[PHOTO] Magnolia, Bloor and Dufferin, May 2013

I last photographed this magnolia south of Bloor on Dufferin in April of last year. Happily, it's still blooming this year.



I was passing by the tree with my father as we were headed south to the Dufferin Mall when we encountered a woman walking her dog. We chatted briefly, mentioning our plans to visit High Park later that day, and then she offered us advice about the best route to take to see the cherry blossoms departing from the High Park station.

Torontonians are friendly, often spontaneously friendly. I've heard people from my native Prince Edward Island claiming that Torontonians are closed-off compared to Islanders, and I don't buy it. Islanders have to maintain a certain superficial level of politeness in order for a still-isolated island society to function, whereas Torontonians have the freedom to choose to involve themselves in others. Very frequently, they do.

[BLOG] Some Tuesday links

• Bag News Notes isn't impressed by the scandal aroused by Arne Svenson's photos of New York City condo dwellers taken through their windows--they are open, aren't they?


• Beyond the Beyond links to an interview with Chinese science fiction writer Fei Dao about that genre in China.


• Burgh Diaspora's Jim Russell writes about the problems of rural America in keeping talent.


• The Dragon's Tales and Jonathan Crowe both link to the new cartographic map of Saturn's moon Titan.


• Far Outliers' quotes from Chinua Achebe's latest book, this quote a recounting of the geographic and social origins of nationalism in Nigeria.


• Geocurrents notes the patterns and causes of Stalin's deportation of ethnic minorities from frontier zones, from Finland through to Siberia.


• Terrible news from Normblog's Norman Geras, who is currently being hospitalized for prostate cancer.


• Torontoist reports on the multimedia efforts of a Torontonian looking for a cat lost at College and Dovercourt.


• The Way the Future Blogs' Frederik Pohl writes about Brooklyn's joys.


• Window on Eurasia notes that Kyrgyzstan is the latest former Soviet state to downgrade the status of the Russian language.

[URBAN NOTE] "City council rejects new casino in 40-4 vote"

The good news comes from CP24.com's Chris Fox.

City council has voted in favour of rejecting any new gaming facilities for Toronto, effectively shutting the book on a multi-billion dollar casino and entertainment complex proposed for downtown.

During a special meeting Tuesday morning, council voted 40-4 against the creation of any new gaming facilities within the city. In a separate vote council also voted 24-20 against the expansion of gaming at Woodbine Racetrack.

A motion from Mayor Rob Ford that would have rejected a downtown casino outright, but left the door open to adding table games at Woodbine Racetrack was defeated 31-13.

“This was about the impact on the citizens of Toronto and the people of Ontario that didn’t want us to put forward a policy that encourages more people to get addicted to gambling and raises money in that fashion,” Coun. Mike Layton told reporters following the vote. “This was about how we treat people in the City of Toronto.”

"The casino vote was what thousands and thousands of Torontonians asked us to do," added Coun. Paula Fletcher. "This is probably the biggest vote that we will have in our entire term."

[URBAN NOTE] "Public Works: A Casino That Works?"

Torontoist's Patrick Metzger had an interesting examination of how Singapore made its casino work for that city-state, with a minimum of social pathology. The key lay in Singapore's very tight regulation of the casino's development, something that--as Metzger notes--was not necessarily available in the case of Toronto.

[T]he broad approach—ensuring the development process is guided by government and not casino operators—makes sense. Singapore spelled out a set of conditions to be placed on any gambling facility before considering specific proposals, and made licensing contingent on operators accepting any future regulation they might choose to impose.

Toronto has already set out a list of 47 conditions that a potential casino would have to meet (although they’re far less draconian in addressing social issues than those imposed in Singapore). However, unlike the Singaporean government, which isn’t beholden to any higher authority, Toronto is subject to the whims of Queen’s Park. This is why many councillors feel forced into a binary choice: that their only real decision is the yes/no question of whether to open up this question. If they do allow the process to go forward, they fear, they won’t have the capacity to direct the development process thereafter. Though the province has said it will listen to the municipalities, subsequent negotiations will largely be left to their creature, the OLG (“creature” in this case being not only the technically accurate term but also one that serendipitously conveys just the right tone).

Also, even if the province and OLG were to agree to include Toronto’s conditions in any negotiation, many of those conditions are sufficiently vague (“the casino will have an urban form that is designed to fit within its local context”) that there’s plenty of weasel room, particularly when the cash-strapped government is under pressure from a developer dangling bags of Yankee greenbacks and resistant to anything that might hinder efforts to hoover loonies from the pockets of hopeful punters.

Singapore seems to have found a trade-off that works, largely through its willingness to take a strong stance on regulating the casinos it has allowed. It’s an example that suggests Toronto could introduce casino gambling in a way that could be an economic and—don’t laugh—a cultural asset. But to get there, the province would have to let the City drive, or itself take on the task of regulating the facilities very strongly, and the prospective operators would have to sit in the back seat.

[LINK] "Why The Pollsters Got BC Wrong"

Wonkman's recent post examining the rationale for the recent bad polling in British Columbia's election, and why there might not be that much of an incentive to fix it, is worth reading.

BC is perhaps the least homogeneous province in the country. The economic, social and demogaphic conditions in one community can be wildly different from those of a neighbouring community, to say nothing of the stark differences between a big city on the Island and a small town or rural area in the northern interior. In a province like Prince Edward Island, you can pick 50 random numbers out of the phone book and be pretty sure you’ve got a balanced sample; in British Columbia, you have to consider dozens of different factors and weightings (which means polling hundreds and thousands of different people!) just to get basic data.

And that’s a problem.

Because of that diversity, BC is expensive and difficult to poll. So are Ontario and Quebec, but Ontario and Quebec both have way, way, way more seats than BC, making their results more critical to the national picture.

This obviously bodes poorly. It means polling agencies have weak operations in a critical province, and—in situations like this—the lack of resources is plain and obvious.

But is that the wrong decision?

The bottom line is that Ontario and Quebec do matter more than BC when it comes to federal elections. Given the choice between throwing resources into a province with 107 seats or one with only 36, you’d need a very compelling reason to opt for the smaller province.

[URBAN NOTE] "Will crack allegations be enough to sink Mayor Rob Ford?"

The National Post's Toronto news discussion panel, featuring Chris Selley, Jonathan Goldsbie, and Matt Gurney, tackles the question of the alleged Rob Ford crack video. Their conclusions leave me with the feeling that no one is going to come out of this looking very good--not the media, not the Toronto electorate, certainly not Rob Ford himself--but that this still might not be enough to change things.

Goldsbie: I’ve spent the last few days just assuming that the video would eventually get out, and probably sooner than later. But then I recalled that I took the same approach to the tape in which Rob Ford allegedly cursed out some 911 operators, and now I’m faced with considering the terrifying possibility that the footage may never be released. The thought that — in the absence of hard, publicly-viewable evidence — Ford might try to deny and move on from this allegation, as he has so many others, is upsetting to the point of being enraging. The thing is that, by now, it is difficult to imagine a scandal from which Rob Ford could not somehow escape: he is superhuman in his political abilities, with a hardcore fanbase that would find a way to rationalize a murder charge. Somewhere out there is a video recording that apparently depicts our mayor smoking crack and making disgusting homophobic and racist remarks, and yet nothing in his political experience would suggest to Rob Ford that the appropriate reaction is anything other than to carry on though there weren’t.

Gurney: I tend to agree that we’ll see the video. I’d have no doubt if we were dealing with rational actors. A deal would be reached and honoured. But both the Star and Gawker have said that the gentlemen in possession of the video are involved in the drug trade and their paranoia — making reporters meet them in backs of cars in random places — speaks to their mindset. I wouldn’t be surprised if the intensity of the coverage spooks them and sends them to ground. Again on the assumption that it never comes out, I agree with Chris that the voters would probably conclude that this indeed happened as related by the Star and Gawker. And they’d remember that in 2014. But Council, now? I don’t often give that group of human beings the benefit of the doubt. But here I will. Whatever they conclude about Ford’s alleged use of crack, if the video doesn’t come out, they’ll keep their private thoughts private and get on with the job. That’s good, I suppose. But it also leaves us where we were before the alleged video.

Selley: For now, sure. No point rubbing it in every chance they get. But suddenly it’s just that much more toxic to be seen supporting the Mayor himself, as opposed to happening to agree with him on any given issue. So many of his ideas depend on leaps of faith or logic — casino revenues build subways, for example — that this could become a significant hindrance, at least to the limited extent that the Ford administration operates according to standard rules of space, time and politics. Looking beyond that, it would certainly be an intriguing election dynamic. You’d think it would be easy to run a spirited campaign against an alleged crack-smoker, but it’s a fine line between pariah and victim. Ford’s best political play right now would be to step down, check into rehab — whether or not he really has a problem — and vow to return a better man in 2014. I don’t see that happening.

[ISL] "Tour operators get lesson in being gay-friendly"

The CBC Prince Edward Island article is interesting, and certainly reason for hope. Just stay away from the comments.

(I did not know there was a P.E.I. Gay Tourism Association.)

With tourism season fast approaching, operators from across the Island are getting a lesson in welcoming those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Many Islanders in the tourism industry pride themselves on welcoming visitors but the organization Travel Gay Canada say there’s a lot more some could be doing.

Anne Marie Shrouder, of Travel Gay Canada, spent Friday morning educating operators on ways to make their businesses more LGBT-friendly.

Often, said Shrouder, it’s the more subtle reactions that are problematic for tourists in the gay community.

“I'm checking in with my partner and we're both female and we want one bed. And it's like, ‘Oh, right.’ Little things like that -- eyebrow [raising], whispering behind the counter, and it all undermines my sense of ‘I want to be here,’” she said.

[URBAN NOTE] "Village no more"

Matthew Hays' Xtra! article raising the question of whether gay neighbourhoods serve any needs justifying their continued existence doesn't come to any judgements. Myself, I suspect that Dennis O'Connor, quoted in the article, may be correct in suggesting that migration to gay neighbourhoods, from their hinterlands within and without the countries in which these beacons of tolerance are located, may play a vital role in keeping them going. Think of it as replacement migration, if you would.

It was a moment that left me a bit taken aback. During a break from a journalism class I teach at Concordia University in Montreal, I was talking with one of my students. This young fellow is bright, handsome, ambitious, proudly queer and sexually active. “Do you live in the Village?” I queried, basically making small talk.

But this student stopped upon hearing the question and looked at me as if I had three heads. “Why would I want to live there?”

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised, given the growing chorus of existential soul-searching that is routinely heard when people discuss the idea of a gay village — that is, a neighbourhood that is specifically queer in a city. The stats have now become sadly familiar: with urban rents rising, gay-owned businesses and bookstores have been closing in Canada’s largest cities over the past decade, with chain stores and soulless condo skyscrapers taking their place. And since gays have gained far greater acceptance from the straight majority, queers have created new mini-hoods — Toronto’s Cabbagetown, Parkdale and Leslieville — or queer-friendly artsy areas, like Montreal’s Mile End. Add to that the emergence of the internet as the primary way to hook up sexually — the ascent of Generation Grindr — and some are declaring the very concept of the Village redundant and obsolete.

Which prompts the question: do we still need a Village?

Stan Persky, the prolific journalist, author and university instructor, who divides his time between Vancouver and Berlin, argues that yes, the relevance of gay districts has declined significantly over the past 20 years. And a big part of that, he suggests, is that being queer has become far more acceptable by the mainstream. “For some time, I’d say the years 1969 to 1994, from gay liberation years through to retrovirals, my identity as gay was constantly subject to some form of peril. It was supportive and nice to live in a neighbourhood where you felt reaffirmed daily by seeing other gays, being able to use gay institutions — bars, restaurants and bookstores — and generally living in an atmosphere of greater public safety. The need for that sort of support and mutual identification diminished enormously as the political struggle for the public acceptance of homosexuality succeeded.”

Persky points to a post-gay period, in which being “gay is now among one’s list of identifications without it requiring constant self-conceptualization or prioritizing, as discrimination against homosexuality has been legally overcome, for the most part, in Canadian politics. Public recognition of gay as simply one more part of the complicated human story has steadily increased.”

[LINK] "Anti-Gay Marriage Historian Shoots Himself at the Altar of Notre Dame"

The article by Gawker's Cord Jefferson about Dominique Venner, the French right-writer associated with the quasi-neo-pagan Francophone nouvelle droite who shot himself in the head to protest the French legalization of same-sex marriage, should be read. I remain at once appalled by the man's own-goal (the Catholic Church that opposed same-sex marriage is going to have to reconsecrate Notre-Dame) and impressed by his willingness to take his principles to the utmost limit.

The 78-year-old Venner, a prolific essayist for much of his life, was also a strict Catholic who frequently inveighed against gays and Islamists, who he believed were coming to wipe out French culture. In a blog post dated today—translated with the help of senilezombiegrouchomarx—Venner argued that more drastic measures were necessary to combat same-sex marriage since peaceful protests didn't work.

"It certainly will require new, spectacular and symbolic gesture to shake the sleepiness, shaking anesthetized consciousness and awaken the memory of our origins," he wrote. "We are entering a time when words must be authenticated by acts."

Witnesses say Venner entered the cathedral and placed a sealed envelope on the altar before shooting himself through the mouth with a handgun. His final blog post can be read in its entirety below.

The protestors on the 26th of May will have reason to vent their impatience and anger. An odious law, once passed, can always be repealed.

I have just finished listening to an Algerian blogger: “In any case”, he said, “in fifteen years Islamists will be in power and will strike down the law”. Not to satisfy us, lest we doubt, but because it is against Sharia.

It is the single common point, albeit superficial, between the European culture (which respects women) and Islam (which does not). The preemptive statement by this Algerian blogger sends chills down the spine. The consequences of such a development would be as great and catastrophic as those of the Taubira Law.

We must recognize the real possibility of France falling under Islamic rule. Over the past 40 years, politicians and successive governments from all parties (excepting the Front Nationale), as well as big business and the Church, have actively worked towards, and accelerated, Afro-Maghreb immigration by all means.

For a long time, great writers have sounded the alarm, starting with Jean Raspail in his prophetic Camp of Saints (Robert Laffont). The new edition has set printing records.

The protestors on the 26th of May cannot ignore this reality. Their fight cannot confine itself to the issue of gay marriage. The “Great Replacement” of the French and European populations, decried by writer Renaud Camus, is a peril just as significant for the future.

Organizing peaceful demonstrations will not suffice to stem the tide. We must first, as Renan would say, engineer a veritable “intellectual and moral” reform movement. Such a movement must allow us first to re-appropriate out forgotten French and European identity. The need for such a movement is still not widely acknowledged.

New actions, both spectacular and symbolic, are needed to shake us from our sleep-like stupor and reawaken our sense of tradition. We are entering into a time when talk must be supported by actions.

We must also remember what Heidegger formulated brilliantly in Being and Time: that the essence of man is not to be found in some “other world”, but in his very existence. It is here and now, in these last moments, that our destiny in is play. These final moments are as important as the rest of one’s life. That is why one must uphold their ideals to the very last second. Only in deciding for one’s self and seizing destiny can one vanquish nothingness. There is no way to escape this fact. In this life, we have two options: to uphold our ideals or to be nothing.

[LINK] "A Star Pupil Flunks Out"

At Transitions Online, Martin Ehl writes about the problems associated with formerly Yugoslavian Slovenia's well-managed, self-guided transition to capitalist independence. Was not enough changed?

After the declaration of independence in 1991, various formations composed of former communists who were careful about words such as privatization and foreign investment took turns governing the country. Yugoslavia's socialist legacy had a lot to do with that, but so did the concerns of a small nation, which had, for the first time, its own country and feared that outsiders would again steamroll over its history, culture, and economy – this time not militarily, but economically. Sometime in 1998, for example, I first heard the story of how the Slovenians were preventing foreign speculation by requiring that money into and out of the country could legally be transferred through only one state-controlled account.

A right-wing government took power only in 2000, with its banner wielded mainly by former dissident Janez Jansa, who is known for seeing plots everywhere. He himself was accused of secret arms purchases during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. This year, his government fell not because of economic problems, although they played a role, but because of suspicions of corruption among ministers and the prime minister.

Slovenia's shining image shows up in rankings of countries’ living standards and development. When we dig deeper into these indices, however, we can see the residue of the state-directed approach to the economy and the socialist attitude to the state as the hand that distributes full handfuls. For example, the Prosperity Index, compiled by London's Legatum Institute, puts Slovenia at 24th of 142 countries. But the worst evaluated of the eight categories is the economy, while the best is the educational system.

It's similar with the Catch-up Index, compiled by the Open Society Institute in Sofia, which judges whether and how quickly the former Eastern bloc countries are catching up with Western Europe. Of the four categories assessed Slovenia fared a shade better in quality of life than in democracy, governance, or the economy. It looks as if the Slovenians live well but have relied too much on their economic model working forever and even being able to grumble about their government, which, however, still controls most of the economy through state-owned banks and companies.

Just as Slovenians have a problem with privatization and opening up their economy to foreign investors, so it is in other areas. For example, a history-related time bomb has been ticking in Slovenian society, considered taboo all the way up until Jansa's governments that ruled after 2000. During World War II, certainly not all Slovenes stood on the side of Tito's partisans. Slovenia was divided during the war among the three occupying powers, and only much later Jansa and others began to talk about the massacres of tens of thousands of people from the so-called Slovene Home Guard – namely the units on the side of the Italians, Germans, and Hungarians, whom the allies in 1945 handed over to Tito's units along with the remnants of the Croatian Ustasha and Serb forces loyal to the exiled Western governments.