Cancer hypocrisy

In Canada, it seems that many provincial governments refuse to pay for many of the new life saving cancer drugs. Cancer patients are dying because they can't afford the pills or drugs. Drug companies are making millions off the sales of these cancer killing drugs. This is utter and total betrayal of ... humanity. A massive betrayal of the system that funded much of the research to enable the creation of that drug.
... Millions of dollars has been generated through various cancer fighting charities. People gave their time, ran millions of miles and kilometres to provide that funding. Universities share that data and for what. For greedy self centered drug manufacturers that's who.
... Understandably, governments are loathe to add those new drugs simply because of the price. Not only are these drugs massively overpriced, the political establishment prefers not to say anything. By rights, these misery profiteers who overcharge for these pills should be now returning all the value of the decades of the contributing funding to those Cancer societies to one hundred percent.
... In the nation who hails Terry Fox as its greatest hero, no cancer victim should go untreated because they cannot afford it. Every year massive numbers of Canadians run in hundreds of charity events to generate the massive funding. Canadian society earned the right to have its members treated. No one in all of Canada should be caught financially short of receiving the very best of any life saving medical treatment. The people who donate to cancer research do it to save other people's lives. They are the investors. They want it for their friends, kin and fellow Canadians. Its as simple as that.

Russia and warfare

For all its size and lengthy history, Russia lacks any sophistication when it comes to international diplomacy. Putin, like most of his kinsmen politicians, believe that wars are conducted primarily by guns, tanks and cannon.

... He could solve the Russian economic crisis in the next ten minutes. Simply pull out of Ukrainian territory. Bob's the uncle. Nothing elaborate. Nothing complicated.

... In the larger context, the Russian creeping invasion of Ukraine territory by military means is simply a sideshow. The Russians are fighting with soldiers and arms, the rest of the world is employing economic warfare. That is where his real fight is.

... Russians believe they lost the Cold War. And they did. They are still trying to figure out why. They were fighting the Cold War in hot zones of guerrilla and small civil wars. The reason they lost that war had nothing to do with military prowess. The end result was caused by economic warfare. The frontlines are banks, financial institutions, and stock markets. NATO isn't Russia's biggest threat, .... Russia is.

Stubborn scrap: A New Year's Morality Play

Happy New Year... Reflecting on the past always gives. Never takes. Bad or good, its always interesting.
... Early this morning on December 23rd, the derelict hulk of the American Fortitude will pass by the gauntlet of cameras associated with the Prescott Anchor on the banks of the St. Lawrence. During the time of the ancient mariners, there was the belief that every ship gained a soul. This is still reflected into the last century, when the traditional Chinese Junks received painted eyes on the bows. And this shows when referring to ships as "she" instead of "it".
... On its way to the bone yard of ships in Turkey, the Canadian Miner beached conclusively on Scaterie Island off the coast of Cape Breton, Sept. 2011. Despite the best efforts, at least $12M of taxpayer money, and an optimistic forecast, remnants remain stubbornly insitu according to the last reports.
... In the same vein, and to the chagrin of the self proclaimed best city in the world, the former light cruise yacht, famous restaurant stays stubborn resting at the foot of the longest surveyed street in the world (a total crock by the way). Toronto threatened, cajoled, expelled the original owner, auctioned off the rights. A new owner, obviously short on resources, promised it would be gone, - in 30 days, - by the end of August.
... A couple of days ago ambling down to the foot of the longest spun street, still sits the MV Jadran thumbing its bow at the fretful human race. One could swear it was alive. So in the spirit of the season, a portrait of another stubborn soul.
... Still here, in your face.

Phoney Sony

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that all the American networks insist on saying that Sony is an American Corporation. What?
... This very dumb movie which was going to bomb was authored by Canadian, stars the same Canadian, and was funded and produced by a Japanese company. But Americans insist that it is an infringement of American free speech?
... Companies get hacked all the time. Of course, everyone sort of fail to understand that all those files that Sony said got wiped out, should've been backed up. Its the hassle of re-establishing That is the usual procedure. Generally speaking ever since the last century, if you own a network there are things one should anticipate. First back up all essential programs and files. Second assume you are going to be attacked tomorrow.
... So I figure that Sony, a Japanese company, saw that this movie was going to bomb. The dumbass Koreans decided to waste a powerful weapon on something that was nothing more than an ego problem. Sony must have fallen over backwards. They promoted the idea that they were hacked recognizing that this little event literally quadrupled the projected revenue on a bad movie. Plus, yes plus the movie is so bad, that now when its released criticism of it will be totally blunted. Critics will call it crap only at their professional peril.
... The Americans won this fight without doing anything. People should understand what hackers have understood for a long time, while cyber torpedoes are powerful weapons, they are only truly effective once. Personally, I can't believe it. Why would the North Koreans do this action simply based on a dictator's psychopathic narcissism.
... The Americans now know the pattern, and structure of attack. The useless movie is only a background to a totally stupid North Korean action. A counter will be made. The most valuable counter is the simple knowledge of when, where, and how such an attack is made. That is the nature of the internet.
... Chinese and Koreans have always infiltrated networks. During a project in 1999, the late Kenn Hyslop was updating the system at the Marathon Public Library, in Marathon, Ontario. During that involved conversion of a one program to something new and had to convert a data form into another. It turned out to be a very complex project, when Hyslop dug in he pointed out that not only he found little subroutines, known as worms, sourced back to both North Korea and China. Nowhere else.
... Protections were inserted to block the effort. Another simple counter measure was undertaken. That was to turn off the computers every night. Before they had been left on. The cyber attackers, employed by nations, including the United States, want to work through computer networks that are on all the time. So this is all puff and no real substance to salvage any money loss from a very tepid movie.

The Ferguson Solution

In the United States, police have a very serious credibility problem. The Grand Jury system maintains an antiquated system which favors one side, or the other. Its major weakness is that it is not transparent. Meetings are in-camera. That's never a good thing in the course of any true justice.

... Police shouldn't investigate police. Were it not for the creation of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the Sammy Yatim shooting may very well blown up into riots.

... The State of Missouri has no equivalent system. People don't trust police, and the larger the gulf of trust, the greater the rioting. The evidence collected and presented to the Grand Jury was collected largely by the same police department as the officer.

... Authorities did try to get another police department to handle the case. The FBI was invited in. Then they pulled out of the furball a few weeks later and citing lack of evidence to make a charge as an excuse.

... The beauty of the Ontario SIU, is that it is an independent civilian body semi detached from the Attorney General's office. The minute, the second a police officer stops firing a gun in the course of duty, then the SIU takes over the case. Its automatic. No display of political ambivalence or delay. Police have no other option. While policemen don't like the SIU, over time I believe that they are beginning to appreciate that this is a blind process. In fact, it protects police from the effects of social out rage.

... When I see, the terrible events occurring there. Its tragic. If the State of Missouri, or any other province or state doesn't have an SIU system, expect riots.

Save Our Ship

Very sad the agonizing end to the Montrealais. The vessel is headed for the iron carrion laden shores of Turkey to be scrapped and obliterated into history. No one is stepping up to buy the ship. Money always remains the problem. Saving a vessel, is a credible idea.
... There is one very famous vessel that would attract enough funding to keep it afloat. I'm afraid its one or two years away from scrapping. At the very least, it must be on that cruel short list.
... There must be a committee formed on both sides of the border to make sure that the Arthur M. Anderson is preserved. Why? Well, for many reasons.
... It was the sailing companion of the Fitz. It was the very last contact. For that reason alone, if no other reason existed, it would be a very excellent traveling memorial to the Fitz and all the lost souls on the Great Lakes.
... Its a classical design of the "Canaller". Or specifically, the maritime fashion where ships were built specifically for the Great Lakes.
... If its owner encounters economic difficulties or if the closure of steel mills continues, then for costs savings the Anderson will become expendable. Considering its age, its not likely to attract any commercial buyers.
... We here all recognize the problems of maintaining a museum vessel. And ideally that museum vessel must remain in seaworthy condition. And it must be able to attract the millions required annually to keep it afloat and in Bristol fashion.
... It must be a name ship that everyone around the lakes, and as far away as Vancouver or San Diego recognizes and be willing to part with their hard earned cash to support it. One of the great reasons for failure to buy a museum ships on the Great Lakes is the costs and the prime reason that well meaning groups have difficulty getting sponsorships is that too often the ship they are trying to save has only a local significance. So the financial base is very small and weak. Again, that one ship needs to have a broad financial sponsorship potential.
... We can't save the Montrealais specifically. There is no way feasible because away from the Seaway few would have any attachment even in the slightest. So let's try and at least save one ship. A ship that the good citizens in Quebec City, in Duluth, in Thunder Bay(s), in Marquette, in Chicago, in Detroit, in every city on the Seaway, would be willing to donate enough tens and twenties to make the effort successful.
... In the name recognition, it must be able to be strong enough to get funding from the states, provinces and federal governments. It has to have the fame muscle to convince the Seaway Corp to waive transfer and canal fees. It must have the name recognition to receive in kind support of paint from either Dupont or BASF on an annual basis to keep the paint fresh on the vessel. It has to have the name recognition that the conservation group can put it to drydock at a minimal cost. All that is a lot to consider in creating a Seaway floating memorial museum.
... The ideal fame vessel rests on the bottom of Lake Superior. The next best candidate is its traveling companion. And it must be a ship that the entire seaway knows about, and that candidate can only be the Arthur M Anderson.

The squeak up comedian

Canadian politics always offers the discipline to read about something, while busting sweat glands in the max effort to maintain a straight face. This week's award for the best Canadian Standup Comedian goes to one Stephen Harper.

Apparently, Harper an alleged leader of Canada and the free world, told Putin to get out of the Ukraine.

Let that sink in. Okay, abandoned guffaws all around.

Here's looking at you kid

Backdrop

Now governments are going to use drones to follow cell phone users. Its part of the Canadian government's 'Get to know you campaign.'.

On the one hand its threatening and the first step in permanently ridding the globe of actual democracy. On the other hand, it is also annoying. Always presume that the government has a dossier on you. A decade ago you would have been called paranoid crazy. No more.

So here it is. Canadians are paying good tax dollars to secretive government data collectors. Accumulating data for no good purpose. At best it might be a fanatical need to collect data on everything, and everybody. At worst this is the prelude to the assumption of the fanatical Canadian Conservatives to twist democracy to sate their megalomaniacal desires.  Okay, that should be known as a point. Its your money. Used to watch you.

 The point

 Okay concede that the government knows more about you than you do, or can recall. You are paying for this. There should be an upside at least in one facet. Tell me why, every time I make out a goddamned government form, these bastards still insist that I fill out all the name, address, sex, information in those stupid boxes at the top of the front page of those forms?

 Really we should give a name and simply ask, Ya whatta you know?

The Last Leader

A leadership review confronts Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath. The vote was moved up to Saturday morning which heavily favors Horwath. Leadership reviews are a necessary function in political party. Officially she remains free of a leadership convention if she garners more than 50% simple majority. The major contention is that there are no potential leadership candidates.

There are no lack of better leaders waiting for the NDP. Jagmeet Singh, Cheri D'Novo, being two of the strongest candidates for the job. The old no potential leaders in the wings is usually the spin of the incumbent's ensemble.

If Horwath clings to her concept of leadership then its guaranteed that the NDP will split. There may not be the creation of what is called a pure socialist movement in a return to the days of the CCF. The political climate is not right for that. Socialism needs severe updating. For a reform movement it hangs on to old ideas and the time of  Samuel Gompers.

One of the reasons that Horwath did so badly is that she didn't prepare the ideological distance between her party and the provincial Liberals. As a result most people felt, well why not vote Liberal?

Secondly, her internal communication skills are abysmal. Political Party leaders need a network of people within the party to convey their message to and the needs of the membership in return. At the riding level, the local riding party officials existed in a gap. This can be demonstrated by her handling of the Scarborough riding byelection about ten months before the government collapsed. She imposed a candidate, one Adam Giambrone into the campaign. This caused such a schism that Giambrone didn't gain any traction, and the riding fell to the Liberals yet again. When the general election occurred, the anger within the riding membership didn't show up to help.

If she wins the leadership review, the Ontario NDP are doomed.

Update

Oh ya, they are toast. The Ontario NDP political credibility just shot out the window.

Today Canadians stand in a moment of silent contemplation. Its the day when grown men are given the honor of crying in sorrow.

It was a unique privilege to stand in ceremony with the lucky survivors of the last great war. Few survive now, and they are venerated. This precious ceremony, this precious Canada has been hijacked by cowardly politicians embracing this day for nothing else than selfishly clutching onto power. There are those who want to make this a day off. That's not the purpose of this day. They joined to; do a job. Then so must we all or the real purpose of the memorial is lost. This is a day of duty, its a day of work where collectively the nation, the individual sets aside activity for one, two, three minutes, or even a moment in silent thought remembering those who died in service.

I asked father, his contemporaries through the years their views. They shuddered at being called heroes. They all spoke in various words and ways. Essentially it boiled down to one idea easily embraced in five words: War is a dirty business.

This day we remember those who gave their lives in defense of Canada and allies. Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane, York, War of 1812, Fenian Raids, Batoche, Boer War, World War I, Vimy Ridge, Passchendale, World War II, Dieppe, Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic, Sicily, Ortona, The Clearance of the Road to Rome, D-Day, Verriere Ridge, Operation Totalize, Caen, Reichswald, Calais, Belgium, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Holland, Battle of the Hochwald Gap, Korean War, Kapyong, Israel-Palestine, Cyprus, Bosnia, Bihac Pocket, Afghanistan. These are just a few of the battles and peace making operations that Canadian Armed Forces directly engaged in.
... Canadians don't usually celebrate or idolize individual commanding officers, it is usually others that put medals on the chests of the brave. Canadians remember the regiments and units. At this moment though, it is time to remember those who gave their lives.

... I post two favourite poems in their memory.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
      Between the crosses, row on row,
   That mark our place; and in the sky
   The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
   Loved and were loved, and now we lie
         In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
   The torch; be yours to hold it high.
   If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
         In Flanders fields.

- John McRae

...

(Note: This is a version of the Gettysburg Address. While it is American, it is entirely appropriate when remembering war dead. Its a short speech, but really it is so well written I consider it also a poem.)

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- Abraham Lincoln

No one is perfect

If Trudeau is being sketchy about the actual reasons for dismissal then the NDP leader Mulcair is really off the mark. I mean think. They felt confident about contacting Trudeau but not their own leader.

The one thing that is patently obvious. Complete secrecy is the shield by which the serial abuser skillfully uses. Mulcair is only perpetuating that culture of protective secrecy. Trudeau's actions are far from perfect. But at least he is seriously trying, which is far ahead of what other political leaders have done so far.

Digestion (Aint what it use to be)

On the Discovery Channel. Man to be eaten by big Anaconda Snake. You are what you eat. Watch a snake become a big idiot.

Subway to Hell: a Toronto suburb

I went downtown two days ago. Yes by the subway. Best described as a disaster for anyone trying to get to work on time. So all these politicians want your money to expand the subway system. How about putting more money into fixing the existing subways first?

Essay on a Bus

Plans
Candidates for the Mayor's and Councillors' job must play to the audience. Too often, logic flies right out the window. There is an understandable urge to tell those in the live audience the things they want to hear. Each candidate deserves a pat on the back. It takes a lot of courage to put themselves out there,to achieve a lofty goal, and barring evidence to the contrary each does it to serve the community. They must be or at the very least appear to be knowledgeable about everything. And its an eclectic list; budgets, police, fire, ambulance, streets, construction projects, sewers, shelters, parades and then there is the transit file. Ah yes. Transit.

Closely examine each municipal candidate's transit plan. Not one plan meets the city's challenge.Disappointingly the plans lack vision. The only common factor politicians obsess about is subways, subways, subways. A major part of their difficulties arise from whose advice they listen to. The advice about subways doesn't solve the issues of transit. Indeed putting a subway in the wrong place is worse than no transit.

Politicians seem to misunderstand why the TTC and public transit is so popular with the voters. Its because most people believe that it will solve Toronto's famous traffic gridlock. It won't, it will only make it worse. Why?

Most people want subways because they think everyone else will use the subway while they can continue on alone in their own cars. Problem, every other driver is thinking the exact same thing.

So subways are a total waste of money, if the reason is to reduce gridlock. Yes. If I were a politician I would change the whole idea of public transit by hiring smart people who know about public transit and keep my big political nose out of it.

Why? Its all about winning votes. And this results in the obvious parade of platitudes. They lose the opportunity to the real purpose of public transit in an urban environment. To them the TTC isn't about moving people. Its about moving votes. Let this be a lesson to all in all the other cities. The problems of urban transit exist in every Canadian city. So many people, including experts never identify and focus on just what public transit is for, its purpose.


Initial Goal

Toronto is an example of how not to do things. One overriding challenge emerges. As much as possible, keep politics out of public transit. The past Chair of the TTC (Karen Stintz) did a good job. The operators appreciated her chutzpah because the anecdote is that on the very first day she didn't know what a “short turn”was. She managed to learn quickly. Despite her obvious smarts, she never seemed to quite understand what public transit is for. I don't refer to budgets. I don't refer to managerial decisions.

To her credit she did resist the initial barrage of political pressure for more subways. Repetitive mantras of the demand for subways forces the political response, not a rational stage in the evolution of public transit. In this, she isn't alone by any means, the present mayor candidates with no exceptions it appearvto be in the same subway car. They don't really know what an effective public transit is for. As a result, any politician falls back onto cliche concepts, since so much of their activity includes the effort to get re-elected.

Piling onto the rest of the transit problem is that technology evolves so fast. Quickly technology problems develop as the supposed solution disappears. This points to the premise that somehow the purpose of public transit gets lost in the shuffle of a myriad of decision making. Rarely do they have the time to sit back and examine the wide scope. If they sat back for the moment, giving themselves to the time to work out the plan, subways would be the last option, not the first. How does that work?

In the case of transit issues, finding the definitions of the transport mode comes first. An updating of the ideas with regard to public transit gets the priority. The plans for fixing the transit system are worn cliches. We need more buses. We need more LRT. We need more subways. We first need an understanding of public transit. Otherwise, with no understanding of public transit, few projects will work.

Who, what, where and how much? Good intentions,along with good money wind up with bad results. Indecision emerges in rampant abstract forms. Toronto politicians, along with their provincial counterparts flip and flop in every sense on major projects. Its a critical error. Common sense should prevail. Starting a construction project, then abruptly stopping it before its completed explodes the costs and delays a much needed solution.

Regardless of the interim phase of a project, reversing, changing, or stopping a project, always winds up costing far more hard cash money,than if the project was finished. Mothballing a project is preferred over finishing half a project and then stopping or worse canceling.Without a complete change in politicians thinking the whole political system falls into disrepute. Now to prevent this.

Hopefully these notes help people to understand the general philosophy of transportation in an urban environment. In Toronto, the transit system, the TTC is a mish mash of equipment leading to elevated maintenance and operational costs. A wide range of technology combined with the timing of their purchase means the vehicles don't interface well. The why of this costly Balkanization, supports the example of political indecision.

Pedal your ass

One of the most fascinating urban transportation vehicles is the bicycle. Examining its use helps to understand exactly what goal a public transit system must endeavour to achieve.Cyclists embrace bicycle use despite the fact that the design is poor, it leads to air pollution, it inflicts injuries on the user, it inflicts increased health costs on society, its unsafe to operate, it conflicts with other vehicles on the road, it encourages lawlessness, it exposes the user to the environment and its not very good in winter situations. Despite all that, the users embrace that vehicle passionately. Cyclists go nuts over bicycles despite the long list of facts against bicycle usage they go into spastic horror when people such as myself outline the downside. On the flip side, car drivers measure their automobile with the same identical vigorous passions. Together, the bicyclist, and motorists are poorest transport analysts on the planet without fail. Selfish bias imprisons their opinion.

The reason why cyclists adore the contraption is because it does one thing very, very, very, very, very well. Its huge outstanding advantage is that it allows the rider the satisfactory pleasure of moving cheaply, easily and flawlessly through the dense urban environment.

The passion expressed from the anthropological standpoint derives from the basic animal need for territory, the need to patrol it and the need to defend it. Hence the explosive nature of road rage in otherwise calm and caring individuals. The bicycle (and car) enable the person to patrol his/her own turf. The territorial impulse is the principle reason why bicyclists blindly clutch onto the bicycle as a transport mode. Its expressed as adoration for the machine, when much like the car, its an avatar for life's territorial and food gathering impulses.

The territorial need is the primary reason why the car dominates urban transportation. The huge majority and somewhat close to ninety percent of cars in the daily traffic rush and gridlock, carry a single person, while their vehicle carry two, four, or six people. It is a horrendous abuse of transport logic. Cars pollute. Cars are horrendously expensive and difficult to control. Car drivers cheat on the legal and safety boundaries very frequently. Cars control so much of one's daily experience. The control is financial. The control is the myriad of obligations to that mode.

Obligations include fueling, maintenance and paperwork. Again, like the bicycle people stick with the car over the logic of public transit because they keep that feeling of moving through the urban environment.

This is not a study specific to the dilemma of cycles and cars, but a study to make public transport to work better. The emotional illogical power of these single user machines must be understood. Although they appear in conflict, the use of cars and bicycles stem from the same transportation philosophy. They allow the user to move efficiently through the urban environment despite gridlock.

For the community, accommodating these single user modes mean allotting a huge percentage of the urbanscape to facilitate the use of these cars and bicycles. The size, direction, and huge chunks of that dedicated real estate lead to urban sprawl, urban pollution. At the psychological level such transport practices exacerbates personal alienation with respect to other people and the urban landscape.

Logically public transit should dominate the other vehicle modes in every way including land use. Public transit in every way should crush the car/bicycle mode. Theoretically, it is cheaper. In fact it is cheaper. Factually its safer. Factually,public transit is far more environmentally friendly than single occupancy vehicles. Yes bicycles causes equal pollution compared to the car. That costing of bicycles is a whole other essay. Careful complete costing of bicycles is never done because a thorough examination of any vehicle type usually points to the fact that user always dramatically undervalues the actual costs. Regardless, the passion that the car/bicycle possess, forces the use of public transit into a distant third place.

On the car/bicycle a person travels through the environment with open options. Conversely the modern bus/ street car/light rail transit/ subway tend to isolate the user from the environment. Public transit vehicles lose the one on one intimacy with the environment. Failing to understand transport modes and their use developers have confused public and mass transit concepts to the detriment of both, and to the detriment of the environment. Public transit vehicles are poorly designed simply for the reason that those responsible don't use public transit and don't understand public transit.

An aside here. To appreciate the importance of a human need to move through the urban environment it explains the popularity of the street car as a public transit vehicle. Rail riding vehicles are notoriously expensive and difficult to operate. However, those cities that retain them because the city residents, the transit riders demand their continued use. Energy and operational costs are low but the vehicles present operational inflexibility, expensive maintenance, high cost parts, rail maintenance. Its a technology that exceeds the bicycle in its antiquity since it is directly descends from the cable car, and horse drawn and rail carriages. On the good side, streetcars are far better for the environment than cars or bicycles. They are better than buses for the riders from the standpoint that they glide through the urban environment.


Public versus the Mass

Mass transit and public transit are quite different concepts from one another but transit owners, management and operators treat them as the identical thing. The reason for this confusion is the fact that both concepts use the same vehicles, the same ancillary equipment, and the same maintenance regimes. Its the same equipment for different uses.

Mass transit is that transit which circumvents much of the surface urban matrix. For instance, the jet airliner can be considered the penultimate mass transit device. Rail and subwayurban express systems are similar. They employ tunnels, under thecity, or railway right of ways to express through the city withoutinteracting with the urban turmoil. Mass transit systems work bestwith long distances between stops and focus on moving suburbanites from the burbs to their downtown offices or from city to city.

Buses, and street cars are examples of the public transit where these pieces of transport equipment moves through the urban environment. Public transit doesn't avoid urban infrastructure, it is part of the urban environment. It allows the rider the choice of getting on and off close to their chosen urban destination and in between. It allows passengers to observe the changes in the city. It allows the rider to witness individual businesses or local events.

The mainstay of public transit are buses. These things are ordered, designed and bought to mass transit specifications. The designs suited to public transportation are ignored. For that reason, Toronto buses are more like cattle carriers rather than people carriers. Paradoxically, in terms of operations,there is never enough buses.

Streetcars remain the most popular public transit vehicles where the infrastructure exists. Despite their desperate inflexibility regarding timeliness and overall performance is the worst of all when riding on a streetcar with no one standing and everyone seated is very competitive with the bicycle and car. Riding on them in the quiet of the electric motors a rider feels that they are riding through the environment. Street cars possess a more relaxing and laid back ambiance which people to take to in a favorable light. Toronto politicians tried to remove streetcars from the system but whenever that idea is floated there is a distinct vehemence of opposition by the vast majority of very people who use it.

Significantly, within our definition, streetcarsare not considered mass transit vehicles. Its probably the only vehicle specifically employed by and a part of the urban infrastructure.

At this point we need an outline of the two basic concepts of urban transit.

1. Mass transit avoids or circumvents the urban environment to move people to points or destinations within that urban area. Mass transit stations or interfaces are usually distant, beyond comfortable walking distance between those stations or stops.

2. Public transit is the movement of large numbers of people through the urban environment. Stations or stops are comparatively close together and always without exception within easy walking distance to the next station or stop in either direction.Often it is the most difficult method to operate since the greaterthe density of people and structure make it very difficult to sustain timed schedules.


Subways

Subways present that mode which is both a public transit concept and a demonstrative example of a mass transit concept. Fortunately the TTC subways enter both categories although in different stretches of the lines. Recall the criteria for public transit as being a part of the urban matrix. The need a Dense urban infrastructure preferably commercial/zones. The subway needs Short distances between stations. The stations are spaced within easy walking distances.

At this point, its important to introduce economic geography as a major factor. This is why one must avoid having politicians put their noses too deeply in the public transit systems. Too often they will back a subway or LRT system which goes along railway rights of way or through a string of publicly owned green spaces. On paper, it means that the land acquisition costs are cheaper. Yes that is true, but it does nothing to solve the public transit problem at all. It might solve a mass transit problem from the far suburbs on the outer reaches of the city, and it doesn't come close in solving that.

An example of the public transit model is the subway structure from Eglinton Station to Spadina Station on the Yonge – University(Mandela?) line of the TTC. A person can walk along the route and find that it is densely lined with retail/commercial/office buildings. The builders of the early subway understood that a subway built for public transit must mesh with the surface infrastructure.

Subways are intensely expensive infrastructure just by the nature and placement of it. This form of transport requires equally gigantic revenue to sustain the capitalization, the construction and initial operational phase to cover the cost of debt and bonds. The capital and the operational costs in the public model are supported by property taxation and short distance fares along its route or right of way. Conditionally, subways remain revenue neutral when the annual value of taxes collected along the right of way plus the portion of fare allocated to that section of right of way fully cover those costs.

The principle reason this section of subway infrastructure falls within the public transit concept is that a senior citizen can exit a station, walk along the street's surface in one direction with ease and then re-enters the subway system at the next station. The spacing of the stops approximates the spacing of a surface bus/streetcar stop. The subway system along this part of itsright of way is essentially a part of the surface infrastructure. It augments the surface structures and business. In that sense it is a public transit because it allows the rider access through the city and easy access to all parts of the city structure.

North of Eglinton Station on the Yonge Street subway line, the distance to the next station, the Lawrence station is considerably larger. The average senior citizen would find it an uncomfortable but not impossible walking distance. The subway route does not interface with the surface structure and has little or no effect on the surface. A shopper or senior carrying bags would find it an uncomfortable walking distance. Compared with the shorter distance stops of the older line there is the prevalence of discomfort for city users if the riders try to use it to access the surface commercial/office/retail. So the subway route north of falls outside the concept criteria of public transit because it circumvents the surface.

The right of way then continues from Lawrence, to York Mills and then to Sheppard Ave. Between these stations, there is long distances again. In our definition the essential purpose of the subway changes. Functionally; the subway no longer interfaces easily with the surface. The subway moves people from point to point. It becomes Mass transit.

Noticeably the surface structure changes. The quality and concentration of retail/commercial/office structures diminishes the further the distance from the exit of the subway door. Not surprisingly there seems to be a correlation between the distance of the walk from the station door and the concentration of commercial/office buildings. Generally speaking the mid distance between the stations are gaps where apartments and residences or small one or two story commercial structures exist.

In that mid zone between these mass transit stations the retail value of the surface lands and the reflective property tax revenue doesn't generate enough revenue to cover the costs of the capitalization and the presence of the subway. The subway circumvents surface structure especially at the mid-zone. In other words the presence of the subway holds no benefit for the surface structure and the lower property tax (plus fare revenue) does not substantially contribute to capital and operational costs. Only the surface structure immediately adjacent to those stations benefit from the presence of the subway.

This remained true for the street level businesses between Sheppard and Finch when the Metropolitan Toronto government consisted of quasi independent city states. North York City Hall was placed exactly midway between the two stations. Mel Lastman and the North York City Council lobbied furiously and successfully for the construction of a station at the North York City Hall complex. The TTC finally relented and constructed a station at that point.

Explosion of commercial development ensued. What the spotting of this station did, was enabling pedestrians to have ready access to the subway system within a comfortable walking distances between Finch, North York and Sheppard. The station served a major commercial/retail/office structure not formerly easily accessible by pedestrians. Remarkably within a decade of the construction of that station, growth of commercial/office/retail space between Finch and Sheppard spurted. That section of the subway, was changed from a mass transit role to a public transit role. Tragically, while a fantastic addition to that part of right of way, it also led to the delusion of subway operations on the behalf of politicians.

Politicians of North York mistook the implications that right of way. They insisted that the best place for the next east-west subway route was along Sheppard. They looked at the subway route but mistook the data they were looking at. The growth along their part of the Yonge line was spurred by making the subway functional for pedestrian access and use. The spacing of the subway stations are too far apart on that subway for stimulating surface commercial growth.

The Sheppard – Don Mills line should be a model for not how to build a subway. Huge grandiose expensive stations were built and built too far apart. The subway route flunked and still flops as a costly embarrassment to all things subway. Smaller stations and a greater number of stations within walking distance of one another would have been a far better use of taxpayer moneys. A station is sorely needed at Willowdale Road.

The presence of the subway caused a reduction of the frequency of buses along the Shepard public transit corridor. This causes a reduction in the number of customers and users of retail because people using the subways are mass transit users not public transit users. The route moves the same number of people but surface business gains nothing from the presence of the subway as it did from the presence of frequent buses. Further the presence of the subway routes, did nothing to reduce traffic gridlock. If anything it may have cause more gridlock.

So here comes the significant lesson in the design and structure of public transit. The purpose of a public transit is not to reduce traffic gridlock. Public transit facilitates the movement of pedestrians.


Gridlock

Paradoxically, subways do reduce surface gridlock when its used to enhance pedestrian activity along the right of way. Mass transit doesn't. Again, mass transit may actually increase gridlock along the route. Mass transit encourages concentrated housing development such as townhouses and condominiums. This adds to the numbers of vehicles not reduces the number. For instance the Warden and Kennedy stations do not influence the land around them. And this is the third lesson of Mass versus Public transit.

In the study of the Shepard line, the spacing of the stations did stimulate growth in the form of housing projects that build townhouses, condos, and townhouses near and along the right of way. The subway only interfaces when spouses or students wish to travel. Usually there is one car per housing unit in this area. So the subway allows the driver to drop and pick up the other family members.

This is very similar to what happened at Warden Station on the Danforth line. When it first was built there was a vibrant shopping centre called Warden Woods. Its no more. In the terms of street location and location it wasn't placed very well. Even the construction of the subway station did nothing to rescue the mall. The proximity of a subway isn't the golden goose that politicians claim it is.

The same goes for the Kennedy station. Its placement doesn't assist nor does it impair the neighborhood businesses whatsoever. Indeed at the point of this writing, the nearest commercial property contains an abandoned coffee shop. Its been abandoned for a few years without a buyer. There are some businesses that are across from the station and the ownership has changed but the nature of the commercial use of that property hasn't changed since the end of line subway station was located there. This totally contradicts the theories that make it to the policies embraced by politicians who rarely use subways, by politicians who don't understand subways.

The absolute best route for a subway route beyond Main Station on the Danforth subway line would have turned the subway route east and north from Main Station onto Victoria Park and up Victoria Park then east onto Eglinton Avenue East with small and frequent stops to Kingston Road. There could be a link or fork along Eglinton East to Yonge and into Eglinton West out to Keele. Again the route would have more frequent and much smaller stations about the total size of the King Station downtown.

Why that route? First it has the best commercial potential. The present Warden Station and the present Kennedy Stations are mass transit terminals not public transit terminals. As public transit points, considering their cost its a total waste of money. Any effective new transit plan would construct a subway along the Victoria Park route, then branch out along Eglinton Avenue East. Once that is done, close Warden and perhaps Kennedy Stations.
The two stations provide an obvious case where the political influence on the TTC commission thwarted any common sense because the freckles of economic geography are patently absent. While it is one city, the City of Toronto, the two parts of this city formed along two completely different urban plans. They were at onetime two different smaller cities evolving with two completely different sets of politicians.

The original urban structure and planning of Toronto proper evolved around the horse and buggy with the Port of Toronto as its urban focus. The Borough of Scarborough evolved later and the urban plan evolved around the needs of the automobile. The latter has a distributed urban plan centred around the locations of housing projects. As a result the urban structure of Toronto needs a different subway routing strategy than Scarborough.
Toronto subways with the exception of the University line above Dupont Station can pay for itself. It would not be a bad investment to plunk a full subway along Queen St from Roncesvalle to the Beaches literally mimicking underground what the surface street car route is doing. Its an example of a part of the Toronto infrastructure just crying for a subway route again with frequent stops and small compact subway stations.

Why the Queen Street subway route was never constructed is beyond belief. It provides a clear example of too much politics impairing the transit commission. The original parts of the subway on the Yonge University lines and the Bloor-Danforth line didn't get the same level of political interference because the politicians in Toronto didn't really understand the impact of political influence that the public perception of subway construction involved. So the planners made all the right choices despite political fingers.

The demand needs of the automobile wasn't as great an influence during early subway projects compared with the monster it later became. The needs of the pedestrian outweighed the needs of the car in Toronto. In Scarborough, its a different city with regard to structure and planning. Its planning and construction totally involved and revolved around the automobile and auto owners. The planning evolution was and still is nodular.

In the most recent transit planning the proposals are totally politically driven. The most profound misunderstanding of just what public transit is emerges. There is a mistaken belief that traffic gridlock can be reduced by the presence of mass transit. The auto traffic gridlock along the GO transit lines in Ontario are just as heavy as before the advent of those methods of Mass transit. It is similar to the traffic gridlock out of PickerJax is just as heavy as it ever was.

The presence of the Kennedy and Warden Stations do nothing to reduce the traffic gridlock. The University line along the Allen Expressway did nothing to reduce the traffic knot above Lawrence Station. Where do the politicians get the idea that subways will solve surface traffic gridlock?

The answer is easy. People who do use subways are under the impression that they are faster. They are. Yet if you travel on the surface vehicles closely paralleling the subway route you will find that the time advantage isn't all that great. The determining factor on the TTC is the number of transfers. If you actually use the public transit one will quickly realizes that when you transfer vehicles it is reasonable to add time. Many transit users only count the time when actually on the vehicle. When planning any transit trip, add ten minutes at every transfer point including the first and the last stop. People just usually don't do that consciously.

The original transit improvements conceived during the Miller period were much better and cheaper than the use of subways along the proposed routes. The LRTs were just dedicated streetcars. Since it runs along the surface people use the mode during the off peak and peak hours. LRTs allow passengers to see for themselves the features of the passing cityscape. Riders witness the changes of the commercial, retail and office structures. The nature of the LRTs allows for more frequent stops if needed. If the LRT adhered to the walking distance rule then the LRT route would is far more revenue neutral than the present subway proposals put forward during the most recent municipal election.

The Scarborough subways projects in the configuration proposed would be costly to build and exceptionally costly to operate.


Summary
Here's the list:

1. Subways do not guarantee commercial stimulation. If the stations are too far apart it could actually impair the development of commercial/retail/office. If the stimulation is solely apartments, townhouses and condominiums then gridlock increases not decreases.
2. The route of a subway must carefully be charted. The prevalence and the concentration of commercial/office/retail is charted. Design and build the subway to enhance the pedestrian experience. When that is done solving the pedestrian will in turn solve the traffic gridlock problem.
   
   
3. Unlike a mass transit, a public transit subway interfaces with the surface infrastructure. While the use of Mass transit never seems to pay for itself along its designed route. Public transit, properly designed can generate enough revenue through commercial improvements that in turn generates increased property tax revenues that along with revenue on that right of way balances the capitalization and operational costs.
   
   
4. Neither Mass Transit nor Public Transit enhances or lessens traffic gridlock directly. Indeed in some cases the presence of Mass Transit might actually increase gridlock. Mass transit potentially is more of an effective environmental impact although that is speculative only if the ratio of the single passenger vehicles is diminished in some manner. As long as single passenger motorized vehicles (aka cars) are affordable, the environment will take a severe hit on the bad side of the ledger. The benefits of Mass transit then is more than questionable.

This comes to a conclusion of these notes as regard to the two major factors of public and mass transit. In the next section the subject refers to the Toronto Transit Commission specifically.


Part 2

The Evolution of Public Transit

Having established the definitions of Public Transit, how does it grow? Right off, one must understand the urban structure, the plan. The design dictates the nature and type of public transit. The plans of Etobicoke is different than Scarborough and in turn, each is different than the urban plan of Toronto. Each plan demands a different public transport vehicle and growth strategy.

Nodular plans are the most difficult. Subways impair the urban evolution of nodular cities. Its because the tendency for planners to employ the mass transit approach. Toronto needs subways because successful commercial properties are very dense and tax revenues cover capitalization and operating costs.
 
The order of the evolution of public transportation is Bus, LRT and then Subway. The evolution of public transit moves in lock step with the evolution of the urban landscape.The denser the infrastructure, the needs for the vehicle typeschange.


Fares


Understanding the difference between PublicTransit and Mass Transit also plays a significant role in setting fares. The development of a charge card type fare system such as Presto will enable differentiating fares along a given subway route. Those sections of Public Transit must apply a standard Public Transit fare applicable to the whole system. But those users wanting to use the Subway system that has both Mass Transit and PublicTransit zones should pay more.

The reason is this. In the Public Transit sections since the Subway interfaces with the surface urban matrix the increased value of commercial and property taxes assist in keeping the fare revenue down since the value of the surface properties do increase with the presence of that mode. In the case of the Mass Transit zones, a supplementary fare charge must be applied to the capitalization and operational costs of that part of the transit system. The operation of the Mass Transit section doesn't impact the surface or the adjacent right of way, therefore the fares on that part of the right of way must be greater to reflect the loss in revenue from not having that urban relationship.

Why apply the surcharge fare? Not only does the Mass transit lack any right of way revenue. Therefore the whole urban government must pay for that section of transit from general revenue.With the cash fare system that costs are unjustly averaged over the whole system. With the new Presto/card system those people moving through Mass Transit zones will pay the base rate when they swipe or tap the entry fee at the turnstyles. But then a formula will apply to that entry point where the user entering the Mass Transit station, which must be stopped upon the user exiting the system or a time surplus penalty will apply at the next tap in.

A Victoria Station user doesn't need to swipe out unless the direction of the route is towards Kennedy Station where the user taps or swipes exiting. The sections of Warden – Kennedy, Warden-Victoria Park sections should be covered by an extra surcharge of let us say $0.50. So all users of that part of the subway should pay just a marginal amount more to offset the lack of property tax revenue applied against fares on the right of way. So using today's fare structure. Victoria Park downtown is $3.00. The amount for the user coming from Kennedy would pay a dollar more. This couldn't technically couldn't be done before this decade without much difficulty. Today's technical advantages a more complex fare structure that appears seamless to the user.


Gord Campbell
05/Oct/2014

Billy Bishop Resistance is Futile

The discussion is totally going in the wrong direction. Porter is absolutely lying about the length of the runway extension. It will be at least double the numbers given to the council.

The numbers cannot be real. The numbers listed for the CS100 are numbers not based on any Transport Canada certifications. They are estimates on computations provided by Bombardier.

If you look at the proposed numbers listed in Wikipedia the plane can make it to almost any point in Canada. I used to work for this guy when his family owned Austin. This is a MAX, MAX, MAX kind a guy. Max fuel, Max take off weight, Max Passengers.

Transport Canada will only approve a take off roll listed plus one thousand. And its crazy not to have a runway longer than the takeoff roll. Under the present proposal (not the final one), the runway length is 5000ft.In Wikipedia, Bombardier evidently created some numbers specific to YTZ.

It looks good and the plane could, based on numbers not certified by Transport Canada on an airport extension design itself not certified by Transport Canada. Under these specs based on a 5000ft runway, there is no way that this plane can make Vancouver. Considering that the jetstream usually moves west to east, there are days when the plane will be lucky to make Calgary. All Bombardier did was provide specs with a lower takeoff weight, and that means only filling the wings with half the maximum fuel to satisfy the gullible councillors, stupid investors, and pollyanna customers.

What Porter wants is to get the proposal for Jets rammed though approved. Porter already knows that for them to make the West Coast nonstop they will have to have at least a 6000ft runway. Anyone even the most amateur of pilots know this but none will speak up because they are either in awe or totally frightened of the Porter Owner.

If Porter came with a complete vetted and certified plan then okay. But that is impossible since the CS100 hasn't gone through final certification from Transport Canada. Porter will start building the extension then I guarantee that magically Transport Canada will come to Council that the runway must be 6000ft.

So okay. Anyone can see this train coming out of the tunnel. But approving the runway extension means that the Hanlon Point Ferry docs will be rendered unusable. Even now the ferries come within 150ft of the restricted zone for water craft off the end of runway 24. Extend that runway means that the Hanlon ferry the Onaigara that carries bicycles and vehicles in summer must make one perhaps three course and speed adjustments.

If another 500ft is added to the length of 24 that extra 200M is significant. You see its a major change. The present small craft exclusion zone may likely be extended itself. YTZ is a grandfathered airport. Its approaches and departure angles are using old criteria. Adding to the runway length means that Transport Canada will change everything to bring the approaches up to modern standards. So the approaching jets will fly lower on approach and take off, making more noise for a longer period than what Porter is telling council.

The final 6000ft 24 runway will be made wider because most days its a crosswind runway. And jets come in a lot faster than the Bombardier turboprops. New certifications will be introduced.

What it means is that the Hanlon's point ferry docks will most likely become unusable from a cost standpoint. Ferries are  square boxes and the more maneuvers means the travel time will be longer. A six thousand foot runway may even impact the Centre Island ferry routes. The Onagaira time and travel costs will certainly balloon forcing Toronto ferries to use only two ferry docks and put demands on the Centre dock in the summer.

The only people who will benefit from all this, are the rich investors with shares in Porter. And if you don't believe me, jets or not jets isn't the issue. Airport extensions aren't the issue. The issue is that the use of the Toronto Islands themselves by all of Toronto residents, not just the jet setters, will be severely impacted far beyond what Porter is telling everyone. The issue should be the impact on a valuable recreational resource for all the citizens.

Appendix Oct/2014

1. According to another  airport watchdog, the landings and approaches for the existing runway will mean that in all likelihood that tall ships, such as the Empire Sandy will no longer be permitted in the inner Toronto Harbor. Sailing ships have masts. They stick way up. Into the standard glide slope of jets. Indeed the Royal Canadian Yacht club and other marinas may have to close its doors to sailing vessels. That presents a quandary. Yes the rich boys can get to Calgary five minutes faster, but your sailing yachts, they're out of here. Definitely the Western Gap of the Harbour will be rendered unusable for most sailing ships yachts.

2. Since the writing of this note, Metrolinx is constructing a dedicated rapid rail link between Downtown and Pearson. This makes any costly expansion to jets on CYTZ a very questionable effort.

3. Regardless of what people think. The impact of a runway improvement on the Toronto Harbour is far greater than Porter is willing to admit. I am not against Billy Bishop being used or continue to being used for high performance turbo props. People fail to understand this is not an issue against progress. It must be discussed before the election. After is too late.

This harbour is everyone's playground. None of the present numbers presented by Porter/Bombardier really jive. Deluce is on record of assuring his own clients that he wants Porter flights to Vancouver nonstop. At 5000', the distance Deluce proposes, with the numbers presented to Council from Bombardier with performance stats of a plane that at that point, hasn't completed full flight testing. Under those stats. The plane cannot reach Vancouver without a safety refuel in YYC (Calgary). The numbers are there. Deluce proposes five thou, needs six, and Transport Canada for that type of craft will want 6'000. They will force, arm twist Toronto City council for that little bit more. Is why Deluce wanted the city to start the runway fill to go in now. Once that fill goes in. Its too late.

Toronto City Council should make no decision on this until a Transport Canada signed and approved design for a CYTZ expansion. Toronto City Council should also base their decision on performance statistics after Transport Canada approves those performance numbers based on aircraft certification after a full cycle of flight testing. If that aircraft can make YVR on 3/4 fuel with a 1/2hour fuel supply with the load taking off from a 5000 runway. Then its okay to consider that.

What is most disturbing is that no mayoral candidate or council candidate seems to have tackled with the issue before the Municipal Elections. After the Municipal elections, its too late. Candidates should declare themselves now.

The Ghomesi files

Note that at the moment Ghomeshi is taking the CBC to court. And is not going after the Star, which would mean that these statements could be legally entered on the record and the identity of the women kept out of the public record. If the statements were really false, the first legal target would definitely be the Star.
... By going after the CBC, these women's identities would not be protected if they made any sworn statements. The issue is not the allegations of abuse. The issue with the CBC contract is dismissal due to moral turpitude. Intimidation of victims is the hammer of the serial sexual abuser. It isn't just a question of sex, often the abuser craves the power of control. Fear of being identified, the emotional wears on a submissive victim a lot more strongly than that of a dominant personality. Dominants are not afraid to use their fame. At the moment, the CBC must justify the use of the turpitude clause of employment. Given the world is on Ghomeshi's side at the moment, it seems unfair for everyone involved.
... While role playing isn't wrongful, immoral, in itself the problem with the role play of BDSM is fertile ground for the serial sexual abuser. The people under control are likely to be more passive and submissive than the average person. They submit to control very easily and the predatory abuser knows that. People with social status possess immeasurable power. Its something called reputation. And reputation for those that have it, is a tool of control.
... Ghomeshi is in a precarious situation. He could've escaped under the camouflage of personal issues. And re-emerged with another great job elsewhere.That's the Catholic Church strategy. Instead he decided to use the Conrad Black strategy of direct confrontation. Its a terrible situation for an innocent person to be in. There is no strategy that really works.
... Blaming the unnamed aggrieved lover is for every sense of the word, lame. Angry ex-lovers tend to be anything but anonymous. Even the docile submissive ones kick the garbage can.





--------------------------------


Well that's at the moment. The problem with the Star's material is that it would be a matter of truth. In the CBC's case, the issue is moral turpitude. The Star material proves something far more serious than a whacko sex life. It may very well prove serial assault/abuse. Indeed if Ghomeshi pressed the Star it might trigger the victims to pursue a path of criminal prosecution. If I were the Crown Attorney I would be furiously trying to gather that information to
... By going after the CBC exclusively in a civil matter, probably means that the plaintiff, can exclude introduction of the Star evidence since it isn't relevant to the vengeful ex lover . Whereas it is very likely if he and his advisers went after the Star since the action would include criminality all the CBC material can be introduced.
... Also the Star can protect its witnesses identity. Its the disclosure of the victim's identity that provides the greatest protection for Ghomeshi. Its the hammer for silence. A judge in the Star defence would protect the identities of the victims. And not likely the same protection for any CBC witnesses since it is a case of reputation not criminality.
... The present challenge for the CBC lawyers is to make sure that the Star material is part of its case.

Dolly. Its simple. The people in the burbs feel alienated. The TTC has entered a phase of operational disaster. Anyone who has been riding the subway east of Vic Park in off peak hours gets the thrill of being on a virtually empty machine.
... Subways really aren't needed in Scarborough. Its city plan isn't conducive to having any subways. It is a place that needs better bus service, better bus scheduling and better timing. Desperate politicians want subways because they can get votes. Toronto residents have been sold a bill of goods.
... People honestly believe that more subways are the answer because it eliminates it. People refuse to understand one outstanding fact that there isn't a subway or LRT system in the world that solves the traffic gridlock.
... Some candidates were citing all these cities as examples of good subway systems. That part is true. But if one actually researches the story, every one of those cities suffer from traffic gridlock. And one of Ford's favorite example, that of Madrid, well if you google the words 'Madrid traffic density' you will find that the focus of Madrid is to improve the surface infrastructure, nothing about expanding the subway system.
... London has probably the best underground system in the world, but still suffers from traffic gridlock. The only way the city alleviated the car crush was to restrict the numbers of cars in their city core.
... Etobicoke residents and many of the Scarborough residents who have cars want subways because they actually think that other drivers will start using newly built subways versus driving a car leaving open surface roads. The problem is that every other driver thinks exactly the same thing. It means Billions of tax money spent on little reward.
... Tory Mayor Tory wants Smart Track. Under his thesis the QE and Gardiner should be traffic free due to the presence of the Lakeshore Go Train. Message to Tory.

A threat to Canada???? Whow that's like over the top a bit. Its definitely a threat to the company called Tim Horton's. It should be pointed out that this is the "market" in action. Now companies are like people. They are born. They die.

Yes the company will lose workers and office staff. This isn't the first time a bunch of callous butted pansy investors take the money and run abandoning the people that created their wealth by their sweat and toil. Its all the fault of the unions. Everyone knows that.


......

Jian Ghomeshi created ‘environment of tyranny’

For a 27-year-old journalism-school graduate, it was the perfect job, helping build and produce a brand-new, national show on CBC Radio with Jian Ghomeshi, a reportedly “demanding,” but respected host.

So when the young producer heard lurid stories back in 2007 about Mr. Ghomeshi’s private life — including accounts even then of his hitting and choking dates — she wrote it off as merely kinky behaviour and pushed ahead.

The woman did assist in the birth of one of the network’s most popular and acclaimed programs but, she recounted in a lengthy interview Thursday, the next three years on Q were hellish.

It was marked by alternating charm, emotional “cruelty” and sexual harassment from Mr. Ghomeshi — and a shrug of the shoulders from her manager when she complained about the host’s behaviour, charged the ex-producer.

“We were always on pins and needles, and we were always scared,” she said. “Jian had created this environment of tyranny, no one was standing up to him, everyone enabled his behaviour.”
Related

    Christie Blatchford on Jian Ghomeshi: Proving someone’s guilt is bloody difficult, and so it should be
    Jian Ghomeshi allegations leads Police Chief Bill Blair to encourage sexual assault victims to come forward
    Robyn Urback: The dam breaks on Jian Ghomeshi

When in 2010 she revealed to the show’s executive producer that the host had said he wanted to “hate f—” her, and had groped her buttocks, the manager suggested there was no point confronting Mr. Ghomeshi about his actions, the woman said.

“[The executive producer's] comment to me was …’He’s never going to change, you’re a malleable person, let’s talk about how you can make this a less toxic work environment for you,” the woman recalled. “No one was going to talk to Jian, he was too big. The show was a f—-ing juggernaut at that point. His face and name were inextricably linked with the brand of Q.”

The woman, now 35, also said she observed some unusual dating strategies by Mr. Ghomeshi. He would search for messages about him posted on Twitter or Facebook by women who appeared attractive, then contacted them directly, she said.

“He did this every single night,” the former producer said. “He was soliciting non stop. It was his playground.”

Like many of the women who have come out this week with allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Ghomeshi, the ex-CBC employee said she was not willing to have her name published, fearful of backlash on social media, and from the Q star himself.

Neither Mr. Ghomeshi’s lawyer nor his publicist responded to requests for comment Thursday on the producer’s allegations.

    We were always on pins and needles, and we were always scared. Jian had created this environment of tyranny, no one was standing up to him, everyone enabled his behaviour

The show’s executive producer also did not respond to questions about his meeting with her.

None of the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi have been proven in court and he has not been charged with any crime.

Mr. Ghomeshi was fired by the CBC on Sunday, the public broadcaster saying only that it had received information that made it impossible to continue employing him.

The Q host responded hours later with a lengthy statement on Facebook, revealing that he engaged in “rough sex,” but did so only with consenting partners. He said a jilted ex-girlfriend was behind an attempt to publicly accuse him of sexual abuse, and that the CBC dismissed him because it feared negative publicity around his private life.

Since then, eight women — only one of them revealing her identity — have spoken out through stories in the Toronto Star, saying that Mr. Ghomeshi had punched, slapped or choked them, without their consent. The Star also quoted the ex-Q producer about her workplace sexual harassment charges.

On Thursday, a ninth woman’s story appeared on the Huffington Post Canada website. Reva Seth, a lawyer, said she met Mr. Ghomeshi at a supermarket in 2002 and that one night at his home, they began kissing and he became “super angry,” wrapped his hand around her throat, pulled down her pants and “violently” penetrated her with his fingers.

Ms. Seth said she left immediately, but never went to the police, wanting only to continue with her life free of him.

At work, the former Q employee said the host would usher her into his office and talk about personal matters, leading her to think she was a friend and not just his colleague. But he would also play her off against another young, female producer, she said, treating one nicely and the other very unkindly one week, switching roles the next.

She said she and the other employee would take turns crying in the privacy of a nearby disabled washroom.

Then during a script “read-through” meeting when she kept yawning, Mr. Ghomeshi said quietly, “I want to hate f— you to wake you up.” Later he talked of wanting to “grudge f—” her.

Two years later in 2009, he reached out and groped her bottom as she passed his desk, saying “I couldn’t help myself.”

The woman said she put up with the unpleasant work environment for almost three years because she did not want to undermine her first real job, which happened to be on one of the network’s most successful shows.

When she finally did complain to a union rep, he said she could file a formal grievance, take part in mediation with Mr. Ghomeshi or meet more discreetly with the executive producer. Fearful that a grievance or face-to-face confrontation would torpedo her fledgling career, she chose the third option, she said.

Regardless, the ex-producer said she eventually decided to take a leave of absence and try to kick-start new career in the U.S.

National Post
10/31


..................

Earlier this week, the CBC announced that it was letting go of popular longtime Q host Jian Ghomeshi in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct from a growing number of women. The CBC's decision—and Ghomeshi's own written response, crafted with the help of powerhouse crisis PR firm Navigator that insists all allegations boil down to "extreme" but ultimately consensual kink and a jilted ex—has led to many necessary conversations about consent and BDSM, sexual predation, rape culture, and the law.

It's also, of course, brought up questions around why said crimes would have gone unreported; a legion of Ghomeshi's fans are casting doubt on the claims for largely this reason. Never mind that, statistically, the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults go unreported. Doubt begets doubt.

Which leads me to suggest we talk about the media industry. Let's talk about closed circuits and small ponds.

But first, let's talk about Canada.

It's important to consider the size of Canada and its correspondingly itty-bitty media industry. It means when there are open secrets, many more of us as a whole are complicit in harbouring them.
Canada is not big. It's so decidedly not-big, in fact, that if you meet someone on holiday who asks you, “Oh hey, do you know my friend so-and-so?” when they find out where you live, there's a better than joke-level chance that you have a Facebook friend or two in common. (The last time one of my American high school pals asked a Canadian if he happened to know me, while the two bumped along Washington state in a Craigslist-facilitated rideshare, the other guy turned out to be my Toronto roommate.) Even Toronto gets dubbed Smallronto, a village that just happens to contain almost three million people, where it's hard to feel legitimately anonymous if you hang around long enough. I know a full handful of people who've skipped town completely to avoid running into their exes.

It's important to consider the size of Canada and its correspondingly itty-bitty media industry, of which I—like Mr. Ghomeshi and several of his accusers—happen to be a part. It means when there are open secrets, many more of us as a whole are complicit in harbouring them.

Nobody has expressed this better than Winnipeg Free Press reporter Melissa Martin, who wrote in her personal blog about the trail of cautioned whispers left in Ghomeshi's wake since he entered public life in the '90s. “Do You Know About Jian?” people would ask. Martin admits that, yes, she did.

I “knew about Jian” too, though not to the sordid and gruesome extent that I do now. What I did know was that he was another one of Those Guys who felt entitled to cross boundaries with young women because, frankly, nobody cared to stop him. I wasn't surprised that two of the women to come forward with allegations of harassment against Jian were fellow CBC employees; I'd heard the stories about awkward elevator rides with him in the broadcaster's headquarters and encounters at professional events.

But I also, like so many others, knew and know about Casual Neck Kisser and Intern Chaser and my young female friends in media who keep running checklists of all the older men in positions of professional power to avoid at cocktail parties. I've watched myself age out of one perennial creep's chase list as other, younger, yet-unwarned industry newbies took my place. And I've watched my friends' running checklists—and my own—grow.

The industry is a village, with all its gossip and friendship and open secrets. And while it doesn't take a village to raise a predator, it will to stop one.
It's striking to me that, any time I've visited a journalism school classroom in the past five years, the room has been dominated by young women. Women, I'm convinced, are the future of the industry. You'd never guess it looking at the male names at the top of a majority of print mastheads, or the leading editorial positions for major national outlets that continue to be given to (often unexpected) male candidates instead of the women who would be equally well-suited—and, in some specific cases, much better—to the task. The old boys' club might now be a middle-aged boys' club, but damned if we women are ever going to be given our share of seats at the table (even as the “table” comes to resemble something more like a row of milk crates half-assedly set on the floor).

Sexism and rape culture, of course, exist outside of the media industry. Sexual assault is messy and difficult to prove, fraught with shame on the part of its victims. Ghomeshi's (to paraphrase Navigator's very well-crafted statement) “bitches be crazy” defence is a stance being widely echoed by his supporters. It's no wonder these crimes seldom go reported; as Martin also states in her blog post, I probably wouldn't go through the trouble either.

But, while rape culture exists outside of closed loops and small ponds, there's a greater incentive to keep quiet and play nice where professional decorum and a small community coexist. The industry is a village, with all its gossip and friendship and open secrets. And while it doesn't take a village to raise a predator, it will to stop one.

Kelli Korducki

Chart Attack
10/31

........................


Yesterday I went into the CBC building and for the first time in the six years that I've been back in Canada, I didn't feel the pang of stress at the thought of running into Jian. Or see the giant image of his smiling face looming above me.

I debated all week whether or not to write this for all the same reasons that most women don't publicly or even privately share similar experiences: judgment, online trolls, the questioning of all your other choices, the accusation that it wasn't that bad, that it was so long ago, and the fact that I don't have the time and ultimately, is there any value in adding my voice or story in a public domain?

The reason I ultimately decided to share this is two-fold: The first is that it shows a pattern that has certainly escalated since I knew him.

Additionally, I feel that while it is exceedingly difficult to publicly put your name forward and open yourself up to all of the accompanying criticism, if you are in the position that you can do so without fearing the ramifications in terms of your family, marriage, personal or professional trauma, then you should do it. Having this conversation can help build a public understanding of the complexity around these issues.

I've been married for 11 years to an incredible man. We have three kids, and I know that I am very lucky to be at that place where this feels possible.

I also decided not to write about this experience abstractly, as I had initially planned. I care deeply about my three boys, who are two, five and eight, and making them understand when they are older that a woman shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of something a man does to her without her consent. I want them to understand that every woman they meet is someone's daughter, mother or sister and they need to remember that. Always.

I first met Jian in the late spring of 2002. I was 26 and after two years with the firm, was just leaving a job as a Bay Street lawyer (ironically at what is now Dentons, the firm Jian has retained for his case). I was about to start a job at Toronto City Hall as well as a Masters in Trade and Competition Law at Osgoode. I share this because one of the themes that his supporters seem to suggest is that the women now accusing him all wanted something professionally from him at the time or were somehow star-struck by him.

Not so with me.

When we met, Jian was hosting a show on CBC called "Play" that I'd never heard of before. I wasn't overly into the music or arts scene and had been too young for the Canadian heyday of his band, Moxy Fruvous. My world at the time was far more about law and politics. The men I tended to date were also engaged on those fronts.

I met Jian at the old Loblaws on the Danforth on a weekend afternoon. We started talking in the water aisle. He was very funny and charming and invited me to come to a taping of the show (which I think was at the old Movenpick restaurant downtown). I never bothered to go to a taping, but I did agree to meet him a few days later for a week night dinner on the Danforth.

We met at the restaurant and it was fun. I remember he thought I was Persian (I'm South Asian) and I think we talked about immigrant parents, sex and shame, as well Love In The Time Of Cholera. After dinner I just walked myself home.

Over the course of the summer we hung out very occasionally. I went to a couple of parties with him and watched a movie at his house. It was all very low key. I was seeing other people and I'm pretty sure he was also.We never talked about anything related to BDSM and had only very casually fooled around -- a bit of kissing.

The incident that changed everything was on a Sunday night. Oddly, I actually remember exactly what I was wearing and the purse I had with me. The evening started out fine. We had a drink, we smoked some pot and we hung out chatting. A while later we started kissing. Suddenly, it was like he became a different person. He was super angry, almost frenzied and disassociated.

I distinctly remember the jarring sense of suddenly being abruptly shaken out of my reverie. I remember thinking "what the fuck is going on here? What's wrong with him?" Jian had his hands around my throat, had pulled down my pants and was aggressively and violently penetrating me with his fingers. When it was over, I got up and it was clear I was really angry. My sexual interactions until then had always been consensual, enjoyable and fun.

I remember he gave me some weird lines about how he couldn't tell if I was actually attracted to him or not, and somehow this was meant to explain his behaviour. I called a cab and I left right away. In the car, I remember feeling sort of stunned, like I couldn't wrap my head around what had just happened. He acted like it was all totally normal and came to the door to watch me go down the stairs and get into the cab.

So why didn't I do anything?

This is the part that I think is so important to understand if we are ever going to change the context in which rape culture and violence against women is perpetuated. I didn't do anything because it didn't seem like there was anything to do.

I hadn't been raped. I had no interest in seeing him again or engaging the police in my life. I just wanted to continue on with my life as it was. And even if I had wanted to do something, as a lawyer, I'm well aware that the scenario was just a "he said/she said" situation. I was aware that I, as a woman who had had a drink or two, shared a joint, had gone to his house willingly and had a sexual past, would be eviscerated. Cultural frameworks on this are powerful.

Equally important, however, was that it also didn't feel like it was worth my effort. Most of my girlfriends had a story about an uncomfortable, sleazy, angry or even scary encounter with a guy. No one really did anything other than avoid them and tell their girlfriends to also stay away. And that's what I did. I never intended to see him again. I felt fine. I was busy and I just put the night and him out of my mind. I ignored his calls and messages over the next few weeks.

It was maybe six or seven weeks later that I next saw him. My mom was in town to attend my call to bar the next day and she was staying with me. We were on our way out when the phone on my desk rang. Without thinking, I picked it up. It was Jian. I told him I couldn't talk since I was going with my mom to get a bottle of wine for a dinner she was attending that night.

A short time later, Jian turned up at the LCBO on the Danforth. I remember being both annoyed, confused and creeped out at him for doing that.

I don't remember much about what was said at the LCBO. We left the store fairly quickly. The next year I got married and moved to the U.K. It was only when I came back to Toronto in 2008 that I realized he was now a huge CBC star. We have never spoken directly since. He once reached out to me on Twitter with a "Hi" and I responded really neutrally, mentioning my three boys.

Last year while my husband was running for the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North, I ran into Jian at a Persian Community event. We were seated at adjacent head tables. His body language made it clear that he recognized me. He seemed angry. I avoided him and we left as soon as it was appropriate to do so.

This morning, I listened to Lucy DeCoutere on The Current sharing her remarkably similar experience and calling for women to not be afraid to tell their own stories and, if they can, share their names. After much thought, I decided to answer her call. I hope it helps in some way.

Huffpost

Reva Seth
10/31


........

TORONTO – The emergence of unspecified “graphic” evidence that its former star radio host Jian Ghomeshi had caused physical injury to a person is what prompted the CBC to fire him, the broadcaster said Friday.

In a memo to staff, executive vice-president Heather Conway said it wanted to provide some information to staff ahead of the weekend on the situation involving the co-founder and host of the “Q” program.

“On Thursday, Oct. 23, CBC saw for the first time graphic evidence that Jian had caused physical injury to a woman,” Conway said.

“We determined that Jian’s conduct was a fundamental breach of CBC’s standard of acceptable conduct for any employee.”

Conway said Ghomeshi advised the corporation in the spring that the Toronto Star was looking into allegations by an ex-girlfriend that he had engaged in non-consensual “rough sex.”

READ MORE: Timeline: Sex assault allegations arise after CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi

Ghomeshi has insisted having only consensual “rough sex” with women and said he was the victim of a disgruntled ex. As many as nine women – two named – have since come forward to allege he attacked them physically and sexually without warning. Ghomeshi said Thursday he would meet the allegations “directly.”

None of the allegations has been proven. His lawyer did not return a call Friday.

According to the CBC memo, he also had a letter from two journalists that made allegations about his private life. The Star never contacted the corporation directly about them, she said.

“When directly confronted, Jian firmly denied there was any truth to those allegations,” Conway said.

In early summer, a “Q” employee received a letter from a reporter asking about Ghomeshi’s behaviour, she said. The letter suggested his conduct may have “crossed over” into the workplace.

Conway said an investigation involving CBC’s human resources department followed that included direct interviews with employees and management but did not uncover any complaints of the alleged nature about his behaviour in the workplace.

“We also spoke to Jian at that time and asked him directly if there was any truth to the allegations,” Conway said.

READ MORE: Are there enough services for victims of violence?

Ghomeshi was adamant that he and his lawyers would be able to prove he had done nothing wrong should the Star pursue the allegations and the newspaper did not print a story.

“Based on Jian’s denial, we continued to believe Jian,” Conway said.

The unspecified “graphic evidence” persuaded the corporation that it could no longer accept that position.

However, the Star quoting unnamed sources reported on Friday that Ghomeshi, 47, showed his bosses videos depicting bondage and beating during sexual activities in an effort to show bruising could happen and still be consensual.

Ghomeshi has launched a $55-million lawsuit against the CBC for breach of confidence. He also filed a grievance alleging defamation, a source said.

However, as a contract worker, he could be terminated at any time.

“He could not win that way,” the source said.

The CBC has hired an independent investigator to look at its handling of the situation after at least one former employee said she had complained about his behaviour but nothing substantive was done.

None of Ghomeshi’s accusers has filed any police complaint, something Conservative MP Rob Anders on Friday urged them to do.

Anders said he was “shocked and saddened” no charges had been laid against Ghomeshi.

“At bare minimum, there should be an investigation and sexual assault changes laid,” Anders said in a statement.

“With pictures of bruising or biting, there should also be aggravated sexual assault charges laid.”

© The Canadian Press, 2014
via Global

.................

You really don't quite get it. This is not a normal legal case. Don't confuse those who engage in sexual role play. The problem is that sexually based abusers tend to thrive in that environment. CBC did not overreact. In fact considering the circumstances, CBC gave Ghomeshi the opportunity to simply walk away under the guise of "personal reasons"'
... He could have simply shut up. Everything kept on the down low. It was Ghomeshi that made it a spectacular issue through his FaceBook page. He was a creature of social media. It will be his undoing.
... This type of crime is almost always a he said, she said or in the case of Gordon Stuckless, he said - he said. It is not unusual for victims to stay silent. It is however very unusual for victims to voluntarily come forward. It often takes years.
... I grew up in a town controlled by a sexual predatory pedophile. And the control he had was unbelievable. The young people knew what he was about from day one. None. And I do mean no one, no adult came forward. The police had records of allegations which were filed and never reopened. But once one victim came forward after twenty years of this toxic environment, in court. Then more came, more came forward, to a point. Still thirty years later there are abuse victims that never did.
... And this is the most difficult, when I had the chance to return to that toxic little town, despite the passage of time that confirmed all the allegations, despite the fact that the predator had been convicted and jailed, there were still people defending him.

Gord C Oct 31
............


http://gordc238.blogspot.ca/2009/07/from-macleans-magazine-six-years-ago.html


...................


Jian Ghomeshi played a high risk, high stakes game. And he lost almost all of it. Now he could lose what may be the last chip he has left to play in his defence — the backing of his union.
The real reasons Jian Ghomeshi is suing the CBC

If Jian Ghomeshi knows, as he must, that his civil case will be quickly dismissed, there appear to be two good reasons to file the suit anyway. Read on

By getting out last Sunday ahead of the news breaking about his alleged violence and harassment against women, Ghomeshi had the opportunity to shape the narrative, all in the legally privileged, libel-proof form of a statement of claim that viciously attacked the CBC.

It was a legally ill-founded claim (since a unionized employee like Ghomeshi has no standing to sue an employer). But it would also have had the impact of scaring off potential complainants who might be intimidated by Ghomeshi’s aggressive litigiousness, not to mention the prospect of being outed — truthfully or not — in his version of events as willing BDSM participants.

But the gamble didn’t pay off. More accusers defiantly stepped forward, his left-wing supporters like Judy Rebick and Elizabeth May scattered for cover, the social media dialogue turned against him, and now he finds himself abandoned even by his crisis-PR firm, Navigator — a sure sign that worse is coming.
Related

    Jian Ghomeshi’s CBC lawsuit is hopeless — even if he’s telling the truth
    How the Jian Ghomeshi controversy will cost both sides big bucks
    Everyone enabled his behaviour': Ghomeshi turned my dream job at Q into hell, young producer says

Under normal circumstances, Ghomeshi would still have one life raft left — the protection of his union, through which he has said he will file a workplace grievance. Except, there, too, he may be out of luck.

Ghomeshi is represented by the Canadian Media Guild (CMG), which has a history of prioritizing respectful workplace environments. If his allegedly victimized CBC co-workers — who are also unionized — or the guild’s political supporters outside of the corporation complain that their interests are being ignored or even violated (by the union supporting an alleged abuser and harasser), the union has the right to refuse to take his case any further.
Advertisement

Can a union do that? Absolutely. Its only obligation to Ghomeshi is to not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith toward him. If the union makes a reasoned decision that Ghomeshi is toxic, and that representing him does not do justice to its other members, its own principles, or its pocketbook (the arbitration will be very expensive), it can drop him with impunity.

Ghomeshi still won’t be able to go to court. His only recourse would be applying to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, claiming his union has not properly represented him. The statistical history of success in that kind of case is less than 1%. Even if he fails here, he’s still blocked from a court action; such are the nature of union members’ protections in this country.

Although it was unsuccessful, Ghomeshi’s gambit was not inherently foolish. Given the awful allegations he knew were about to emerge, his only hope for retaining his reputation was to cast himself as the unjust victim of an unfounded dismissal and of false allegations. There was a good possibility that it would have worked. Victimized women have great difficulty reporting on their accusers. They would risk social shaming, (“slut-shaming,” as my 18-year-old daughter refers to it) self-doubt, his legal team’s investigations into their sexual background, unwanted potential publicity, media scrutiny, questions as to their motives, and the glare of the cameras. All of those normal problems are dramatically enhanced by the story of consensual BDSM — something your average accuser wouldn’t want their mother reading about.

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to have women come forward with sexual harassment allegations. Invariably, they want promises of confidentiality. Although those promises are often made, they are invariably false. The accused party also has legal protections, including the right to know the name of the accuser and the details of the accusation.

(Notably, the Ghomeshi publicity appears to be helping more women speak up about abuse in the workplace — already this week, my practice has seen a number of women coming forward, inspired by Ghomeshi’s accusers, revealing incidents of harassment, some going back years).

What would I do if I acted for the CBC? I would come at him hard while he’s down. Issue a defence, scripted in a tone more of sorrow than anger, detailing the allegations. Be vocal about supporting women and respect in the workplace as your motivating principles (and in the CBC’s case, make clear your plan to do a better job at cleaning up the problems that have been reportedly allowed to take root). Make it clear that Q has a large group of dedicated, smart, skilled professionals, just as talented as Ghomeshi, and that the show will go on without impact. Continue investigating and remind Canadians how responsive executives were in cutting him loose, even if they may feel compassion for whatever demons may be personally troubling him.

And if I acted for Ghomeshi? I’d make a virtue of necessity. If he can claim to be mentally troubled with, say, a sex addiction, or anger issues, then play on that. Apologize profusely to all those he has hurt, seek help, blame his advisors for the aggressive approach he initially took (against his own better judgment, if he can claim that). Complain that the CBC fired him after they had agreed he would have time off to recover from his disability. This has the advantage of legal human rights protection. It may be the only shot he has left.


Howard Levitt
National Post
Oct 31/14

...................
Almost been in the same boat, but the serial abuser liked young males. Very similar experience. Many fellow students and kids passed on mutual warnings years before the bastard was caught. It was part of the reason I escaped being a direct victim.

But please, please, please, if my personal experience means anything, its very important to bring support and total compassion for the victims of the abuse. Believe them. Let them know how much you believe them. Listen, and cry with them. I really don't give a fig for Ghomeshi guilty or not guilty. Its the victims and that are the most important and people must rally around them.

comments blogto.com

Nov 3
In response to.

http://www.blogto.com/arts/2014/11/students_were_warned_not_to_intern_at_q_over_ghomeshi/

.....

Students were warned not to intern at Q over Ghomeshi

Posted by Natalia Manzocco / November 3, 2014
9 Comments

Ghomeshi internsJust how much the media world knew about former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi before he was publicly accused of sexual assault is beginning to come to light. On the same weekend that saw a third woman come forward with allegations, journalism profs at Western University admitted they began warning students away from taking internships at his show, Q, after one intern reported Ghomeshi had repeatedly tried to touch her inappropriately, invite her out for drinks and send her flirty text messages.

Another student going through the program two years ago tells the Toronto Star that Q internships were considered "off limits" due to Ghomeshi's behaviour. At Carleton University, meanwhile, faculty are reviewing the records of every intern they ever sent to Q, on the strength of tweets from the now-infamous @bigearsteddy Twitter account that accuse Ghomeshi of assaulting Carleton media students, and a Q producer told Canadaland this weekend that they were well aware of Ghomeshi's behaviour.

A former classmate of Ghomeshi's at York, meanwhile, alleges in a Facebook post that the pattern goes as far back as his school days in 1988. The writer says residence staff allegedly met with all the women in her residence hall to warn them about being near Ghomeshi in co-ed washrooms, stairwells, or at house parties.

In other Ghomeshi news from the weekend, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a glowing profile of the fallen star, Star reporter Kevin Donovan gives the lowdown on one very awkward dinner, and an old video from the Moxy Früvous days will probably make everyone uncomfortable. On the bright side, the Ghomeshi story has started an international conversation about rape culture that has been a long time coming.

BlogTO Monday November 3.


......
This is another article about the Ghomeshi affair. Three women finally came forward in this case and the police need three to proceed with any criminal charges.

Old age can be a bitch sometimes. I really don't give a flying anything about people like Ghomeshi, or Stuckless, or Springer, or Mt.Cashel. I really don't care if they are charged, convicted or suitably have their tombstones pissed on by Yorkshire Terriers. The most important thing is the victims.

They are totally guilt free. Listen and believe them. Simply state that you support them.

I've seen what this abuse can do to a small town. Even after the abuse, many people didn't believe the victims. To this day there are still a few in that town that believe that the allegations were false and defend that worm eaten corpse. He's long dead for almost two decades now and people are still suffering from that.

Really, people do make mistakes. But people like this are extremely smart when it comes to picking out likely victims. They rarely error. And always the victims feel crushing guilt, self recrimination, and fear exposure to family, friends, and even the community at large.

You see many people who tend to communicate fearlessly make very bad victims and the predator shuns them. I was never afraid to tell my parents. I told them about a full decade about the abuser in the town but since the predator was smart enough to avoid me.

You know how the guy did it. Very similar to this case. This guy, was a vice principal and had access to all the students records. Two of the victims I know for sure and every other I suspect lived under the same condition. You know Parent - Teacher interviews that happen at least once a year. Well their parents didn't show for the meetings. My parents did show every single time. And if they didn't have a meeting they phoned to ask why. That's all recorded. And that's how he began the sorting process.

The guy was very smart. He managed to have me transferred to another class despite the fact that I should have been in his Grade six class. I didn't even get to go to his cub pack. or Scout Troop. Smart man. His potential victims, earned the right. And all the major organizations in the community supported and believed in him before they believed in their very own kids.

So the kids in that town were left to their own devices. In around 1970 I attended a dance. And we were at the entry doors of a school dance. And we were laughing and doing yacks about this that, I mentioned the guy in a joke. There was a teacher who overheard, the person interjected that I could be taken to court for slander. I knew better. I said go ahead. Nothing came of it. But the abuser sure knew about my attitude. I never did get invited to any of his "parties."

About fifteen years later, in an interview with my good friend, a reporter for the local rag, that very same teacher denied categorically ever having known about the abuser's proclivities. In fact it was a complete surprise. Ya right.

Now I did write as a stringer in the same town in the mid 1980s. Information sort of trickled down. Nothing one can write about, or "prove". The abuser had died apparently. He claimed that there was a ring of more than just one abuser. But after the bugger was run out of town the abuse did stop, I believe. People left for other parts.

Its, what, forty years now passed and after at least one murder, several suicides, broken marriages, domestic violence the damage remains. And that cursed community still protects secrets. There were other victims who never came, nor ever will come forward. And one has a good idea, not a provable idea of who the members of the abuse ring were.

But the victims are first and if they want to keep it a secret that is entirely okay. I don't really know who all the victims are. I never went into that. They are first. How they deal with it, I support. That's the other thing I came to realize, is that while it is entirely therapeutic for some victims to come forward, for many others... no it isn't..

So that is the sort of perpetual damage these serial abusers do to a community or in the CBC case, the CBC. To their credit, when a verifiable evidence did come to their attention the CBC did take immediate action. A few victims are coming forward, and the walls of silence that the abuser had carefully constructed are coming tumbling down.

And like the Mt.Cashel, the Gordon Stuckless scandal, these things seem to have a disturbing consistency and evolution to the story. And one of those consistencies is the circle of potential victims at the bottom of the food chain rallying to protect as many members as it can by gossip. Never ever say that gossip is always a bad thing. When every social structure prevails to support the abuser, and would eat the flagrant angry victim, gossip remains a vital necessary tool of protection.

And this tale of woe. Case to that point.

........................




David Cooper / Toronto Star file photo

Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi, pictured in 2014, used a CBC-owned smart phone to show managers information that led to his firing, a source has told the Star.
By: Robert Benzie Queen's Park Bureau Chief, Katrina Clarke Staff Reporter, Alyshah Hasham Staff Reporter, Kevin Donovan Investigations, Published on Mon Nov 03 2014

Jian Ghomeshi used a CBC-owned phone to send lewd text messages to women, a source has told the Star.

The public broadcaster believes its ownership of the smart phone refutes the former radio star’s claim that he was fired because of how he conducted himself in his “private life.”

“The contents of that phone belong to the CBC — it’s the CBC’s property,” said a source familiar with? the situation.

The source says Ghomeshi ?lied to CBC management when he was asked “eyeball to eyeball” about allegations of violent sexual behaviour being investigated by the Star.

Ghomeshi showed texts and other material to CBC officials to bolster his claim, but the source said they were so shocked by what they read and saw that it had the opposite effect.
Related videos

“(CBC) didn’t know the scope of what they were dealing with,” the source said, adding it is unclear whether CBC information technology staff have begun poring over Ghomeshi’s work email acco?unt for other evidence.

It is also unclear whether police, who announced Friday they are investigating Ghomeshi, are in possession of the phone. Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash said police do not discuss details about an investigation.

Asked if CBC turned over the phone to police, spokesman Chuck Thompson told the Star in an emailed statement that, “We are cooperating fully with Toronto Police Services.”

Pugash said he had nothing to add to what was said at a police news conference Saturday, where it was revealed that three women have come forward with allegations against Ghomeshi.

The news comes as a former journalism student and current journalism professor at the University of Western Ontario said that students were cautioned against pursuing internships at Ghomeshi’s popular CBC radio show Q due to concerns about “inappropriate” behaviour toward young women by the now-fired host.

Jeremy Copeland, a journalism lecturer at Western, said the concerns stemmed from a 2012 incident in which Ghomeshi allegedly “prey(ed) on a young grad who wanted to work (at Q).” Because of this, he recently stopped a female student from pursuing an internship at Q.

Students were told two years ago that internships at Q were “off limits” due to concerns about inappropriate behaviour by Ghomeshi, a former Western student told the Star.

Students were not given specifics, but were told that there was concern about “overly flirty” behaviour by Ghomeshi when dealing with female university students, the former student said.

The journalism program did stop sending interns to Q after one intern (a male student) was placed at the show in 2008, said Thomas Carmichael, dean of the faculty of information and media studies at the University of Western Ontario. But he said the reason was to do with the nature of the internship.

“We insist that our interns do entry-level journalism work, and the report on that internship indicated that the student was asked to run everyday errands not connected to journalism,” he said in an email. “Consequently, we decided not to pursue further placements at Q.”

Carmichael did not respond to followup questions about whether concerns about Ghomeshi’s inappropriate behaviour toward female students played a role in stopping internships at Q.

The student involved in the alleged 2012 incident, a recent graduate who shared her story with Copeland and other professors at Western, agreed to speak with the Star on condition of anonymity because she is concerned about a possible negative impact on her career.

She alleges that after she attended a taping of Q at the downtown Toronto studio in Dec. 2012, Ghomeshi inappropriately touched and texted her.

She had asked Q’s executive producer for an invite to a taping, she said. She said she hoped to land a job with CBC.

Seeing a new face in the control room, Ghomeshi invited her into the studio after the show, she said.

Alone in the room, the two chatted about Q and guests Ghomeshi had interviewed. The conversation was friendly and she assumed they were networking — despite a comment about how good she looked, she said.

“I was under the impression . . . he thinks I’m smart, he thinks I’d be a good fit for working at Q,” she said.

When conversation wrapped up, she alleges Ghomeshi said, “Aren’t you going to give me a hug?”

“He gave me a bear hug and he lifted me up,” she said, adding the situation was “weird” but she thought perhaps he was just friendly. She had heard rumours he was flirty, she said.

But when she turned to leave a second time, she alleges Ghomeshi came up behind her, placing his hands on her waist and pressing his body against her backside.

“As I’m walking towards the door, he was behind me, kind of hugging me from behind and walking with me,” she said. “That’s when I thought, whoa, this is kind of a bit much.”

She said she does not know if anyone else witnessed the incident.

As they walked, with Ghomeshi still holding her, he mentioned she should laugh at his jokes, she said.

She left and returned to work, still shaken and unable to focus.

One hour later, she received a text from Ghomeshi asking her to meet up for a “non-work related drink,” she said. He added a winky face — ;) — to the message, she said.

“I didn’t want to date him, but then I thought this would maybe be a good opportunity to speak to him about the industry,” she said, responding by text and telling him a “friendly meet up” would be OK.

“If you could help me get a job that would be cool, too,” she added.

Ghomeshi texted back saying he wasn’t interested in a personal friendship and didn’t want to be used as “conduit to a job,” she said. The text messages stopped shortly after, she said.

In the months to follow, she continued second-guessing her handling of the situation. She wondered if perhaps he had misinterpreted her sarcasm as flirting.

She gave up trying to get a job at Q, she said.

It was only when the Star reported allegations from women against Ghomeshi that she felt a final sense of relief, she said. “Thank God I didn’t agree to meeting up with him,” the woman, now 28, told the Star Sunday.

She now says his behaviour was inappropriate and unacceptable in the workplace, and adds that she told former professors about the incident because she was still friendly with them, not because she expected Western to do anything.

Copeland, who learned about the alleged incident from the graduate, said he finds it “disturbing.”

“For her to go down there and have that happen, have someone abuse his authority and position to hit on her in a very strong way, crossing her boundaries, is unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour.”

Copeland has taught television journalism part-time at Western since 2010, full-time since 2012 and is one of the faculty members who supervises internships.

So when he learned in the fall that a student had listed Q among her top three choices for an internship this coming winter, he brought up his concerns at a faculty meeting to discuss internships, he said. It was agreed that the student should not be placed at Q, he said.

The former student who told the Star that Q was declared “off-limits” said the show had previously been a very popular choice for interns who wanted to get experience in radio. She said that some students had a “fan girl feeling” toward Ghomeshi, who was seen as a “celebrity.”

“Professors had a protective feeling” toward their students, she said. (Copeland had not told students that Q was “off-limits” — the meeting this fall was the first time he raised concerns about Ghomeshi).

Students were not given specifics but were told that there was concern about “overly flirty” behaviour by Ghomeshi when he dealt with female university students, the former student said.

Ghomeshi was fired on Oct. 26, after his CBC bosses saw “graphic evidence that Jian had caused physical injury to a woman,” CBC has said in an internal memo.

Since then the Toronto Star and other media outlets have published the accounts of nine women accusing Ghomeshi of harassment, physical abuse and sexual assault. One of the women, a CBC employee, alleges that on one occasion on his way out of the Q studio, Ghomeshi approached her from behind and cupped her buttocks.

Ghomeshi has said that he will meet the allegations “directly” and has maintained in a Facebook post and through a $55-million lawsuit against the CBC that all his sexual interactions have been consensual.

Other women who allege they were attacked by Ghomeshi continue to come forward. The Star has now heard of incidents dating back to his time as member of the band Moxy Früvous, and more allegations from his time as host of >play on CBC television and from his time as host of Q.

Generally, the women coming forward with new stories allege that Ghomeshi asked them on dates and, without their consent, attacked them, usually by grabbing them around the throat, squeezing their throat and striking them on the face. The Star is continuing to investigate.

In the wake of the allegations — and a recently noticed tweet from April that reads “Hi there @jianghomeshi. Remember louring me to ur house under false pretences? Bruises dont lie. Signed, every female Carleton U media grad” — journalism schools have been going through records of past internships at Q to ensure students were not subjected to any inappropriate behaviour.

No concerns had been flagged about Q internships in the journalism programs at Carleton University and Ryerson University, program heads say. “We have placed interns at Q in the past and we have never had any indication that there was a problem with one of our interns,” said Ivor Shapiro, chair of the Ryerson School of Journalism.

“I’ve spoken to all of our faculty supervisors who supervised internships at the CBC over the past 10 years and nobody had an inkling of a problem.”

“Our school didn’t have a policy, either officially or unofficially, of avoiding field placements at Q,” said Susan Harada, head of the journalism department at Carleton University.

With files from Jacques Gallant

Kevin Donovan can be reached at kdonovan@thestar.cakdonovan @thestar.caEND or 416-312-3503

the Star

Nov 3 2014


...........
New reports in the Toronto Star and Canadaland podcast detail further allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace by former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi.

Ghomeshi was fired by CBC on Oct. 26, leading him to defend his "tastes in the bedroom" on Facebook and launch a $55-million wrongful dismissal lawsuit. In the days since, several women have made allegations in media reports of sexual and physical abuse as well as workplace harassment. Toronto police have also opened an investigation after three women filed complaints. Now, there are new allegations involving CBC employees, interns and jobseekers.

The Toronto Star reported today that, according to a former student and a journalism professor, Western University J-school students were warned against internships at Ghomeshi’s CBC radio show "Q" due to "concerns about 'inappropriate' behaviour toward young women by the now-fired host."

The dean of Western's journalism school confirmed that students were no longer being sent to "Q," but refused to answer if Ghomeshi's behaviour towards female students was the cause, saying only that "the report on that internship indicated that the student was asked to run everyday errands not connected to journalism."

An anonymous student involved in an alleged 2012 incident told the Star that she was "inappropriately touched and texted" after she had contacted Q's executive producer to attend a taping in hopes of landing a job.

She says Ghomeshi invited her into the studio after the show, commented on her looks and engaged in small talk. She says she thought he might be considering her to work at Q but then "he gave me a bear hug and he lifted me up. As I'm walking towards the door, he was behind me, kind of hugging me from behind and walking with me. That’s when I thought, whoa, this is kind of a bit much."

He later texted her, asking for "non-work-related drink" date but took offence when she inquired about employment. "Thank God I didn't agree to meeting up with him."

Carleton University's journalism program launched an investigation late last week in light of a tweet from April alleging sexual violence involving Ghomeshi and one of their current or former students.

On Monday, journalism officials from both Carleton and Ryerson told the Toronto Star they are not aware of any incidents involving their students.

Over on Jesse Brown's Canadaland podcast, the media critic spoke to former Q producer Roberto Veri, who said "we all knew about Jian" and apologized.

Veri says he saw the sexual harassment incident that was described in the an Oct. 26 Toronto Star article, in which a woman alleged Ghomeshi said he wanted to "hate f--- her" and "cupped her buttocks."

    "I FB messenger'd her to tell her that I was sorry that I didn't do anything, that I saw it first of all because I turned my head away when he went up behind her. She was leaning over her desk between the corridor of the executive producer's office and her desk. So she was leaned over contrary to where she sat. And she's bending over working on some papers. And he came up behind her, grabbed her by the waist and humped her four or five times. He drove his pelvis into her buttocks and a big smile on his face. So I looked over at that and just sort of put my head down again. I didn't know what the nature of the relationship was or if she was okay. When stuff like that does happen...

    I think he might have even looked over at me when I turned my head. I was there. It felt like an episode of HBO's Rome where they do anything in front of the slaves. I was apologizing to her. She said, 'If you back me up' because the union has no record. I witnessed it. This is the only reason I'm weighing into this matter is because I love that person and I was sorry that I didn't ask about it afterwards. I ignored it."

The anonymous woman Veri was referring to also elaborated on the alleged 2010 incident in the National Post, where she said she informed an executive producer.

"[His] comment to me was …'He's never going to change, you're a malleable person, let’s talk about how you can make this a less toxic work environment for you. No one was going to talk to Jian, he was too big. The show was a f—-ing juggernaut at that point. His face and name were inextricably linked with the brand of Q."

The second woman, a Montreal-based CBC producer who "dreamed of being on Q," told the Toronto Star she met Ghomeshi at a book signing and alleges he took her to his hotel room and threw her against the wall. She says she performed oral sex “to get out of there” and didn’t complain to managers because “I felt like Jian was CBC god."

Yet another report emerged on Friday, published in Headspace and written by Elisabeth Faure, whom the site describes as "a Concordia journalism graduate, former CBC Montreal employee and Q intern."

Faure says that Ghomeshi never sexually harassed her, but the opening of her article indicates that his behaviour was known at the CBC.

    "So, did Jian Ghomeshi try to sleep with you?"

    This was the first question the then-Director of Current Affairs for CBC Radio in my hometown asked me the first day I got back from a 6-week unpaid internship at Q in Toronto. Her question, asked in front of a small group of co-workers in an open newsroom, elicited gales of laughter from all assembled. Because, you know, back then, it was funny what a reputation Jian (or JG, as he was known in Q circles) had for being a total sleazebag.


Huffpost Nov 3. 2014