A Dog's Breakfast

Dog may be man's best friend, but Toronto is no friend of canines. If it's not a ban on pit-bulls that's forcing a woman to hire a lawyer to prove that her dog is innocent until proven guilty, it's the emergence of a forerunner in an outbreak of rabies. From the National Post,

Toronto Public Health is warning people who may have come in contact with or bought puppies from a busy Etobicoke flea market after one of the dogs died of rabies.

A vendor sold 10 to12 puppies of mixed breeds at Dr. Flea’s near Highway 27 and Albion Road on Sunday, Jan. 13, health officials said.

I didn't even know it was legal to sell animals at flea markets. Flea markets have always seemed unsavory to me, like travelling carnivals: a business could be there one weekend and gone the next, and there isn't a lot of accountability if anyone gets ripped off.

And I mean, really? You bought a dog from a flea market? Dude, I wouldn't even buy clothes from a flea market. Was there no negative connection in your brain between the words "dog" and "flea?"

Toronto May Just Have the Largest Number of Busybody Whiners Per Capita Than Any Other City

...and the award for paternalistic fucking killjoys of the week go to this site I just stumbled onto mere minutes ago: Illegal Signs.

Oh fuck, am I right? Someone's putting up advertising, goddamn demonic fucking signs of commercialism gone rampant, on their own private property? Well, fuck me! Fuck everyone! How will we all get on with out lives?

These are the same type of people who would cancel Christmas because the lights might be distracting to drivers.

Read this screed, right from the jackass's mouth:

The outdoor advertising industry has a global culture of non-compliance with the law. Advertising companies are erecting illegal billboards all over the world, wherever they can get away with it. In Toronto, this renegade, lawless industry has been acting with impunity due to bureaucratic negligence.

"This renegade, lawless industry?" What are they, smuggling Afghani children to be eviscerated and used in high-priced sex-dolls? They've entered into a private contract with whomever owns the building to put up an advertisement. If you don't like it, tough fuckin' cookies there, sunshine.

Join us as we fight to legalize and democratize Toronto’s visual environment.

Total mis-use of the word "legalize" not worth the trouble to point out to these nut-jobs, I have never seen an invented word so badly used in all of life than "democratize." You cannot "democratize" what you do not own. You have as little right to remove advertising from the subways as I do to tell you what to wear. And don't tell me these fuckwits aren't out to stop all advertising (just the illegal ones), because they admit as much in their "about" page by displaying their total contempt for private property, and their stated wish to have the citizens of Toronto be shielded from the dreaded horror of having a way to promote their business.

Notice how the site enters into no discussion about why the permits are necessary for the city - for revenue, and that's all. The "about" page moans on for the few short sentences their minds can string together to denounce any "monetization" of "civic capital" by selling out to the evil corporations, without once the notion coming up that permits are a way for City Hall to suck revenue out of another creation that wasn't their's.

I have a question How does Mr. Joe Bloggs and Ms. Jane Doe know when an advertisement has gone up without requiring a permit? Oh that's right. They usually fucking don't. They go through their lives, almost blissfully, unaware of the total fucking horror that somebody else's property might be inflicting upon their sensitive, still child-like brains. In fact, it seems that this site may be the only collection of people actually bothered by "illegal" signs - or should we say, pompous enough to want to exert power they haven't earned over property they haven't got. Envy is the worst of the seven sins, guys...

Addendum: to more properly rebut these folks (because I know that I've written this while in a bad mood, and have likely not provided the correct logical and philosophical ammunition to take them on, but mere invective), check out Jerry Kirkpatrick's book, In Defense of Advertising.

You've Still Got Your Voice, We're Just Taking Our Megaphone Back

or, The Public Arts: Artists Working Off Grants Should Learn From Freelancers

There was a very short piece in the Toronto Star's Entertainment section on November 17 that spun off from a main article about the new edition of Life of Pi, a book I've never read, have no interest in, and wondered why it would need an illustrated edition.

Or, at least I think it had something to do with The Life of Pi, and it certainly wasn't some smart-alec "artiste" trying to say "conservatives are stupid."

In the meantime, [Yann] Martel [the author of Life of Pi] is persisting with his campaign to persuade Stephen Harper of the virtues of public funding of the arts. For more than half a year, Martel has sent the Prime Minister a literary classic in the mail every two weeks, beginning with Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and, most recently, Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke.

It got me thinking - what exactly does Martel think he's going to accomplish?

Was his master plan to get Harper to say "Wow! These books are great! I think I'll take money from the Canadian public in order to get more of them" ?

The answer to the "starving artist" problem is not the public fleecing of Canadians in order to finance the artists' projects. If an artist's work cannot attract popular support, than what benefit would forced patronage have for the people paying for it? If I don't think that a book is worth buying, forcing me to buy it isn't going to change my opinion of it. If I think a sculpture is particularly ugly, you cannot set it up in my front yard because you think I'm "uncultured."

Have you ever wondered why bad movies get made? It's because the producers, or the actors, or the directors, were able to convince the studios (or the people holding the purse-strings) that their idea had value. Have you ever wondered why sequels to bad movies get made? Because the first bad movie made money, which was an expression of the public's sense of value. Whether you agree the public should find value in yet another installment in the Rush Hour series or not is not the point.

Value is not an inherent quality - nothing is intrinsically valuable. To be valuable, something must be useful for some ends, something must have a purpose, no matter what that purpose is. It doesn't matter whether a forest is valued because it can be cut down to produce paper or because we enjoy the way it looks, the inescapable fact is that it doesn't have value until a human being places value on it. This is especially true of art - the more people that are willing to pay to see it, the greater its value. Hell, it can even have great value with only one supporter, so long as that supporter believes that it is worth more than everybody else does. For example, I thought the TV show The Lone Gunmen was of great value - unfortunately, Fox did not.

Let's look at a classic example, Star Trek: between its second and third seasons, the show hung on the edge of cancellation by CBS. It was only a great outcry from fans, an expression of value, that showed the network that Star Trek did indeed have more value than they originally thought. Star Trek was only kept on the air because the fans convinced the network that the series had value - in effect, they sold Star Trek to the executives, even better than the producers could.

And this is what our publically funded artists must learn to do, and quickly.

Stephen King, John Grisham, and freelance writers the world over have been using the technique of "selling it" for their entire careers. When you write a book and present it to an agent or a publishing company or the future readers of your work, you don't say "I worked really hard on this," you say: "This book will sell, and these are the reasons." Heck, Stephen King does not merely by putting his name on it: "I know you don't think I can write a non-fiction book about the Red Sox, but, hey - the Stephen King brand is hot right now."

If your writing's not earning you the money you need to live, you shouldn't be writing - likewise if you're any other kind of artist. You need to convince companies to give you the big advances, not rely on government to pay for your apprenticeship.

My TTC Is... Filthy, smelly, frequently late, a waste of money, not worth the fare, horribly uncomfortable, grossly incompetent...

(photo from http://torontoist.com/2007/11/rightwingers_us.php, although I fail to see why being pissed off about the incompetence of TTC employees should be the exclusive domain of "right-wingers." Maybe "left-wingers" enjoy wastes of tax-payer money?)

The TTC (an acronym for "Toronto Transit Commission," or alternatively, "Take The Car"), that big swirling vortex that people who just really hate money like to support, has announced that, despite yet another fare increase a week ago, they're still hemorrhaging cash:

http://www.thestar.com/article/276279

If you thought last week's TTC fare increase would be enough to solve Toronto's transit woes, think again.

The TTC is already projecting a $32 million shortfall on its $1.2 billion operating budget next year.

Although the gap is pegged at only $14 million officially, the TTC's contract with its unionized workers expires in March and a new agreement is expected to cost an extra $18 million a year.

Unveiling the 2008 budget proposal yesterday, TTC officials said they face significant financial challenges, including $21 million in service improvements, increased costs and continued ridership growth.

So, hold up a second - you mean to tell me that that expensive new automated "stop announcing system" didn't generate millions of dollars out of nowhere, but actually cost money? And that new art project for a few downtown stations didn't generate any revenue either? But...how?

Could you imagine a private company running their affairs this way? Coming up short year in and year out, and yet announcing even more new and exciting projects which are expected to generate precisely zero dollars in profit? That company would fold faster than - and please excuse the cliche - Superman on laundry day.

Why wouldn't you get the system up to "tolerable" levels before adding new features? After all, would you buy caviar when you haven't even scraped together the money to buy the toast?

I am so sick of this. It's as if the heads of the mighty Transit Commission don't realize that they need to take in more money than they spend if they want to keep doing what they're doing. They don't consider future costs, they aren't willing to take a hard stance with their unions, they aren't willing to forgo some new thing-a-ma-jig or pet-project in order to save money, and they definitely aren't willing to consider any sort of revenue stream that isn't forcibly taken from people who don't even use, never mind enjoy the transit system. Instead of getting buses that can seat more than 12 people comfortably, we get buses with bike-racks on the front, or ad campaigns that give themselves pats-on-the-back, or some inane removal of helpful signs for what seems to be no other reason than an excuse to give incompetent employees who can't be fired something to do.

How can the TTC raise some money? For one, I proposed actually privatizing the TTC way back on my Facebook page. Of course, in conjunction with such a proposal, I also said that the system would then need to be opened up to competition, as monopolies are, and I believe I speak for everyone who's ever dealt with Canada Post when I say this, no fucking fun at all. Hell, maybe the system could be opened up for competition without privatization. Don't know how, but I think it's worth looking at.

I also suggested more vigorous advertising: there should be advertisements on subway train seats, subway station elevators, and even over the audio announcement system I derided before. It doesn't have to be elaborate, only a little "the TTC is brought to you by Future Shop," or some other crap. The website should also include advertising, which can be cheap and unobtrusive. Could such advertising be considered be considered obnoxious, or simply unsavory? Sure. But I'd rather put up with a three-second ode to H&M between the announcing of stops than pay increasing prices for decreasing service.

Here's the original post:

Things the TTC Should've Saved Money on...

...before running face-first into the inevitable shit-storm associated with voting in an ex-NDP mayor, and talking about cutting routes and raising ticket prices in order to scare the public into allowing them to raise taxes.

These things should have been done over five years ago:

- refrained from purchasing 800 buses that are cramped, uncomfortable, lurchy, and virtually seat-less.

- refrained from fitting those same moronic buses with bike racks stuck to the front.

- switched over to an all-token system: paper tickets have to be recycled every time their used. Metal tokens can last up to 20 years without wearing out. "Smart-cards" could also have been considered.

- looked into the "driver-less" automated trains like they use in Paris.

-stood up to their money-wasting unions.

- opened the system up to competition.

- worried about running an efficient transit system, not about tarting up the subway stations with "modern" art like 2-dollar whores (or, with fares today, $2.70 whores)

- built subway stations that followed demand, not wishful thinking (Sheppard subway, anyone? Anyone?)

- increased station advertising.

- given up and privatized it.

I don't blame them for not thinking ahead - I mean, they had that scheme to give the homeless free booze and cigarettes, and when you've got such a flawless plan, why would you hedge your bets?

I've also mulled over the possibility of removing the current system of child/student/adult/senior tickets, as would be necessary with an all-token system, and decreasing the fare to $1.50. I figure that a family of four (two adults, two kids) would have once spent (2.70 x 2 + 0.70 x 2 =) $6.80 to go one way on the bus. With 1.50 for everyone? $6.00. Okay, maybe we can make it $1.75. But the point is that you would not be losing that much revenue, considering that so much transit is paid for by students who use, fittingly enough, student tickets, and who are hassled every day by drivers asking for student I.D. This inevitably pisses off the student, forces the TTC to maintain a system of producing photo-ID cards, inconveniences other passengers when a particularly tenacious student without ID will not leave the bus after being told that the ticket he just threw into the fare box cannot be redeemed for a ride, endangers the driver if the student won't take it lying down, and pisses off the 12-year-old who just looks thirteen but is being hassled by a big dumb bald guy who thinks that he can verify age by sight alone. In case you couldn't tell, I have been witness to all of these events, and they never fail to tick me off.

I think that I may have steered a bit off of my initial purpose of this post, which was simply to feign surprise that the TTC is, once more, not in the black, but I take any chance I can to complain about the TTC. Holy fuck, do I hate this transit system.