Death To My Hometown

To some of us of a certain vintage (aged nicely like a bottle of wine), Bruce Springsteen holds a special place in our musical hearts. He appealed to our youthful restlessness, a passionate desire to be someplace other than where we were, someplace that had to be more exciting, more grittily rock-and-roll. Where there was an opera out on the turnpike and a ballet being fought in the alley.

Teen-aged intensity gave way to a certain level of disinterest which I blame more on our move from vinyl to CDs rather than to any decline in quality in Springsteen’s output. We became more distant, less engaged and hands-on with our music. Our attention wavered and The Boss demanded utter devotion.

Or we just got old. I’m willing to accept that distinct possibility. But at some point Born To Run became less an anthem than a song that filled the dance floor with drunken wedding guests.

I bring this up not as some sort of Saturday nostalgia trip but because I came across an excerpt of Marc Dolan’s “Bruce Springsteen and the Promise of Rock and Roll” earlier this week in Salon. Even if you aren’t a Springsteen fan or even know who he is, I highly recommend reading the article as it traces the politicization of the musician during the Reagan era and Springsteen’s own rise from cult status to full blown superstar. It is truly fascinating.

In my beer drinking days before I became a Chardonnay swilling elitist, I remember having a heated drunken barroom argument about the politics of Springsteen’s Born in the USA song. “What do you mean it’s all rah-rah America’s great!” I said indignantly. “Have you listened to the lyrics aside from the chorus?” Born down in a dead man town/The first kick I took was when I hit the ground/You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much/Till you spend half your life just covering up. “What part of that screams, Morning in America to you?”

In his book, Dolan suggests that both Reagan and Springsteen shared an overlapping ideology if not politics. A particular rugged individualism and a dream of freedom for people to pursue life on their own terms, unhindered. So much so that during the re-election campaign in 1984, the president’s handlers overtly sought to piggyback on Springsteen’s growing popularity in order to expand beyond Reagan’s traditional base. There’s a hilarious description of a buttoned-down and bow-tied George Will attending a Springsteen concert.

“In general, Will found Springsteen androgynous, noisy and surrounded by pot smokers, yet in the end he concluded that the singer was ‘a wholesome cultural portent’  As a political commentator, Will may not have cared about rock ’n’ roll’s future, but he did see Springsteen’s abundant success as an emblem of a robust American present.

The difference was, ironically, the politics of freedom and individualism espoused by the much older Reagan’s was formed by a combination of his fervid anti-communism and an adherence to the nascent neo-conservative belief in the supremacy of the free market while, according to Dolan, “…Springsteen finally moved beyond his 1960s rock ’n’ roll individualism, back to the New Deal communalism he had instinctively absorbed from his parents.” Freedom from the tyranny of the state versus being free only if we’re all free. Freedom for me versus freedom for all.

What’s all this got to do with the forum I’m currently writing in? [I was just about to ask that question. – ed.] Well, Ronald Reagan’s vision triumphed and, despite its worst excesses still afflicting the world at large, it continues a slow creep, further perverted by conservative zealots who would be unrecognizable to the man they claim as their idol. This includes an extreme form of it here in Toronto under the Ford administration.

But nowhere does this type of ideology fit worse than it does at the municipal level. It’s hardly surprising that when a society turns inward and gives primacy to individual rights above all else, the first place it’s felt is in our cities. Not for not are they called communities and by pulling more and more out of the public sphere, the impact is felt almost immediately. Roads crumble. Parks go untended longer. Pools open later and close sooner. Libraries reduce their hours. Busses appear less frequently. [Or, as a certain member of Team Ford says: Widows and orphans make do with less cupcakes. – ed.]

 

It simply runs contrary to the building of better cities. Cut is the opposite of build. You can’t untax your way to a better city. The numbers simply won’t add up.

In the end, what you have is a Tenth Avenue Freeze Out in the midst of a Jungleland with the bridges all fallen down and no way to get yourself over for that Meeting Across the River.

[Yeah, yeah. We got it. You know every word to every song on Born To Run. Now take your white wine and vamoose. – ed.]

bossily submitted by Urban Sophisticat

Raging At Road Rage

News just broke that the police have charged a driver with manslaughter in the vehicular death of a skateboarder yesterday.

To use the rather indelicate language of my colleague, Cityslikr, have we lost our fucking minds?!

What situation could possibly arise, what confrontation so dramatic that anyone could justify, rationalize using their automobile as a weapon?

And this is not some isolated incident, some lone sociopath behind the wheel of a car, meting out a little frontier justice at some perceived slight.

Let me back up here. [Hopefully no one’s behind you. Did you check your rear view mirror first? – ed.]

I’ll try not to convict the alleged manslaughterer in my own court of public opinion. He’s simply been charged. Perhaps a judge and/or jury will look at all the evidence and decide that the situation was nothing more than an unfortunate accident. But it seems witness accounts of the incident along with some video footage that caught a portion of it [Unlike, say, the video catching a Toronto Star reporter red handed in the act of spying on Mayor Ford’s kids. – ed.] is compelling enough for the police to proceed with the charge.

But I don’t think it too wildly off the mark to suggest that road rage has become endemic. How many days do any of us experience, whether driving, cycling, walking, skateboarding, free of shouted profanities or flicking off of others either between drivers or across transportation modes? How many blocks do you go before experiencing the grating sound of an aggressive horn announcing that somebody’s pissed off with something somebody else is doing?

Hey, jag off! The light turned green a nanosecond ago! I’m very important and have very important places to go!!

All leading to the inevitable, unsurprising yet still totally shocking outcome that occurred yesterday.

Where does such anger come from?

I’d argue that, at least in part, it comes from a deep well of entitlement. What’s that bumper sticker read? As a matter of fact, I do own the road. Watch then councillor Rob Ford’s speech on bike lanes from a few years back. “What I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks. Sooner or later, you’re going to get bitten.” [Or have your head smashed open on a curb. – ed.] “Every year we have dozens of people hit by cars or trucks. Well, no wonder. Roads are built for buses, cars and trucks. Not for people on bikes. And my heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

This is not to pin blame for the skateboarder’s death directly on the mayor. [Absolutely not. He didn’t specifically say skateboarders don’t belong on the roads. – ed.] But his laissez-faire attitude toward non-drivers’ fate if they dare hazard road travel more than reinforces the privileged sense of entitlement many behind the wheel carry with them. So no, it’s not a case of counselling murder [Although the odd dust-up or casual contact on your way to work can be a source of grins and chuckles to the mayor and his councillor brother. – ed.] so much as it is absolving motorists of any responsibility for their actions.

“And my hearts bleed for them when I hear someone gets killed but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Tagging along with Cityslikr on his Scandanavian fact-finding mission last week, I was struck by how a civilized, non-car first society deals with, ummmm, living in the 21-st century. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars share the roads equally and, seemingly, in that order. Might doesn’t make right. In 1997, Sweden undertook a traffic safety initiative called Vision Zero. It’s goal? “No loss of life is acceptable.” The exact opposite sentiment to one that includes ‘well, at the end of the day…’ as we wipe our hands clean.

“In every situation, a person might fail. The road system should not.”

While lifting responsibility off of individuals as the primary cause of traffic accidents, Vision Zero looks to design traffic systems that minimize the damage done when accidents happen. Speed Kills, Safety First and all those other touchie-feelie, kooky, left wing European sensibilities. So along with promoting safer car design, for example, there’s much talk of ‘traffic calming’ and ‘pedestrian zones’ and the kind of thinking that doesn’t simply put ease of mobility before personal safety.

At the end of the day, really, the fault for injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic accidents lies at the feet of those who view transit through the single lens of speed first and the primacy of the private automobile above all other forms of personal transport. To shrug off the death of a cyclist under the wheels of a motorized vehicle or a pedestrian struck down in the middle of the road with a, well, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place or they should’ve looked both ways simply lays the groundwork for the more homicidal tendencies of a small percentage of drivers who become temporarily unhinged behind the wheel. The roads are built for cars, goddammit! Get the fuck out of my way!!

If a cyclist or pedestrian or skateboarder or rollerblader isn’t supposed to be on the road then they can be viewed as trespassers when the are. Indulged or tolerated at best, the situation can be made dicier if they don’t exhibit the proper amount of deference. And occasionally when they push back hard enough and exert their right to use the roads, they take their lives into their own hands, swimming with the sharks as they are. It’s an easy escalation.

An acceptance of accidents (fatal or not) as just a part of doing business normalizes death on our roads. Shit happens. What are you going to do? Don’t want to get hurt? Travel around in this biggest, meanest vehicle you can find. [Hey! That gives me a great promotional angle to sell cars. Note to self: target soccer moms. – ed.] The more of us who do that, the more traffic there is, the more confrontation. Road rage just comes with the territory. Don’t want to get hurt? Show some respect and let me have my way.

These aren’t rules of the road. It’s a guide to survival of the fittest. As a matter of fact, I do own the road. You’ve been warned. Use it at your own risk.

[And as we go to post, news of a cyclist struck by car earlier today. – ed.]

subduedly submitted by Urban Sophisticat

The Mayor Who Wasn’t There

If I wasn’t worried about his health, I’d find my colleague’s continued flailing away at every mayoral manoeuvre and machination quite funny. While he chides his readers to look away from the circus, to ignore the grim proceedings emanating from the mayor’s office, he can’t tear his eyes away from the show. Don’t try this at home, folks, he warns. It may cause blindness to those not wearing proper safety goggles.

Hopefully I can offer up a word of advice as someone who’s largely walked away from the fray, taking up bystander status, and feels that much better for it. A tonic to cool an angry mind. A little political chill pill.

Heed your own words, Cityslikr. Toronto is moving forward, albeit slowly, sluggishly as if one leg is bound by a certain ball and chain. Remember your admonishment to certain members of the press that all is not chaos and pandemonium since Mayor Ford excused himself from the chair of responsibility. City council is indeed proceeding with the city’s business even (especially?) in the absence of any mayoral input.

The mayor can go off campaigning all he wants, railing about obstructionist councillors who are doing his job for him. He can clean up the city one piece of litter at a time, wipe each and every flat surface free of graffiti. Man the phones, return calls, personally fill potholes. Have at it.

Council will govern in his absence. See you again in 2014, I guess, when you’re asking voters citizens taxpayers for another four years of basically getting in everyone’s way. Mayor Rob Ford, impeding council since 2012!

So if council is choosing to ignore the mayor, why shouldn’t everyone else? Until he’s prepared to come back to the table and engage in the democratic process, carry on without him. He is just one vote ultimately. If he wants to go home, so be it. Just don’t let him take the ball when he goes.

Let’s try this.

Unless Mayor Ford undertakes activities that actually have anything to do with being a mayor, stop reporting on him. No Monday weigh ins. No graffiti blasting photo ops. No rodent infested apartment visits.

If he doesn’t want to act like a mayor, stop treating him like one. He wants to be a figurehead? Fine and dandy. Leave the coverage to the entertainment pages that obsess over the doings of the royal family. Don’t act like he’s contributing anything other than items for gossip columns.

Concentrate on those who are doing the heavy lifting now. The councillors trying to piece together a working coalition that represents a majority of Toronto and not just the very narrow interests Team Ford serves. Don’t dedicate space with antics and empty posturing. Report on the actual business of governing this city.

Who knows? Maybe in a year’s time or so we’ll start to realize that Toronto functions with or without a mayor in place. All it takes is a group of councillors, setting aside geography and political stripe, working together with the best intentions for the city. Sure, it’d be nice to have a mayor living up to the responsibilities of the office, setting an agenda with a sense of direction. But hey. We can work around that if not.

Then come 2014, when Mayor Ford pops his head back up from his bunker, returns from his self-imposed exile in a bid for another four years of ribbon cutting and ceremony attending, we’ll remember him again. Didn’t that guy used to be our mayor back in.. ? When was that again? Whatever happened to him?

And maybe we’ll realize that, while the office of the mayor is designed to be integral to the proper operation of municipal government, that’s only the case if the office holder treats it that way. If not? Unfortunate but far from fatal. Council, if so inclined, is fully capable of running this city. What ultimately matters is the quality of representation that we send to City Hall on behalf of all our wards.

Maybe that’s where our focus should be over the course of the next two and a half years.

 — helpfully submitted by Urban Sophisticat