How to make me hate a new condo in my neighbourhood

I've always been baffled by the trend of dissing condos, and enthusiastically embraced every condo they've built in my neighbourhood in the near-decade I've lived here. They're homes! For people! My neighbourhood is awesome, so I'm glad that more people will get to enjoy it. What makes my neighbourhood awesome is that its density allows all kinds of different businesses and amenities to thrive here, so more people will create more demand and lead to even more new and interesting businesses and amenities. And, on top of all this, one of those condos might end up being just right for me.

But I was rather pissed off when I saw signage today suggesting that this is actually getting built. So why does this one condo piss me off when all the other thrill me? Because of the following quote from the developer, taken from the article linked above:

“What a ratty block of what I consider to be one of the premier addresses in the city,” says Mr. Sonshine.

The architecture of that "ratty block" isn't particularly ratty. It's your standard 19th century Yonge St. lowrises and doesn't deserve to be maligned any more than any other part of the city does. But, more importantly, the content of that "ratty block" is an integral part of my neighbourhood. I use the businesses and amenities in that block all the time, and they're a key part of my sense of "I love this neighbourhood, it has everything!"

All the other condos, including the much-NIMBYed Minto towers, have presented the neighbourhood as a feature. But (as demonstrated by the article as a whole, not just that one quote), this developer seems to have less respect for the existing neighbourhood, seeing it as something to be knocked down and built over. And if they don't respect our neighbourhood, will they do anything to find a home for our local pub in the new development? Or the used bookstore? Or the kitchen store? Or that one video store that's actually good? Losing these businesses would make our neighbourhood less convenient, which is a major blow in a neighbourhood that we chose for its convenience. All of this makes me - a pro-condo neighbourhood resident - inclined to oppose the building.

And it also makes me - in the market for a condo in the neighbourhood - disinclined to even consider buying from this developer.

More information please: why do people who think catechism is inappropriate for children send their kids to Catholic school

Recently in the news: parents who are opposed to a Catholic school brochure that describes homosexuals as "objectively disordered". My (and, likely, many others') first reaction was to roll my eyes. The "objectively disordered" wording comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So my first thought was "If you don't like the teaching of the Catholic church maybe you shouldn't be sending your kids to Catholic school!" But this is a glaringly obvious question - the first one that comes to mind when one recognizes or learns that the objectionable phrase is taken directly from catechism. So why did the reporter not ask that question and put the answer in the article? It does mention in passing that one of the mothers is Catholic, but that actually raises more question than it answers. If she's Catholic, she's more likely to already be familiar with the catechism, which means that she's identifying with this religion despite the fact that it considers her "objectively disordered". But she doesn't consider this teaching of the religion she identifies with appropriate for her kids? What leads a person to lead their life in such a self-contradictory way? It makes the parents look foolish to present these contradictions without explanations, and the Star is doing them a disservice by printing this story without answering these questions.

Why would you throw puppies in the garbage, even if you are cruel and heartless?

In the news today, some guy put a bunch of puppies in a suitcase and threw them in the garbage. (Happy ending, adorable pictures.)

I don't understand why a person would do this. And by that I don't mean that I can't imagine being cruel to puppies (although that's true too). What I mean is, even if you take disrespect or hatred for puppies as a given, I don't understand why you'd do it this particular way.

If you're too lazy to take them to a proper shelter and don't care if the dogs survive, why not put them outside and close the door, leaving them to their own devices?

If you want to kill them, why not kill them? Why abandon them somewhere where you won't be able to get whatever pleasure killers get of watching them die yourself?

If, for whatever reason, it is important to you to throw them in the garbage, why go to all the trouble of putting them in a suitcase first? Putting six puppies in a suitcase sounds difficult.

If you're trying to avoid other people finding out that you're getting rid of puppies, why not let them loose? They might wander off or chase a squirrel or be picked up by someone who's in the market for a puppy, and end up somewhere where they can't be traced back to you. Or, if they do hang out near your home even though you've let them loose, you can claim that they could have come from anywhere and chased a squirrel over here, and you don't know anything about them.

Or, as my co-worker pointed out, why not post an ad on Craigslist saying "Puppies for sale"? People actually pay significant money for dogs!

Putting them in a suitcase in the garbage is a sub-optimal way of achieving whatever the goal of someone who would do that sort of thing might be.

Why would you want to spend advertising money to encourage people to pray anyway?

Recently in the news, TTC ads telling a (fictional) child of drug users that they should pray as a solution to their problems.

I have to assume that the people placing these ads think they're altruistic, because whether or not people pray have no possible impact on the advertisers or their church. They must think that praying will help people, so they're taking out these ads encouraging people to pray.

But people who are able to pray - which probably includes everyone for whom invoking Jesus would be effective - are already aware that prayer is an option. And those who aren't aware that prayer is an option (and are open to a new religion) wouldn't know how or why to pray.

Therefore, this ad doesn't tell anyone anything they don't already know, while not telling those who it wishes to take action how to take action.

Why would you spend money on that?

***

I also just noticed that the "child" in the ads is saying "Dear Jesus" and "Thank you for hearing my prayer". Which means that they're already praying! So the ad responds to a prayer by telling the kid to pray? That's a wee bit assholic.

Teach me about the internal logic of Catholic school dress codes

Thursday was a day to break records and rules. With the temperature in the GTA within a smidgen of an all-time high, students at St. Mary Catholic Secondary School were excited to wear shorts on one of the few days of the year they could ditch their uniforms.

But around 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, vice-principal Paul Perron’s voice crackled from the speakers: no shorts, no khakis and no ankle socks on Thursday.

The article focuses on the shorts ban and the hypocrisy and asshattery of banning shorts on a civvies day when it's going to be hot out, but I'm more interested in why on earth they'd ban khakis and ankle socks. Within the school's internal logic, what on earth would their reason be for banning khakis or ankle socks?

Khakis are conservative, non-trendy long pants that are maybe a shade dressier than jeans, and in fact many schools and other organizations include khakis as part of their uniforms. I'm not even sure if teenagers today would wear khakis unless they're trying to dress more grownup. (They were trendy when I was a teenager, but now even my peers don't wear them that much and I feel a bit frumpy and out of it when I wear them.)

The kind of socks being worn are utterly irrelevant if you're already wearing long pants (which they must be, given the prohibition on shorts), so I cannot fathom why the administration even thought of this.

I'm not saying the shorts ban is reasonable, but it's not an uncommon rule for a dress code so, apart from the act of declaring a civvies day and then giving it a dress code, it doesn't particularly surprise me. But the ban on khakis and ankle socks completely baffles me and I can't even begin to speculate what their intention is. Any ideas?

What's up with midnight strike deadlines?

Talks between the union representing library workers and the city’s library board continued Sunday afternoon, as bleary eyed teams of negotiators worked to hammer out an agreement and avert a work stoppage.

Late Saturday night, both parties decided to extend their 12:01 a.m. deadline to 3 a.m., then 6 a.m., then 12 noon, and then until 5 p.m., according to a Toronto Public Library spokesperson.

It sounds like they've been negotiating for well over 24 hours straight, and it sounds like this is at least partly because of the midnight strike deadline. The midnight deadline impels them to negotiate right up until midnight, and then past midnight, and then keep going and going...

But negotiation is delicate, nuanced, interpersonal work. It doesn't seem very compatible with sleepless nights. People who are tired get cranky and are more likely to snap at people, and are also more likely to miss nuances and fine details. It really seems in everyone's best interest to be well-rested. And yet, every strike deadline with which I'm familiar has been at midnight.

Why do they do it this way? Why not set the strike deadline for 6 pm, and, if they feel that progress is being made but they aren't done at 6 pm, extend the strike deadline to noon or 6 pm the next day, leave at a natural stopping point, and have some dinner and sleep. Yes, there'd be some dead time in between. That would enable the employer to stay open for another half-day or full-day, and the workers to earn another half-day's or full day's wages. It sounds like a win-win-win situation. So why don't they do this?

Why does Actors' Equity work, and what can we learn from it?

A while back I read an article about how the Toronto production of In The Heights was non-unionized, and that got me thinking and googling about how unions work in show business.

Every union with which I'm familiar is specific to an employer - you work for the employer, you join the union. But actors' membership in Actors' Equity does not seem to be tied into their employer, probably because the nature of acting is multiple temporary jobs. They join Equity, then any production that hires them has to give them the employment conditions set out in the collective agreement.

Wouldn't that be awesome? Wouldn't life be so much better if other jobs worked that way? You don't have to negotiate your salary half-blind (How much do other people get paid for this job? What's the employer's budget?), you just have to do your job well.

But, as the article about In The Heights describes, there are also some shows that don't use unionized performers at all.

But why does the union still work? Why don't all producers just use non-unionized performers and refuse to use unionized performers? A bit of googling suggests that all the best performers are in the union, but what factors are leading the producers to conclude "The best actors are in the union, therefore we should hire unionized actors" rather than concluding "We'll just hire non-unionized performers until the unionized performers give up. Even the best performers have to eat - they'll give in eventually. And if they don't, how will audience know what they're missing if the best performers aren't working?" Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it does work, but why does it work?

And how do we recreate this phenomenon in other fields, so people could enjoy the benefits of a union even in today's precarious employment environment?

Why everyone should be worried that bankers are worried about smaller bonuses

Via wmtc, bankers worrying that their bonuses are smaller than in previous years.

This has been circulating because it's kind of tragically hilariously tonedeaf, but this is actually something that everyone should be worried about.

Bankers have types of income: predictable income (i.e. their salary) and unpredictable income (i.e. their bonuses). The problem is that some of the people quoted in this article are relying on their unpredictable income to pay regular, recurring, important expenses, like tuition and housing.

A responsible way to manage money in this kind of situation is to keep your regular, recurring, important expenses within the budget of your predictable income, and treat your unpredictable income as found money. Pay tuition with salary and use bonus money for a vacation. Get a mortgage that you can afford on your salary, and dump the bonus into the principal every time you renew to pay it off sooner. If you'd like to take on more regular, recurring, important expenses than your salary can handle, then the responsible way to do this is to invest your found money in an annuity or something similar so it provides you with regular income. Which they should totally be able to do, being bankers.

And that's the point here: they're bankers. Their job is to manage money. Collectively, they manage basically all the money. And here they are making poor decisions about what kinds of expenditures to use salary for vs. what kinds of expenditures to use bonuses for, and loudly announcing it to the media.

The (other, other, other) flaw in the Arizona birth control bill

As anyone who's spent five minutes on the internet in the past few days knows, they're trying to pass a bill in Arizona requiring people who want oral contraceptives covered by their employer-provided health insurance to prove to the employer that it's being used to treat a medical condition rather than to prevent pregnancy.

Apart from the four or five layers of inherent problems, there's another problem: any oral contraceptive that is not unsuitable for the patient is providing medical benefits other than contraception.

All oral contraceptives help with dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and menometrorrhagia. Because diagnosis for these conditions has subjective elements (such as "interferes with daily activities"), any patient who finds that the pain, heavy flow or unpredictability of her period interferes with her life can rightfully seek this diagnosis. And any doctor whose patient states that her period is interfering with her daily life can rightfully give this diagnosis.

Furthermore, contraceptives are generally the treatment of first resort for patients with menstrual complaints for whom they are not contraindicated. It can even be a step in the diagnostic process - try this and see how you respond. Even if it ends up the cause of the menstrual difficulties is something completely unrelated that isn't treated with contraception, the patient will most likely end up taking contraception, at least temporarily.

In short, this bill will have no impact whatsoever on the amount of contraceptives legitimately and rightfully prescribed and billed to employer health plans, while introducing a needless layer of red tape that violates existing US health privacy standards. Even if the intention were worthy, this still wouldn't be a good use of resources.

Journalism wanted: why are sitting politicians allowed editorial platforms in commercial media?

With the news that the Ford brothers have a radio show, I'm reminded of something I meant to blog but never got around to months ago when Josh Matlow (my city councillor) had a newspaper column and, later, a radio show:

Why are sitting politicians allowed to write newspaper columns and host media shows? My gut feeling is that it should be some kind of conflict of interest, but I can't quite explain why I think it should be. The newspaper column seems less objectionable to me because they have more control over the topic and can keep it from straying into unethical areas, but again this is purely a gut feeling.

If they get paid by the media outlet (I don't know if they do or not - I asked Josh Matlow but haven't received an answer yet) [Update March 3: I have received a response saying he did neither received payment for the show nor paid for the airtime], then it seems like it would be a conflict of interest for a politician to be on a media outlet's payroll, just like it would be a conflict of interest for a sitting politician to be on any outside body's payroll. It also seems kind of wrong that a politician would promote a media outlet (which they will end up doing in the course of the completely reasonable act of telling their twitter followers "Hey, I'll be on the radio in this place and time"), but they'd be doing the same thing if they were the interviewee instead of the host and that doesn't seem as wrong to me. There's also the question of the advertisers for the radio show. What if one of the advertisers is something that it's inappropriate for a politician to be endorsing?

Of course, despite my gut feeling that this is wrong, it's probably perfectly permissible. It's so high-profile that if it were wrong, someone authoritative would have stopped it, or at least loudly announced it.

So I'd like to see someone write an article explaining to us ordinary citizens why sitting politicians are allowed the additional platform of hosting radio shows and writing newspaper columns. Since journalists for reputable news outlets would be trained in media ethics they already know the answer to this question, so it's an easy article, little research needed, just type it up and you'll have done a public service.

Will the baby boomers stand up for their children or throw us under the bus?

With the recent announcement that changes to the OAS won't be implemented until 2020, the burden is being passed from the baby boomers (whose demographic weight is cited as the cause of this alleged crisis) to their children.

Apart from the question of advisability (if the problem is the proportion of the population receiving OAS, this proportion will have shrunk by or shortly after 2020), I wonder if the baby boomers will object to or embrace policy that makes life harder for their children.

In general, people want a better life for their children - or at least not a worse life. No one cradles their brand new baby, all bundled up in a blanket and wearing an itty bitty hat, gazes adoringly into that scrunched up and confused little face and says "Look at you! You're going to have to work multiple jobs at once in constant contract hell until you're 80 just to scrape by, yes you are!" On top of that, the baby boomers tend to be more protective of their children than previous generations - this is, after all, the generation that invented helicopter parenting. On that basis, they sound like people who might object to policy that will worsen their children's quality of life.

On the other hand, the baby boomers are the generation who, to quote a source that I've forgotten but is clearly from the US, got the drinking age lowered to 18 when they were in college and raised back to 21 when their kids were in college. As a generation, they engaged in (or at least developed a reputation for engaging in) a drug-fuelled sexual revolution, and then when their kids get old enough to become interested in such things there's a war on drugs and abstinence-only sex "education".

So will they stand up for us or throw us under the bus? And, in making this decision, will they remember that we'll be picking out their nursing homes?

Seasonal agricultural workers

With seasonal agricultural workers in the news recently, I thought I'd share something interesting I learned from some texts I was translating a while back.

The workers I was translating about live in shared huts, shacks or trailers in the fields where they work. They work 12-16 hour days, for which they are paid basically minimum wage with living expenses deducted. They rarely, if ever, leave the farm. I don't know if this is an actual rule imposed by the farmers so much as a result of logistics, but the fact of the matter is that the existing model is not compatible with having one's own life outside of the farm.

There's no provision for picking your kids up at daycare. There's no provision for getting a book out of the library. There's no provision for a bit of time alone or with your partner.

When people talk about seasonal agricultural workers, they tend to say things like "Canadians aren't willing to do this work", as though Canadians don't want to work hard or something. But it isn't about that at all - it doesn't get as far as thinking about the difficulty of the work. The key point is that if you're going to give up your life for several months to do a job under all-consuming conditions, you're going to want to make enough money to support you for the rest of the year. Work all summer and make enough to pay for the next year's university tuition and living expenses. Spend a few months away from your family and be at home to take care of them the rest of the year.

But minimum wage - even at 80-100 hour workweeks - isn't enough to do this if you're living in Canada. However, it is enough to do this if you're living in the countries where the seasonal agricultural workers come from, because of the differences in currencies and economies and costs of living. That's why they're willing to give up their lives during farming season when we aren't. They get more money than they could ever make at home, but we get just as much as we'd make at any other job where you don't have to give up your life.

Rather than bemoaning Canadians' alleged lack of work ethic, people who want Canadians to be doing farm work should look at either a) how can we make farm work more compatible with having a life? (Shift work maybe?) or b) how can we tweak our economy so we can afford to buy food farmed by workers who are paid enough to give up their lives during farm season?

On Gary Webster

I am sickened and disgusted and terrified by the firing of Gary Webster, and I am so absolutely livid that this is being done in my name.

In addition to being an insult to Mr. Webster, the TTC, the people of Toronto, and basic good sense, this disgraceful behaviour is a slap in the face of the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians who came here specifically to flee this kind of corruption.

On top of that, this raises the very important question of what kind of person would be willing to replace him under these working conditions? When the previous incumbent was fired for refusing to falsify a business case, do we have any chance of getting a competent or ethical replacement?

I sincerely hope Mr. Webster wins millions and millions of dollars that the city can't afford in a massive wrongful dismissal suit. Even if he doesn't need the money, I hope he wins on principle.

If I were a lawyer, I would be volunteering to represent him pro bono.

If I owned a business, I'd be wracking my brains to figure out how to hire him for more than he made at the TTC.

Things They Should Invent: consulting firm staffed entirely by former senior civil servants driven out of their jobs for doing their jobs. (Gary Webster, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Munir Sheikh, etc.)

I've never donated money to a political campaign. I dislike the fact that you cannot donate anonymously. More than once I've googled someone and their political donations have come up on the first page of results, and I don't like the idea of a prospective employer or client or someone else with whom my relationship would be purely professional and apolitical having access to that information.

But my visceral reaction here, for the first time in my life, was that I want to donate as much money as possible to whomever has the best chance of beating out the people responsible for firing Mr. Webster in the next election.

In the meantime, there's a petition to get them removed from the TTC Board.

A major flaw in mandate of the Drummond report

I was very disappointed to see that the mandate of the Drummond report specifically did not allow them to recommend tax increases. This deprives the people of Ontario of essential information. We're being told that various public services, all of which are valued by some people and some of which are valued by everyone, need to be cut, but we aren't being told what the alternative is.

In life in general, if you want to convince people to do something unpleasant, you have to tell them what the alternative is. For example, if you have a child who needs to get vaccinated, you tell them they have to get a needle so they don't get a big yucky sickness that will certainly make them miserable and might even kill them. But the too-narrow mandate of this report is akin to walking up to that child and saying simply "I'm going to stick a needle into you."

The child may or may not understand, and may or may not accept, the idea that doctors sometimes have to do unpleasant things to you to make you healthy. But, in any case, they'll be far more likely to think it's reasonable to stick a needle into them if you first tell them what you're trying to prevent. Even as an adult who understands the concept of vaccination, you'll want to know what you're being vaccinated against and maybe google the disease if you aren't already familiar with it before you allow a needle to be stuck into you.

But the government isn't telling us what exactly they're trying to prevent with these cuts; they're just taking as a given that the alternative is too expensive.

And, in life in general, if you want to convince someone that something is too expensive, you start by telling them how much it costs. For example, imagine you get the notion of buying a good bottle of real champagne. So you go to the best wine merchant in town ask for real champagne. He looks you up and down and says "You can't afford real champagne."

Is your reaction going to be "You must be right, you know best"? Probably not. Your initial reaction will probably be "WTF do you mean I can't afford real champagne? I can so afford real champagne!" Depending on the kind of pride or stubbornness you have, you might even feel so compelled to prove you can afford real champagne that you buy a bottle of champagne that you can't actually afford.

However, if he said something like "Of course. We have a lovely selection of champagne, starting at $750,000 a bottle," that would dissuade you far more effectively, wouldn't it? And it would make you far more likely to trust the wine merchant's judgement of what you are and are not able to afford in the future.

Of course, the reason why the government gave the Drummond Commission a mandate that precluded recommending tax increases is probably because the government has no intention of raising taxes under any circumstances. However, this is a strategic error. If the government's apparent plan of not raising taxes under any circumstances is even remotely sound, a report that includes information on how much our taxes would need to go up to support current service levels would support and build credibility for that plan. And, knowing that, the fact that they nevertheless mandated the Commission to neglect this key information leads me to question whether their plan is in fact sound.

What problem are they trying to solve with airline gender ID rules in the first place?

The changes to airline screening regulations have gotten a lot of attention for their impact on transgender people. The problematic change in wording states an air carrier shall not transport a passenger who "does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents."

But in all the (rightful) focus on the impact of this change on transgendered people, there's one question I haven't seen asked yet:

Why are they making this rule in the first place?

Impersonating someone else and using fake ID is already against the rules, so introducing the gender rule doesn't add anything.

Logically, the gender rule sounds like it's intended to prevent people from getting through security by pretending to be someone of another gender. But that sort of ploy would only work if they weren't screening people of all genders. If that's the problem, what they need to do is screen people of all genders properly.

The new rule contributes nothing, and I'm really curious how it managed to get through the extensive legislation scrutiny process.

Controversial things that I would like to be available if I were one of the people affected

1. Sex-selection abortion. I was a wanted child, conceived quite mindfully and intentionally, and life is still hard. I have wished that I hadn't been born, but I've never been glad that I was born. (Long before I even knew what abortion was, I realized that I hadn't been born, I wouldn't mind not having been born). I'd imagine it's far worse if your parents don't think you're worth having because of your biological sex, but you would be worth having if you had a different biological sex. If my parents had wanted to abort me for being a girl, I would have wanted that option to be available to them.

2. The option of committing suicide when in prison. I always thought that part of the punishment of prison is that they prevent you from committing suicide, so you live to be raped and tortured another day. So, if I were in prison, I'd be very glad to have the option of ending it. However, I don't think the senator's proposal of providing rope for hanging is ideal. Nooses look hard to tie (I wouldn't know how to do it without googling, and I don't think they're allowed internet in prison) and I don't know the results of hanging with a poorly-tied noose. In addition, your bladder and bowels release when you die, and if the body's hanging from the ceiling that would all spray around the room and then someone would have to clean it up. A cleaner and more reliable method would be preferable. On top of all that, it isn't right for people who have been convicted of crimes to have the right to suicide when euthanasia isn't yet available to the general public. Nevertheless, I do support the general principle of suicide being an option, both inside and outside of prison.

I don't expect many people to agree with me on these points. I'm be the first to admit that I'm more nihilistic than most, and I'm certainly not saying that others should feel the same way just because I do; I do very much see where people who disagree with me are coming from. However, the fact remains that, if I were one of the people affected first-hand by these questions, this is what I would want.

Clothing drop boxes

I was very surprised and disappointed to hear that some city councillors are considering banning used clothing drop boxes.

I like them. They're convenient for me. Someone who wants my unwanted stuff is giving me a convenient location to drop it off at my leisure. They say some of the boxes aren't for charity, but that doesn't negate their convenience. They also say some of them don't give the clothes to the needy, instead selling them to recyclers to use to make recycled textiles. That doesn't bother me either, because it means I can put things like holey old underwear and stained t-shirts and odd socks in the box instead of throwing them out.

All the problems listed in the article seem to be that existing laws and regulations aren't getting enforced. There are already rules about who can and can't operate them. There are already rules against putting big boxes on other people's property without their permission. To ban the boxes because existing rules aren't getting enforced would be to fall into this trap.

In the meantime, there's a very simple first step to solving this problem that they could have taken in that very news article: name the two organizations who are actually licenced to run clothing drop boxes. Every article I've seen on the subject says there are two legit and licenced organizations, none of them name them. Naming them would cost nothing, take up only a few minutes of time, and allow us to make informed choices about where we drop off our old clothes. The news media could even do this themselves without having to wait for city council to act.

On Canada as a world leader

One thing that has always surprised me about federal governments (the current one in particular, although it's quite possible that I may have forgotten similar actions by other governments) is the extent to which they aspire to make Canada a major player on the world stage and a global leader in many areas. Population-wise, we are a small country. We're smaller than Poland! For other countries to even notice us would be punching way above our weight.

Sometimes as part of the same initiatives and sometimes in the form of other initiatives, they also seem to be trying to contrive sources of national pride, coming up with new slogans and events and heritage minutes as though our existing concept of what we aren't isn't already enough.

That's why it surprises me that the government would allow our same-sex marriage to end up in a legal quagmire.

Same-sex marriage is one area in which we are a global leader and where people around the world look up to us as a role model. And this occurred organically, through the natural course of our internal affairs. It wasn't grasping like Own the Podium or contrived like this recent obsession with the War of 1812 (since when do we commemorate the beginning of a war rather than the end anyway?). It was simply our country correcting a flaw in its existing jurisprudence, creating a fairer and more just life for its citizens. But it resulted in the world flocking to our doorstep, and genuine, spontaneous pride in our country.

The government would be very foolish to fuck this up indeed.

How Nortel pensioners can state their case more compellingly

On the radio yesterday morning, I heard an interview with a Nortel pensioner talking about the aftermath of the severe cuts to their pensions and benefits. Unfortunately, he didn't make his case very compellingly. When the interviewer asked him to describe how it affected his life, he said something about how he and his wife have to sit down and budget and figure out if they can afford expenditures. But that's not going to elicit sympathy in those who aren't already onside - people are going to say "So what? That's how real life works."

So here, with, as Col. Brandon says, an earnest desire to be useful, are some starting points for Nortel pensioners and others in similar positions to make their case more compellingly.

What decisions did you make in your working life that you would have done differently if you'd known you weren't going to have the promised pension or benefits? Did you work full-time for the purpose of increasing your pensionability, even though you didn't need the income? Did you stay with the job rather than pursuing a higher-paying or more rewarding alternative so that you'd have a pension? Did your spouse forgo pursuing pensionable employment to pursue their dreams or stay home with the kids or go back to school or have a go at starting a business because you had the security of your pension?

How would you have scheduled your retirement differently if you'd known you weren't going to have the promised pension or benefits? Would you have stopped working when you did? Have you been out of the workforce for 10 years and suddenly have to make money? What about older retirees - is there anyone whose dementia started setting in around the time pensions are eliminated so now they can't work and need more expensive care, but still have a decade or two of life expectancy left?

How would your financial planning have been different if you'd known you weren't going to have the promised pension or benefits? How much money did you pay into your pension anyway? Did you ever get any of that money back? By how much were your RRSP limits reduced each year? How much compound interest have you missed out on? Can you afford your home? Do you now have to live somewhere less pleasant, less safe, less convenient, less conducive to aging in place? Are there now bugs crawling out of your walls?

How would your basic life decisions have been different? Did you pay for your kid's wedding or your parent's nursing home only to discover that now you'd be much better off with that money back? Did you put one kid through university and now can't afford to do so for the other? Are you locked into a three-year iphone contract? Do you now have to ration your cheese intake? Would your family planning decisions have been different?

How does this affect your health? Can you no longer afford the proton pump inhibitors you need to eat adequately or the acupuncture you need to relieve your chronic pain? Have you cut back on dental care? Is your glasses prescription current? Will you have to have your dog put down earlier than you otherwise would because you can't afford the lifesaving veterinary treatments?

Tell people, in specific terms they can identify with, how the pension cutbacks have affected your everyday life. Tell them about choices you made that were sensible and prudent with the assumption that you'd get the pension you were promised, but that you would have made differently if you'd known that you wouldn't get the promised pension. Keep at the forefront of your message the fact that you were promised more, and not only planned accordingly but paid commensurate contributions into the pension plan. That's far more compelling than vague statements about having to budget.

What if your boss goes undercover but you don't want to be on TV?

It seems TTC Chair Karen Stintz went undercover as an ordinary TTC worker as part of a reality TV show called Undercover Boss.

Stintz was introduced to her TTC co-workers as Ruth Bear — her middle name and her mother’s maiden name. To explain the cameras, the TTC employees were told that Stintz/Bear was the subject of a documentary about a woman re-entering the work force.

But what happens if you actually are an ordinary TTC worker (or an ordinary worker in some other workplace) and your boss decides to do something like this, but you don't want to be on TV? Suppose you're assigned to work as part of their team, or you're the person whose job it would normally be to supervise the newbie? If one of your team members is being filmed, it might not be logistically possible to stay out of camera range.

Do they even take this into account? Are people given the option of another assignment if they don't want to be on TV? Or are people forced to be on TV just because someone near them is being filmed?