EFFORT IS EVERYTHING

We constantly hear phrases that are designed to be encouraging. Phrases that tell us that all we have to do is "dream", "believe", or "try, try, try", or "never give up." These phrases are meant to convey the certainty that, with unflagging effort, rigourous training, an iron will, and unshakeable faith , all things are possible. These bromides are particularly evident at the quadrennial sports orgy known as the Olympics. We are bombarded with these words constantly, and are told to believe in miracles which, miraculously, come true.

Nonsense.

More often than not, success is determined by a combination of the above mentionned things plus one vitally important, yet never spoken attribute: luck.

Ask an athlete, a successful business person, an accomplished and revered artist, even a respected politician, and they will tell you that, indeed, hard work, an iron will, immense confidence and perseverence all played a roll in their success. But they will be just as quick to point out that they were "lucky" to break free of the crowd and rise to the pinacle of their field.

Why do we not acknowledge luck? Why do we put so much stock in "dreams" etc? What is the problem in admitting that, if one does not attain the ultimate success in a field, one is merely unlucky?

Because you can't sell luck.

Luck is capricious. It does not follow any logical, predictable rules. It touches those it favours and disdains those it reviles. There is no way of knowing if luck will favour one in their efforts until the event is over. And, when it is over, we fawn over the victorious and extoll their superior virtues, talents and skills. Why ? Because we can measure them, and quantify them, and use them to sell things. The others who competed and lost are just as determined, often just as skilled, and have dreams just as large. But they lost, so, therefore, there must be something flawed in their approach. Best not to pay attention to the losers, because what they did was obviously wrong, and not worthy of respect or even adulation. Second place is merely the first loser, and noone ever got a contract promoting something with a silver or bronze medal. Fourth place? Forget it !!

Maybe it was just not their time. Maybe the fortune fell to the winner on that particular time, just because it did. Tomorrow? Who knows? It will probably favour another.

But we can't sell that. It's just too ephemeral. Too wishy-washy. Too random. We need certainty and we crave predicability. And those whose job it is to sell things make sure we put all our faith in those certain things. Luck? Who needs it, when you have a plan, when you have a goal, when you have a dream?

Me? I'd rather be lucky than good any day, any time, in any thing I do. If I succeed and people want to blow it off as just "dumb luck", I'm fine with that. Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the world's greatest strategists, when told of the skills and talents of an up and coming officer in the French army, is alleged to have said, "Yes, yes, I know of his skills. But, tell me .... is he lucky?"

So, when we begin our orgy of sports known as the Olympics, let's not get on too much of a bandwagon on how great the winners are. All the athletes are great. Let's instead celebrate the winners' luck, and wish for that kind of luck in our own lives.

IS DON CHERRY THE GAYEST MAN IN CANADA?

IS DON CHERRY THE GAYEST MAN IN CANADA?

On a recent edition of TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin", the topic of discussion was the rebranding of Canada. The assertion was that the traditional image of Canada, the way we used to think of ourselves, the way we wanted the world to think of us, has changed over the last 20 years or so. The old tradition, that of a bilingual, multicultural, peace-keeping left-leaning nation was giving way to a more robust image: that of the loud and boisterous swagger of the 2010 Olympics, with flags waving, bragging about "owning the podium", and a macho warrior mentality seen in the actions of the troops in Afghanistan. We are no longer the "Scandinavians of North America": now, we approach the world as beligerents, ready to fight before we negotiate, ready to take on all comers and to hell with those who don't like us.

The discussion smacked of too much hyperbole and a whole lot of silly stereotyping, but the consensus of the panel was that there was some truth to the change. The change was reflected too, they said, in the swing in political preference. Gone are the days of Trudeaumania, replaced by the new realities of Stephen Harper's regime. When that type of discussion made the rounds of the panel, I began to realize that there was indeed a shift, and it could be summed up in one remarkable phrase. Canada was turning into a nation of Don Cherrys.

I reacted with horror at this. Don Cherry, as I have posted before, is perhaps the most inarticulate, narrow-minded, egotistical, error-ridden commentator on television. His survival is a testament to the ability of the human race to exist in spite of all odds and thrive when there should be no chance of hanging on. The fact that he has a weekly spot on CBC ( that most "pinko" of networks ) shows just how incredible his survival really is, and how ridiculous he makes us all look. How could he become the face and vision of the land that we all love?

And then, it hit me. Cherry might just be the perfect symbol of Canada. Not the new, meaner, swagger-filled Canada, but the older, more traditional Canada. For you see, gentle reader,  Don Cherry might just be the man that stands for one of the most cherished of Canadian attitudes: inclusiveness. Why? Because Don Cherry just might be gay. In fact, he may be the gayest man in Canada.

I have always believed in the necessity of Canada being inclusive. Unless you are First Nations, we have all come from somewhere else: and, in the case of First Nations, it could even be argued that they arrived in North America across a land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age. So, it follows that, if we are a nation of new-comers, we must embrace the notion that we all bring different things to the nation. That includes things like language, religion, traditions, skills, culture, ethnicity, and, yes, sexual orientation. And that's where Don Cherry comes in. Need proof?

Item:  Don Cherry famously kissed Doug Gilmour not once, but at least three times on national television. The pictures seem to indicate a fondness for the touch of the masculine lips. One wonders how much tongue was involved.

Item: Don Cherry shops at Fabricland. Not for drapes or furnishings, but for the material for his flamboyant suits. He loves the image of pipe bands, and the wearing of kilts. When he described a band he was part of, he said they all looked "gorgeous".

Item: Don Cherry has made a career out of extolling the virtues of the team mentality. He has stated on several occasions how important it is to be "with the guys", eating, sleeping, showering together after games and on road trips. He was absent from home, wife and children often as he toiled in the AHL for more than a dozen seasons. He prefers the company of men.

Item: Don Cherry tears up and becomes excessively emotional whenever extolling the virtues of our troops or peace officers. He is a man who cries easily. Macho? Hell, show him a picture of the Queen and watch him dissolve. No wonder he carries fancy hankies in his jacket pocket.

Like many members of the LGBT community, Don Cherry has had to live in another world to avoid his "coming out". So, he has created the persona of himself as a bombastic, tough-talking, roughneck ready to drink and fight and dare anyone to disagree. But I see through him. I believe that, deep down, he is sensitive, sentimental, colourful, flamboyant, and firmly in touch with his feminine side.

He is, therefore, a perfect image and symbol of Canada. Here's to you Don, you sweetheart, you !!

Of course, gentle reader, I could be wrong about all of this. In fact, I am quite sure that Don Cherry is not gay. But if he is,so what? Whether Don is gay or not is not important. Being LGBT should no longer matter in our world. What is important is what he represents, and how real it all is. In my view, the whole Don Cherry, Canada-as-a-new-swaggering-tough-guy-type-of-nation, isn't very real at all. Back to the drawing board, I guess. What a country, eh ?

LAMENT FOR BRIAN, JOE, AND BILL

I have been interested in politics all my life. I feel it's an important duty of citizenship to be aware of issues, opinions and personalities involved in decision making. It impacts every part of my life and I want to know these issues and people, and to be involved as much as I can.

I have voted in every federal, provincial and municipal election since I turned 18. That's almost 40 years of voting. My preference in these elections, which will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me, is to vote Liberal. But I have voted for other parties too. I have supported the NDP on occasion, and voted Marxist-Leninist in a federal election when I was probably 20 in order to register a "protest" vote: this was not my greatest electoral moment, I admit. I have even voted Conservative ( gasp!). The year was 1988 and the issue was free trade and I supported Brian Mulroney's initiative and voted against John Turner. History seems to support my decision. In other elections, I have toyed with the idea of voting Conservative when faced with weak Liberal choices: choices like Stephane Dionne and Paul Martin, or even Jean Chretien in his later administrations. I admit that, provincially, I supported Bob Rae, only to regret my decision shortly after, but not really liking the prospect of David Peterson. And, recently, in the provincial election of last fall, I really had a hard time supporting Dalton McGuinty's government, and ended up voting for an NDP long-shot, only because I couldn't vote for Frank Klees, our local MPP. I have never supported another local, Belinda Stronach, even when she became a Liberal, because I saw her defection from the Conservatives as sleazy opportunism.

My point is that, while a life-long Liberal, I have always had a grudging admiration for the reasonable Conservative point of view. In a former blog, I praised Joe Clark for his view of Canada as a "community of communities", which ran counter to the views of my all-time political hero, Pierre Trudeau. History has indicated that Clark was right, and Trudeau was an idealist whose ideas were wonderful, but not practical. I have supported Brian Mulroney, despite my dislike for the man personally: he always seemed slimy, but his concept of Canada was not far off the mark. And, provincially, Bill Davis guided Ontario with a steady, if rather dull hand, but his educational policies put Ontario in the right direction for almost 20 years, until the ruinous policies and antagonisms of Mike Harris ruined what was a fine system and turned it into a run-of-the-mill programme that resembles some of the worst of American educational ideas.

So, as a Liberal, I find that I am actually longing for the days of the old-time Canadian Progressive Conservatism of gentlemen such as John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield ( probably the most underrated Canadian politician in the 20th century), William Davis, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark and others. As a matter of fact, a gentlemen by the name of Sinclair Stevens, a minister in many Mulroney governments, is a frequent visitor in our local Tim Horton's. I often see him and wish I had the chutzpah to go up to him, shake his hand and buy him a large double-double.

Because you see, gentle reader, that this particular breed of Conservative politician has vanished from the Canadian landscape. Instead, we have the type of Conservative idealogy espoused by the likes of Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Tim Hudak, Rob Ford, Tony Clement, Frank Klees, and the most despicable of all, Stephen Harper.

These people are not Progressive Conservatives, the type that I could vote against but still admire and not cringe when they won power. No, the above named men are anathema to everything I believe and wish for my country, province and locality. And those who support them are, I believe, mostly unaware of what they are. They believe that these men are honourable, trustworthy, and wish to guide Canada into a bright and responsible future.

They are, in fact, the enemy of Canadian democracy, for the following reasons:

1) In 2011, the Harper Conservatives were held in Contempt of Parliament, in the first case against a minister of the crown, Bev Oda, and in the second case against the entire cabinet, for failing to provide opposition requests for details pertaining to government costs on certain programmes. Never in the history of Canadian politics has a cabinet, and therefore an entire government, been charged with contempt.

2) Twice, the Harper Conservatives prorogued Parliament. By suspending Parliament, they avoided having to deal with opposition challenges. This is the rough equivalent of a spoiled child who doesn't get its way picking up his ball and going home, rather than facing his playmates who want to play a different game. Admittedly, Harper was in a minority situation at the time, but prorogation is a drastic step, and he did it TWICE, thus showing his disdain for Parliamentary democracy.

3) The Robo-call Scandal is perhaps a tempest in a teapot, but it shows that this breed of Conservatives will do ANYTHING to win an election, including place misleading calls to possible Liberal supporters to go somewhere else to cast a vote in an election, only to find that the location they've been sent is bogus. More of this will be revealed.

4) Attack ads. An excellent column in the Toronto Star deals with this issue, so I won't repeat it. Suffice to say that the recent ads against Bob Rae are offensive in their juvenile tone and name calling, and are reminiscent of the attacks against Michael Ignatieff in the last election campaign. What's different about these ads, though, is the fact that there is NO election campaign on-going: the next federal election is 3 years away. But the Harper Conservatives are counting on the disgust felt by the electorate with the low tone and childish quality of political debate in Canada, thus creating another low voter turnout next time, which will probably benefit the incumbent Conservatives and result in another victory for them.

5) The book Harperland: the Politics of Control , written by the journalist Lawrence Martin, paints a somewhat unflattering portrait of the type of administration practiced by Stephen Harper. It shows a man who is in unquestionned control of his party and government, and will tolerate little or no opposition to him or his inner circle of advisors. According to the book, Harper is an autocrat and is a believer in a type of realpolitik that sees the world in black or white, friend or enemy, and where winning is the only thing that matters.

There are other issues besides these. Locally, Rob Ford's battle with the city council on the issue of transit shows how the new non-Progressive Conservative feels about defeat in any type of council on an issue that is democratically debated and voted. Provincially, Tim Hudak berates McGuinty on any issue he can think of without offering any type of alternative: the upcoming provincial budget will prove to be very contentious and will, in all likelihood, result in another election, one the electorate doesn't want. The CBC discusses all these regularly on The National's segment entitled "At Issue", where the commentators routinely decry the state of Canadian democracy. Indeed, it is in a shambles and is disgraceful.

Stephen Harper and his brand of Conservative thugs and lackies are to blame. And his heros, named above, enabled him to get to this low point.

I strongly urge all my Conservative friends to resist them, and vote against them. Or, if you can't do that, please get involved within your local Conservative riding association and try to get a more reasonable agenda back where we need it: an agenda that allows for decency, tolerance of other viewpoints, and acceptance of loss of debate or votes when that happens.

In other words, the type of politics practiced by Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark and Bill Davis. Oh, for the good old days .... sounds rather conservative, doesn't it ??

A TALE OF TWO BEHEADINGS

In 1535, Sir Thomas More was beheaded in London on the order of the monarch whom he served with much dedication and devotion: Henry VIII. The story is well known and has been the subject of many scholarly books, an award-winning play, and an Oscar-winning movie. More has been venerated in the Catholic Church as a saint, and held in the highest esteem in England as a man of great principle, faith, and courage. More was, by all accounts, a man of great intelligence and wisdom. He attended Oxford and was one of the keenest young scholars of that school. He studied law, theology, and languages. He wrote scholarly treatises, and political tracts that expounded on a perfect society. His work "Utopia" is perhaps best known.

When Henry VIII decided that, in order to annul his first marriage and take up with the young and beautiful Anne Boleyn, a series of events caused him to reform the Church in England and create his own institution which would rubber stamp his plans. Most in England were too frightened of the powerful Henry to stand up to him. Those who dared to do so were eliminated. Evidence suggests that More, as Henry's chancellor, allowed several "heretics" or political opponents to be burned at the stake: hardly a bright spot on an otherwise brilliant curriculum vitae.

But, eventually, More ran afoul of Henry's intentions. When events reached the breaking point, Henry had More arrested, charged with "great ingratitude" which eventually became treason, and tried. The evidence produced at the trial was inconclusive at best until the perjered testimony of Richard Rich. Henry got his wish, and the "problem" of Sir Thomas More was solved with the stroke of an axe.

Fast-forward to 2012, and to the city of Toronto. Mayor Rob Ford, embroiled in a transit controversy with several members of his own council, finds it suddenly difficult to work with the TTC general manager, Gary Webster. The issue is whether subways are preferred to Light Rail Transit. It has proven to be a dispute of larger proportions, however, as the mayor sees any opposition to his plans of subway-only transit as signs of treason at the hands of enemies. When a bureaucrat of Webster's stature openly opposes the mayor's intentions, heads must roll. This week, Webster was summarily dismissed "without cause" despite his exemplary work record and almost universal admiration for his abilities. Webster is gone, and the mayor will proceed with his plans.

Clearly, today's situation is preferable only in the sense that no actual blood was shed, and Webster's head is still functioning atop his shoulders. But the similarities must be obvious even to the most ardent supporters of Mr. Ford. It is apparent that, if an administrator disagrees with his political master, he must either shut up about his concerns or be prepared to be eliminated if he goes public. In a manner of speaking, Webster was "executed" simply at the pleasure of his political boss.

What does this mean? If governments do not allow those whose expertise and experience are originally valued so highly to speak their minds and offer opinions based on that expertise and experience, then why have them at all? Must administrators be puppets and lap dogs of their political masters? Why not, then, let the master simply rule by dictat and abolish all trappings of democracy and professionalism? And who, in their right mind, would work in an atmosphere created by people such as Henry VIII or Rob Ford?

Mr. Ford may think he has won an important battle in his transit wars. But he should pay attention to history. After Henry deposed and eliminated More, Henry became more and more tyrannical and cruel. We are all aware of the portraits of a king in his later years, unchallenged by any opposition, bloated with the excesses of his harsh and egotistical rule. Henry may have purged himself of all opposition, but, in the end, he died a horrible and painful death, caused as much by his own inflated vision of his personal greatness. He may not have died of syphillis, but the cankers and sores that wouldn't heal are undisputed. I don't wish the same actual fate for Rob Ford, but he should beware the hubris that comes with such sleazy and unnecessary rule.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR HELP TO MY FRIENDS.

The recent Occupation Toronto protests initially occured without much comment, but as the days grew shorter, so, it seems, did the tempers of several of my facebook friends and occasional readers of this blog. And so, gentle reader, here is my attempt to make sense out of the anger and vitriol expressed over the last few days. I appeal to you to help me understand, weak man that I am.

1) Words such as "anarchy" and "revolutionary" were used to describe the Occupiers. Anti-Occupation signs accused them of being whiners, spoiled kids with no future prospects, burned-out hippies, homeless and insane. A bunch of losers and misfits.

Gentle reader, you must be right. That would explain all the molotov cocktails hurled at passers-by during the Occupation. And youth with no future prospects? Well, what do they have to complain about? Recent statistics show that 80% of young Canadians have jobs. Shame on the nearly 20% who don't because jobs are being shipped off to China or are being done by automation. Adapt or die, slackers !! Homeless and insane? Surely, they have nothing to complain about either, especially in this tropical paradise where all you need to do is sleep out under the stars on a warm beach and pick bananas or oranges from the trees. Life is good, so why complain?

2) The Occupation destroyed local business.

Right on, reader !! Around St. James Park is the veritable hub of Canadian enterprise. There is a Starbucks, a Coffee Time, an Indian restaurant, and several pawn shops. Oh yes, and we must not forget that bastion of capitalism, the Anglican Cathedral Church of St. James. The Church will need years to recoup the financial losses from the Occupation.

3) The critics dispute the 1% vs 99% numbers.

Well, my friends, you must be part of the 1%! Your economic future is secure because of your hard work, superior intelligence, family connections, and good fortune. Those in the 99%, who struggle to keep their jobs, keep a roof over their family's head, afford their kids' education, try to keep their cars on the road with climbing gas and insurance prices so they can do a job that pays less and less in real purchasing power and might just disappear when their boss learns what they pay workers in China, are completely ignorant of the macro economic realities of the times. Thank goodness, though, you understand completely.

4) The Occupation was illegal. There is no camping on city property.

Right again, gentle reader. We frown on illegal activities such as camping on city grounds .... and also fighting in hockey, parking in disabled parking spots even though noone in the car is disabled, not scooping after your dog poops, possessing more than 30 grams of weed, illegally downloading favourite songs or movies or software, having open bottles of alcohol in your car, and shooting Osama Bin Laden. I assume, since you were outraged at the Occupiers' flagrant violation of the law, that you agree with me that the above activities must be stopped at once, to the fullest extent of the law!! Right? Right?

5) The Occupation couldn't be taken seriously. It was disorganized and sloppy looking. Who was in charge? What was their message?

Again, gentle reader, you have hit the mark. After all, an activity that was supposed to promote democracy should have been rigidly controlled, supervised, with all actions under close scrutiny by the powerful leadership of the "occupier bosses". Their message was unclear because it was unscripted and untested in a focus group. These Occupiers ... what a bunch of losers! They should learn how to lead a democratic movement like the federal Conservative Party: or maybe Rob Ford: now THAT'S democracy.

5) The Occupation churned up St. James Park. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for thousands of dollars to rehabilitate and clean up the park.

Absolutely correct !! My, you are unbeatable in any type of debate !! And, by that logic, I'm sure you are now ready to join my campaign to end the violent activites of football and soccer in all city parks. These terrible activities cost taxpayers untold thousands of dollars each year fertilizing, cutting and weeding the grass: not to mention the cost of putting the lines on the field. But you are with me, aren't you? Imagine the howls of anger from all those unionized parks and rec workers when their lazy-ass jobs are yanked out from under them. And, while we're at it, join me in outlawing family picnics in G. Ross Lord Park or on the Beach Boardwalk. Who do these people think they are? How dare they use our public land for their personal use! Bastards!

6) The park is public land. Citizens couldn't use St. James Park during the protest.

Aha, you have the right of it !! That explains why I haven't seen you over the past several months: you were in St. James Park, enjoying the serenity and peace of that green oasis. But, of course, when the Occupiers, who claim to be members of the public, set up camp in the "public" land, municipal by-law officers arrive ready to evict them from "municipal property".

Hmm.... I'm confused, gentle reader. Help me on this. Just who, exactly, owns public land? Ah, I get it now. YOU own the land!! And, because of this, you are perfectly in your right to call in the police ( and are willing to pay their overtime, don't forget ) to evict these trespassers !! Thank goodness you're here !!

I'm glad we had this little dialogue. My mind is now at peace. The next time there is some type of social upheaval and people take to the streets or parks to voice their concerns, I'll look for your comments on facebook and elsewhere to help me to understand the RIGHT way to do things.

Thank-you so much !!!

THE RETARDED GIANT

In 1975, while I was in my first year at Western , I took a long train ride from London to Toronto. It was not a particularly happy occasion because I was going to a funeral. But what stands out in my mind was the appearance of Toronto in the dark evening as I approached Union Station. I hadn't been to Toronto in a good long time and it was quite a sight.

The bright lights of the Toronto-Dominion Centre, the recently completed centre-piece of the expanding city skyline, glared almost defiantly at me as I craned my neck looking out the train window. Commerce Court and First Canadian Place were nearing completion. New tall buildings stretched north from the TD out to the curves of the city hall. To the south, the dome and pods of Ontario Place glistened like a jewel on the lake front. And, dominating the scene, like a sword in an anvil, was the ambitious CN Tower, proclaiming to the world that Toronto had arrived as a great metropolis.

To a twenty year old kid from Brantford, Toronto stretched like an endless horizon into the eternity of the future. Later achievements like the Eaton Centre, waves of new Canadians from all corners of the world, the creation of festivals in the arts and culture, combined to inspire a belief that the city would become great.

Nicknames like "the city that works" and "megacity" evoked size, energy, and progress. Peter Ustinov, the British actor and wit, claimed that Toronto was like "New York run by the Swiss." Everything seemed bright, efficient and positive.

And then, just as surely as my train ducked under the stale old roof of Union Station and obscured my view into the future, the lustre of the "world-class city" vanished. Today, Toronto is crowded, congested, ugly, nasty, and soul-less.

In the November edition of The Walrus , writer John Lorinc describes the decline in "Where Toronto Went Wrong", an article that excellently chronicles the downward spiral. I will not attempt to paraphrase the article here. I suggest that, if you are curious, you read it on line at http://www.walrusmagazine.com/ . It is long, but well written, and, most importantly, correct.

For me, however, the article crystallized what I have observed for a long time. Toronto, despite the busy activity of the financial sector, in spite of the many festivals and concerts, the tall buildings dwarfing the TD Centre, has not lived up to its promise of greatness.

Other cities in the world have caught up and passed it. Chicago has a better waterfront: so too, do Cardiff, Sydney, Liverpool, Cleveland, and Reykjavik. The nightlife is better in Austin, Montreal, Dublin, and Newcastle. The scenery is better in Vancouver. People are more enthusiastic and joyful in Rome, Philadelphia and Havanna ( where they have little to be joyful about). The sports teams are better in Boston and Buffalo. The traffic is worse than Los Angeles. The transit system is older and more unreliable than London or Paris. The politics is as trivial and devoid of creativity as any city or town in Latin America. And the crime, though not as bad as many believe, is rife with guns, gangs, frauds and drugs.

Toronto built a new opera house recently. It looks like a high school: no soaring sails like Sydney or golden undulations like Cardiff. The concert hall, built in the 1980's by a Vancouver architect, has terrible accoustics. The museum completed a highly publicized renovation that looks like dry wall exploding from the classic stone walls of the old building, and not with the daring, futuristic lines of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, ironically designed by a Torontonian architect named Frank Gehry. The current building boom is cookie-cutter condominiums. There is no train link to the airport. Our stadium, once an engineering marvel, is no longer unique, and has empty spaces where restaurants once gleemed: it only has a capacity of 52,000 and is rarely that full: Cardiff's Milennium Stadium, with retractable roof and 80,000 seats is often full. The CN Tower is now the "second" tallest free-standing structure in the world. The current mayor wants to redevelop the old harbour, known as the Donlands, with a monorail, a shopping mall, and a ferris wheel. The zoo and libraries will probably be sold or shut down in an effort to save money and get off the "gravy train". We settled for the Pan American Games and forgot about the Olympics.

I think of myself at 20 emerging from the depths of Union Station and staring up. What I see when I do this now is harried commuters rushing for late GO trains. The soul of the city core is made up of well-dressed bankers who have the good humour of people with severe constipation. The old suburbs are made up of recent immigrants who have escaped their old hell-holes and still have the thousand yard stares of those places. The middle- and working-classes are gone, fled to the 905 and are forever caught in the gridlock of a "rush" hour that never ends.

I could go on. Suffice to say that, whenever I think of all this, I can comfort myself with the truth that Toronto is at least not Detroit. But the decline is there, plain as day. Toronto is at a cross-roads in its history. It can never go back to the safe, satisfied, orderly days of the provincial backwater it once was, controlled by a dour and parsimonious Orange-order elite. But it has lost the promise of the young, emerging, talented and forward-looking city is was supposed to be.

Who has the vision, strength, and courage to pull it back together? Rob Ford? Don Cherry? John Derringer? Marilyn Dennis? The Rogers family? Brian Burke? Bank CEO's? Dalton McGuinty? Police Chief Bill Blair? Snow? The ghost of Timothy Eaton? Executives from Nortel or RIM? Chris Bosch? ......

Detroit, here we come !!