ashley Drake http://ashleydrake.wordpress.com/?p=190 ]]> I was not raised to have a conscience of guilt. And yet I stand at an ethical cross road feeling overwhelmed, creating lists of pros and cons, reciting Kant’s categorical imperative, asking W.W.J.D? and questioning the possible future implications of my choices. It sounds intense (and boring) but I do this because on October 25th/2010, I want to sleep with a clear mind.

October 25th marks the day of the Toronto Mayoral election, and although most people SHOULD be questioning which candidate they think will be the best fit to run this city, this seems to be anything but the case.

The front runner, Rob Ford, I can easily categorize as that douche bag who snaps his fingers in restaurants, calls waitresses ‘sweetie’ and leaves a lousy tip after complaining about everything. He’s the family member who ‘wins’ arguments because he talks the loudest and backs his opinions not with facts, but with angry ill-thought syllogisms. He’s the Mayoral candidate who in my opinion probably knows a lot about running a business, but little about running a city. Paired with ignorant statements about immigrants, the poor, homosexuals, art, living sustainably etc. I would never want him representing my city in a million years.

And I don’t think a lot of others would either, except that he’s harnessed (or instilled) a collective sense of revolutionary anger over how city hall is run while shifting the focus from the importance of civil society to how badly others are doing. A decision to vote for Ford, therefore, is not a vote FOR anything, but a tactical strategy against what we already have or hope to achieve.

*

But, I can’t cast the first stone against these angry voters because I am now faced with the same decision.

The truth is, when I go to put my X on the ballot in October, I’m being asked “who do you think will best run this city”? And unfortunately, there is no “not Rob Ford” option. There is the option of voting for the candidate I want, but he is trailing far behind. In the opinion of others it would be ‘a waste of a vote’, which is why most people I know have decided to engage in the same tactical strategy as the angry Rob Ford lovers (RBLs). That is, to vote FOR a person (the 2nd runner up, George Smitherman) in order to vote AGAINST Rob Ford.

But in the same way, strategic voters aren’t voting FOR anything, they aren’t questioning the perhaps contentious ideas and values of the 2nd runner up. They aren’t saying what they want, how they want their city to look, only that they don’t want Rob Ford. At this point, Smitherman could probably run on a campaign of “I’m not Rob Ford” and have a pretty good chance at taking the race.

So this is my dilemma. Do I vote for George Smitherman, a candidate I don’t really like, in order to save my city from the bumbling idiocy of Rob Ford? Or, when the ballot asks me to put an X beside the candidate I think is best, do I tell the truth, and vote for the candidate who most assuredly won’t win?

The stakes are high! And only one month left to decide.