[Electrify]

You know what the Occupy protesters should do? Go to Shenzhen and protest against the Chinese for daring to improve their lot in life at the expense of the working class here - because it's not the 1% who have sent jobs overseas - it was 100% of the west wanting to consume ever more cheap goods.

The developing world is developing at the expense of segments of the developed world and the 1% remains regardless of what else goes on. They've existed for centuries, regardless of economy or political system, they are always there. It's not the 1% who are the problem, but the bottom 10%, many of whom refuse to improve themselves regardless of how much you do to help them. If you really want to help spread the wealth, then you should wish that the 1% grows to 2%, so that instead of paying a mere 30% of all taxes paid, it can increase to cover whatever social spending you could dream. If wealth is to be shared, then you need more wealth.

(I know it's more complicated than this and corruption/crime should always be prevented, but this is what the Occupy protesters would never admit)

I will admit that the 1 vs 99 is a simplified way of looking at this. Even though Bill Gates is in the 1%, the vast majority of his workforce is well paid and in the upper and middle class. I'm looking at corporations which make millions to billions, where there are relatively few upper managers which make 6 and 7 digit salaries, pay little to no tax, while the vast majority of their staff make a little more than minimum wage - less if outsourced. If our manufacturing sector is dead and we are moving into a service economy, then we need to have livable wages for the vast majority of service workers. Not just for the few people up top.

 

[typezed]

Still unions aside ... why would anyone who was blue collar be interested in the right-wing, make the rich richer and poor poorer, world that the neo-Cons that the Sun slavishly supports.

Because there's a diversity of opinion and experience in the blue collar world, same as anywhere else. Some blue collar people have been working every day since they were in their teens, have regularly worked the overtime that is often available in manufacturing jobs, weekends, 12-hour shifts, to obtain some degree of income stability and self-sufficiency. Yet they have first hand contact with others who never make the same effort, who in their eyes look for handouts. Sometimes the attitude of the left towards the working class - expressed, I think, in the very question of how could they support anyone but the left - is paternalistic at best. The leaders in the party, the well-schooled Raes and Millers, are more interested in chattering class concerns than in the struggles of some guy who gets up at five to pile boxes on a skid. In the city of Toronto are bike lanes, green roofs, pride parades and priority neighbourhoods the concerns of a guy who came from Italy in the 1960s and worked 40 years in a factory (now moved to Brampton) to buy himself a little bungalow in East York and raise three kids?

 

[gabe]

If you can stomach reading the comments in the Sun, you'll notice a recurring theme: "it's all the overpaid union workers fault, get rid of the unions." Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's always the fault of the unions!

I've notice The Sun readers are bitter because they have gotten paid in crumbs for the last 20 years and have to work till 70 since they have non pension or benefits. I guess if Sun readers don't have it, no one should!!

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^It is interesting that you cite such red herring wedge issues like pride parades to explain why "a guy who came from Italy in the 1960s" doesn't vote NDP. Not sure if that makes the left "paternalistic" or the right "cynical, divisive and unworthy of the democracy and free speech that previous generations struggled to achieve". The right has been successful at finding wedge (culture war) issues with which to fool working class people into voting against their economic interests.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^I'm not saying people need to vote in accordance with their own economic interests, by the way. People may be more concerned about other issues and may vote accordingly. Or, they may not think their own economic interests ought to be the prime consideration of government policy. That's all fine and people are free to vote however they wish. I, for example, am a one percenter but I don't feel that lowering my marginal tax rate is a desirable government policy.

What I object to is the fiction that most people who vote against their economic interests are aware that they are doing so. Wedge-interest politics (e.g. anti-immigrant, anti-gay, war-on-the-car, etc.) are tailored to precisely the opposite effect.

 

[nfitz]

Wedge-interest politics (e.g. anti-immigrant, anti-gay, war-on-the-car, etc.) are tailored to precisely the opposite effect.

So your saying is that the right-wing thinks that blue collar workers are both stupid and bigoted, and that they think they can get them to vote against their best interests by playing on their anti-gay and anti-immigrant tendencies?

And they call me cynical ...

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

So your saying is that the right-wing thinks that blue collar workers are both stupid and bigoted, and that they think they can get them to vote against their best interests by playing on their anti-gay and anti-immigrant tendencies?

And they call me cynical ...

You react as though you genuinely disagree. The phenomenon seems self-evident to me. I could probably even find some Karl Rove quotes to round out my argument.

But let's remove the perjorative connotations from this discussion for a moment. I think the right has had great political and electoral success in its methods. I am surprised that someone would identify the phenomenon and then dismiss it as wrong without providing an alternative explanation for wedge-issue politics.

 

[nfitz]

You react as though you genuinely disagree. The phenomenon seems self-evident to me. I could probably even find some Karl Rove quotes to round out my argument.

Sadly, you may be right. I tend to think that people are better than that - but I'm constantly disappointed.

I am surprised that someone would identify the phenomenon and then dismiss it as wrong without providing an alternative explanation for wedge-issue politics.

I assume that wedge-issues are simply a party (any party, left of right), that has suffered complete moral failure to the point that they are prepared to outright lie and deceive, in order to win power at all costs. I haven't ever looked for a pattern to it in the bigger sense, from election to election.

Your likely correct - and it's very sad that not only are politicians unethical enough to do such things, but that voters are stupid enough to fall for it. The fifth estate seems to be failing us.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Oh. It seems we had a sarchasm.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Sadly, you may be right. I tend to think that people are better than that - but I'm constantly disappointed.

I assume that wedge-issues are simply a party (any party, left of right), that has suffered complete moral failure to the point that they are prepared to outright lie and deceive, in order to win power at all costs. I haven't ever looked for a pattern to it in the bigger sense, from election to election.

Your likely correct - and it's very sad that not only are politicians unethical enough to do such things, but that voters are stupid enough to fall for it. The fifth estate seems to be failing us.

The first Miller election was disappointing to me (as a Miller supporter) for precisely this reason. The focus on the island airport bridge was, I thought, an example of a left-wing wedge-issue campaign. In fact, Miller could/should have been able to coast to victory on the back of his having personally led the fight against Lastman/Jakobek's obvious, documented and disgusting corruption. But, apparently, the airport bridge was an easier sell to an electorate that doesn't pay very close attention.

Cynicism doesn't begin to describe the revulsion I have for electoral politics. Hell, revulsion is far too tame a word for it.

 

[EMP1729]

I wonder if "Anonymous" will make good on it's threat:

“You have said that by next week the occupiers shall be removed. And we say by next week if you do not change your mind, you shall be removed from the Internet"

Pity it is just the internet.

 

[typezed]

I cite the issues I did because these are the issues I see discussed when watching City Council or reading this forum, Spacing, Torontoist, etc. They are discussed in this city far more than say the loss of the manufacturing base in Scarborough or the difficulty of housing a family on an industrial income or the accessibility of the skilled trades. They are such prominent issues not only because the right uses them as wedge issues but because bike lanes, green roofs, and pride parades represent the change in the city most progressives (including myself, to some degree) would like to see. All I am saying is that many in the working class may understandably have different priorities. Left versus right in this city often seems to trigger on public versus private. Transit versus the automobile, public space versus the backyard. Most established working class people probably drive, and like it that way. The places they work are less accessible by transit (almost every blue collar job I've had in Toronto was in the process of moving further away from dependable transit), as are the neighbourhoods where they can afford to live. Maybe some of them have no need for Nuit Blanche and the designer parks that delight us here, and only want enough money left over from working forty-eight hours for twenty years to have a place with a deck that they can sit on in the summer. Maybe Ford and Mammolitti represent those concerns for them. Above, someone who is awful uninhibited with the bigot label makes the sideways suggestion that blue collar workers may be stupid and bigoted if they don't share his idea of their best interests. This is the sort of person and politics that blue collar folk should welcome as their advocate? Maybe they're smarter about their individual interests than you think.

 

[canmark]

BlogTO: City to issue Occupy Toronto notices to leave park

We're just going to hand out the notices and ask these people to leave," Rob Ford told reporters earlier today. "It has been a peaceful protest and I'm sure they will leave peacefully." When asked about a timeframe, the mayor would only say that "it's going to happen soon."

I wonder if this will have the opposite of the desired effect. Right now, the Occupy people are mostly talking amongst themselves and only inconveniencing people/busineses local to the park.

Should the police have to force them out, they will get news coverage and public sympathy.

Why not let them spend the winter in the cold?

Or is Ford just trying to act tough, and repair his own image after running scared from Marg Delahunty?

 

[canmark]

Ford to follow in David Miller's footsteps and perform with the National Ballet. Toronto Star.

Mayor Rob Ford will soon make his stage debut with The National Ballet of Canada, the ballet’s artistic director Karen Kain announced Monday.

The mayor will not dance but he will wear a silly, colourful costume, caper about and — whether he likes it or not — follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, David Miller.

Kain announced at a City Hall ceremony that Ford had accepted her invitation of a cameo appearance as a “cannon doll” in a performance of seasonal favourite The Nutcracker, which runs Dec. 10 to Jan. 3.

Ford, a high school football coach not known for his affinity to the arts, will wear a multi-coloured “Petrushka” costume for about two minutes onstage, said ballet spokeswoman Catherine Chang.

The mayor will appear with another cannon doll and a professional dancer who will roll out a cannon. One of the dolls is eager for the big gun to go off, while the other is supposed to be “afraid and timid,” Chang said.

“It’s a non-dancing miming role,” she added.

 

[Filip]

BlogTO: City to issue Occupy Toronto notices to leave park



I wonder if this will have the opposite of the desired effect. Right now, the Occupy people are mostly talking amongst themselves and only inconveniencing people/busineses local to the park.

Should the police have to force them out, they will get news coverage and public sympathy.

Why not let them spend the winter in the cold?

Or is Ford just trying to act tough, and repair his own image after running scared from Marg Delahunty?

The Star had a poll on Occupy Toronto and the majority (54% when I last checked) wanted the protestors out. It should be a non-issue. They're breaking municipal bylaws and inconveniencing the neighbouring area. People have a right to use and enjoy that park; I also believe they should be charged for the damaged caused to the trees and park. The grounds are basically a mud pit now.