This, from a friend in Pennsylvania, is priceless:
Because yes, I really do feel better when the forecast says +1...
Showing posts with label O Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label O Canada. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes a Right to Die
This past Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal ban on assisting suicide violates the rights of Canadian citizens. As they put it here, "The prohibition on physician‑assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." They ruled that the prohibition is "of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition." The Canadian legislature now has twelve months to re-write the law to accommodate the view of the Supreme Court.
This is not the space for a full treatment of this subject (feel free to come to my upcoming talk on the subject at Shaarei Shomayim in Toronto on February 23rd). I will not go into halachah here, other than to say that Jewish law is very clear in forbidding actively ending a patient's life.
In this space, I'd just like to point out a tried and true legal principle: Hard cases make bad law. It would be inhuman and un-Jewish to deny the wishes of people who are suffering without remedy - but crafting legislation to address exceptionally difficult situations will produce laws that endanger the rest of society.
Here are some of the challenges such laws would need to address:
* Will we impose age limits, or will we go the way of Belgium, which permits the death of minors? In the Netherlands, a 17 year old - who cannot be trusted to vote - can override parental refusal and choose death.
* How will we avoid pressure on patients to choose assisted death? As Margaret Dore, a lawyer in the state of Washington, has testified from her experience with their legalized assisted suicide, the existence of this option leads to subtle and unsubtle pressure upon patients to choose death.
* Who will advise the patient in this matter? Will we ask doctors, who function as the protectors of our healthcare resources, to counsel patients on whether or not to tax those resources? [Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada notes that doctors must be able to "Appreciate the possibility of conflict inherent in their role as a health advocate for a patient or community with that of manager or gatekeeper".]
* Who will testify as to the patient's wishes, where the patient cannot speak? Paragraph 27 of Quebec's Assisted Suicide bill permits relatives to testify [only minors and members of the healthcare "team" may not do so]. Mind you, our Succession Law will not allow relatives to testify regarding the authenticity of a will, because of conflict of interest... but they could testify that a patient wanted to die?
* Will physicians be compelled to help end lives of patients? As noted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, physicians are not necessarily permitted to refuse to treat on moral or religious grounds.
* Who is going to pay for this - should OHIP (Ontario's provincial health insurance), which doesn't cover routine dental and eye exams, pay for death? [Paragraph 26 of Quebec's Act seems to say that Quebec's provincial health insurance does cover the cost of ending a patient's life.] And if not, then could a suffering person be denied death - a human right, per the Supreme Court - because he couldn't pay for it?
As I said above, we must find a way to help people who are suffering. But in my view, licensing assisted suicide is fraught with so many problems as to make responsible legislation an impossibility.
This is not the space for a full treatment of this subject (feel free to come to my upcoming talk on the subject at Shaarei Shomayim in Toronto on February 23rd). I will not go into halachah here, other than to say that Jewish law is very clear in forbidding actively ending a patient's life.
In this space, I'd just like to point out a tried and true legal principle: Hard cases make bad law. It would be inhuman and un-Jewish to deny the wishes of people who are suffering without remedy - but crafting legislation to address exceptionally difficult situations will produce laws that endanger the rest of society.
Here are some of the challenges such laws would need to address:
* Will we impose age limits, or will we go the way of Belgium, which permits the death of minors? In the Netherlands, a 17 year old - who cannot be trusted to vote - can override parental refusal and choose death.
* How will we avoid pressure on patients to choose assisted death? As Margaret Dore, a lawyer in the state of Washington, has testified from her experience with their legalized assisted suicide, the existence of this option leads to subtle and unsubtle pressure upon patients to choose death.
* Who will advise the patient in this matter? Will we ask doctors, who function as the protectors of our healthcare resources, to counsel patients on whether or not to tax those resources? [Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada notes that doctors must be able to "Appreciate the possibility of conflict inherent in their role as a health advocate for a patient or community with that of manager or gatekeeper".]
* Who will testify as to the patient's wishes, where the patient cannot speak? Paragraph 27 of Quebec's Assisted Suicide bill permits relatives to testify [only minors and members of the healthcare "team" may not do so]. Mind you, our Succession Law will not allow relatives to testify regarding the authenticity of a will, because of conflict of interest... but they could testify that a patient wanted to die?
* Will physicians be compelled to help end lives of patients? As noted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, physicians are not necessarily permitted to refuse to treat on moral or religious grounds.
* Who is going to pay for this - should OHIP (Ontario's provincial health insurance), which doesn't cover routine dental and eye exams, pay for death? [Paragraph 26 of Quebec's Act seems to say that Quebec's provincial health insurance does cover the cost of ending a patient's life.] And if not, then could a suffering person be denied death - a human right, per the Supreme Court - because he couldn't pay for it?
As I said above, we must find a way to help people who are suffering. But in my view, licensing assisted suicide is fraught with so many problems as to make responsible legislation an impossibility.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Poppies for Remembrance Day
Jewish Canadians love Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the
surest way to earn an ovation at a Jewish event is to thank the Prime Minister
for his support for the State of Israel. We are glad to live in a democracy
that endorses our freedom of religion, and we certainly take advantage of
the rest of the freedoms guaranteed by our laws, overseen by our government,
and safeguarded by our military...
...so why are November's poppies, marking Tuesday's Remembrance Day, relatively uncommon in the observant Jewish community?
As I've written elsewhere, it seems to me that overt patriotism is somewhat “un-cool” in Torah-observant communities, in Canada and beyond. Perhaps this is a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people. Maybe it's due to Jewish law's insistence that the Jews should be "other" when living among non-Jewish neighbours. Or, it could be because of the way that those neighbours have marked us as "other" in painful ways.
Despite all of the reasons why Jews may be uncomfortable with patriotic expression, I believe that Canadian Jews ought to clearly, publicly express our gratitude for those who have given their lives in the Canadian military. Whatever the misgivings of Pirkei Avot (1:10, 2:3 and 3:2) regarding government and its intentions, we owe a great debt to Canada's soldiers, for their historic roles and for their current actions. I believe we ought to wear the poppy.
Within the realm of halachah, I have heard the contention that wearing a poppy may run afoul of the law of chukot akum, prohibiting dressing "in the manner of the nations", but a read of the relevant sources (Sifri Devarim 81, Maharik 88, Shulchan Aruch and Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1) makes clear that the prohibition applies only to (1) immoral dress and (2) dress worn for reasons which might trace back to idolatrous practices. Neither appears relevant in this case.
I wouldn't wear the poppy in shul for davening, because it would be a distraction for me. I also wouldn't insert it on Shabbat, because of concern for the laws of "stitching" involved in pinning the poppy. But for other times, I will wear my poppy in memory of the fallen. Hakarat hatov (gratitude) and darchei shalom (maintaining a peaceful society) trump being cool...
...so why are November's poppies, marking Tuesday's Remembrance Day, relatively uncommon in the observant Jewish community?
As I've written elsewhere, it seems to me that overt patriotism is somewhat “un-cool” in Torah-observant communities, in Canada and beyond. Perhaps this is a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people. Maybe it's due to Jewish law's insistence that the Jews should be "other" when living among non-Jewish neighbours. Or, it could be because of the way that those neighbours have marked us as "other" in painful ways.
Despite all of the reasons why Jews may be uncomfortable with patriotic expression, I believe that Canadian Jews ought to clearly, publicly express our gratitude for those who have given their lives in the Canadian military. Whatever the misgivings of Pirkei Avot (1:10, 2:3 and 3:2) regarding government and its intentions, we owe a great debt to Canada's soldiers, for their historic roles and for their current actions. I believe we ought to wear the poppy.
Within the realm of halachah, I have heard the contention that wearing a poppy may run afoul of the law of chukot akum, prohibiting dressing "in the manner of the nations", but a read of the relevant sources (Sifri Devarim 81, Maharik 88, Shulchan Aruch and Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1) makes clear that the prohibition applies only to (1) immoral dress and (2) dress worn for reasons which might trace back to idolatrous practices. Neither appears relevant in this case.
I wouldn't wear the poppy in shul for davening, because it would be a distraction for me. I also wouldn't insert it on Shabbat, because of concern for the laws of "stitching" involved in pinning the poppy. But for other times, I will wear my poppy in memory of the fallen. Hakarat hatov (gratitude) and darchei shalom (maintaining a peaceful society) trump being cool...
Friday, January 25, 2013
Tu b'Shevat in Toronto
This is what Tu b'Shevat in Toronto looks like.
Well, technically Yad b'Shevat, but I don't expect much to change in the next few hours. Wonder how many birds will come out in -30 (Celsius) to eat the bread...
Well, technically Yad b'Shevat, but I don't expect much to change in the next few hours. Wonder how many birds will come out in -30 (Celsius) to eat the bread...
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Canada, the US and the War of 1812
I've
written before (such as here and here) about Canadian prejudices against the
US. The other day I ran up against this again, when I took two of my children
to Canada's Museum of War. [Note: In my view, the museum is very well-done, for the
most part.] We spent a good chunk of our time in an exhibit on the War of 1812.
If you are an
American, you may be scratching your head at this point and wondering,
"War of 1812? What did that have to do with Canada? Wasn't that the time
the British burned the White House?" If your memory is especially good,
you will recall that Francis Scott Key composed the Star Spangled Banner during
the Battle of Baltimore, and you will again wonder what that had to do with
Canada.
Canadians,
on the other hand, think about the War of 1812 all the time - or so it has
seemed for the past year, as the radio has run regular spots
advertising information about the 200th anniversary of the war.
(Americans will be forgiven for not realizing that last year was the 200th
anniversary; we are arithmetically challenged, in addition to our trouble
remembering our history lessons.)
All year, I
heard about this war. And all year, I had no idea why this was a big deal. So
when the chance arose to visit the definitive, government-approved exhibit on the war, I went for
it. (Full disclosure: It was also one of the only indoor attractions open in Ottawa on
January 1, and I was freezing from our snowshoeing expedition.)
The exhibit
presents a view of the war composed from four different national perspectives;
herewith a simplified digest:
·
United States: The British were taking sailors
from American ships, to use them in their war against Napoleon. The US responded
by attacking British colonies in Canada. This turned into a war in which the
British, allied with Canadian colonists and Native Americans, fought the US.
The US believed it won because it drove off the British attackers.
·
Britain: The British didn't want to waste their
energies in a war with the US; they were focussed on battling Napoleon's forces
in Europe. They never really invested in this war, and don't remember it, much
less care about it, to this day.
·
Native Americans: The British promised the
Native American tribes support for their needs if they
would join the effort against the US. The tribes suffered great losses in
the war, and did not receive meaningful compensation in return.
·
Canada: The US attacked Canadians, unprovoked, and the
Canadians drove them off.
You see how
this plays out, then: The Americans were vicious belligerents who 1) attacked
the wrong people, 2) triumphed only against a British foe who didn't care enough to
fight and against the abused Native Americans, and 3) were beaten by the noble Canadians, who were only defending their
homes against American invaders.
I'm glad to note that only 22,000 people have watched that, while 500,000 people have seen the College Humor parody:
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Multiculturalism and Intermarriage
I'm preparing for a moot court addressing a will which limits the bequest to heirs who do not marry non-Jews. One of the questions involved is whether upholding such a clause is in the interests of Canadian public policy.
[Side note: I am against such clauses, in general. I believe parents should make their Jewish lives attractive to their children, rather than rely on threats. I know that living attractive Jewish lives will not necessarily lead children to emulate their parents - but my outlook is that threats are neither healthy nor good strategy.]
I've been reading cases and articles relating to the topic. Here's a relevant piece from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.
My sense is that (a) and (d) support the argument that the Government of Canada, as a matter of policy, recognizes the ability of members of a community to make such clauses, intended to preserve their community. [Separately, I will argue that this clause is neither racist nor discriminatory, since it is based on acceptance of a creed rather than any particular background or heritage.] But that could just be my read.
What do you think?
[Side note: I am against such clauses, in general. I believe parents should make their Jewish lives attractive to their children, rather than rely on threats. I know that living attractive Jewish lives will not necessarily lead children to emulate their parents - but my outlook is that threats are neither healthy nor good strategy.]
I've been reading cases and articles relating to the topic. Here's a relevant piece from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.
My sense is that (a) and (d) support the argument that the Government of Canada, as a matter of policy, recognizes the ability of members of a community to make such clauses, intended to preserve their community. [Separately, I will argue that this clause is neither racist nor discriminatory, since it is based on acceptance of a creed rather than any particular background or heritage.] But that could just be my read.
What do you think?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Canadian Beer Rant
I've never been a fan of having government sell alcohol – not when I lived in Pennsylvania, where the state government operated liquor stores through the PLCB, and not now that I live in Ontario where the province does the same through the LCBO. Aside from believing in the open market and in regulation that stops well short of total control, I wonder how healthy it is for the government to be selling alcohol. I'm no teetotaler, but I have a problem with the government's vested interest in marketing an addictive substance.
Now the Canadian government has come up with a new way to promote its wares. It's part of their "Beer Selector", and it's accessible here. Click on "My Beer Personality", and answer questions like, "At a party, you (a) kick your feet up, (b) always host, (c) work the room, or (d) make the toasts" and "What nickname would best describe you (a) Maxo Relaxo, (b) Fussy Gus, (c) Courageous Cat, or (d) Captain Awesome". Then the program diagnoses your needs and offers a selection of beers, available at your LCBO store.
What is the goal here? Is it that there are a lot of frustrated beer drinkers across Canada, people who are not feeling satisfied with their alcoholic beverages because those drinks are just not suited for their personalities?
According to a 2010 study by StatsCanada (the official government statistics-collecting arm), the prevalence of past-year alcohol use among Canadians 15 years and olderwas 77.0%. Among "youth", 71.5% reported consuming alcohol in the past year.
The good news: This is a decrease from 2004, when "82.9% of youth reported past-year use of alcohol."
More, "the prevalence of heavy frequent drinking among youth 15 to 24 years of age, was approximately three times higher than the rate for adults 25 years and older (9.4% versus 3.3%)."
So maybe the government decided that the heavy drinking was a result of not finding the right beer? Is this a case of Canadian Big Government stepping in to help its young citizens live better lives?
I think not. I think the goal is to make beer drinkers out of the apparently small minority who are not currently beer drinkers.
"What, you don't drink beer? Come on, this would be good for you. You'll love it! It's so you - look, it suits you, Maxo Relaxo!"
I don't want elected officials spending their time and my taxes trying to make me a beer drinker. I don't care how patriotic it is to drink beer in Canada, and I don't care how much money you can take from the private sector by having government sell liquor – go back to work on things like making healthcare affordable.
Now the Canadian government has come up with a new way to promote its wares. It's part of their "Beer Selector", and it's accessible here. Click on "My Beer Personality", and answer questions like, "At a party, you (a) kick your feet up, (b) always host, (c) work the room, or (d) make the toasts" and "What nickname would best describe you (a) Maxo Relaxo, (b) Fussy Gus, (c) Courageous Cat, or (d) Captain Awesome". Then the program diagnoses your needs and offers a selection of beers, available at your LCBO store.
What is the goal here? Is it that there are a lot of frustrated beer drinkers across Canada, people who are not feeling satisfied with their alcoholic beverages because those drinks are just not suited for their personalities?
According to a 2010 study by StatsCanada (the official government statistics-collecting arm), the prevalence of past-year alcohol use among Canadians 15 years and olderwas 77.0%. Among "youth", 71.5% reported consuming alcohol in the past year.
The good news: This is a decrease from 2004, when "82.9% of youth reported past-year use of alcohol."
More, "the prevalence of heavy frequent drinking among youth 15 to 24 years of age, was approximately three times higher than the rate for adults 25 years and older (9.4% versus 3.3%)."
So maybe the government decided that the heavy drinking was a result of not finding the right beer? Is this a case of Canadian Big Government stepping in to help its young citizens live better lives?
I think not. I think the goal is to make beer drinkers out of the apparently small minority who are not currently beer drinkers.
"What, you don't drink beer? Come on, this would be good for you. You'll love it! It's so you - look, it suits you, Maxo Relaxo!"
I don't want elected officials spending their time and my taxes trying to make me a beer drinker. I don't care how patriotic it is to drink beer in Canada, and I don't care how much money you can take from the private sector by having government sell liquor – go back to work on things like making healthcare affordable.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Tribute to Stephen Harper
In honor of Stephen Harper's victory in Canada's federal elections yesterday (Yes, Canada has a government, and elections...), and the majority his Conservative Party now holds in Parliament, here's a re-run of my tribute to Harper from last November:
Who is Stephen Harper, anyway?
Stephen Harper is the prime minister of Canada. I don’t blame you for asking, though; when I moved to Canada I barely knew this country had a prime minister at all, and I couldn’t have told you his name for all the loonies in the world. But there it is – Stephen Harper is the head of Canada’s Conservative Party, and he runs the government, and here’s why I am paying tribute to him:
Stephen Harper defends Israel, on November 8:
In a country with a large and vocal anti-Israel lobby, Harper has nothing to gain from this stance. And as he said in the speech above, he has the bruises to show for his history of support of Israel in the UN; as Israel Matzav wrote last month, Canada lost its shot at a UN Security Council seat because of its support for Israel. So I salute this man for his courage.
I’m glad to note that Harper’s speech did not go unnoticed in the Jblogosphere; here are a few of those who blogged it:
Ruti Mizrachi
We are for Israel
Jewish Internet Defense Force
Israel Matzav
The Jerusalem Connection Report
Thank you, Prime Minister Harper!...
...And now, where will Alec Baldwin go when he doesn't like things in the US?
Who is Stephen Harper, anyway?
Stephen Harper is the prime minister of Canada. I don’t blame you for asking, though; when I moved to Canada I barely knew this country had a prime minister at all, and I couldn’t have told you his name for all the loonies in the world. But there it is – Stephen Harper is the head of Canada’s Conservative Party, and he runs the government, and here’s why I am paying tribute to him:
Stephen Harper defends Israel, on November 8:
In a country with a large and vocal anti-Israel lobby, Harper has nothing to gain from this stance. And as he said in the speech above, he has the bruises to show for his history of support of Israel in the UN; as Israel Matzav wrote last month, Canada lost its shot at a UN Security Council seat because of its support for Israel. So I salute this man for his courage.
I’m glad to note that Harper’s speech did not go unnoticed in the Jblogosphere; here are a few of those who blogged it:
Ruti Mizrachi
We are for Israel
Jewish Internet Defense Force
Israel Matzav
The Jerusalem Connection Report
Thank you, Prime Minister Harper!...
...And now, where will Alec Baldwin go when he doesn't like things in the US?
Monday, April 4, 2011
America the Not-Helpful?
[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here]
[Post very worth seeing: Conquests of Jerusalem and Israel's Control at Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations]
Some weeks back, I was sitting in a shul somewhere in Canada waiting for Maariv to begin, and I heard a man learning with his pre-adolescent son. They were talking about the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך – “You shall not stand by your brother’s blood” – which requires us to act to save others who are in danger.
The father explained to his son that this is a critical mitzvah, that we must stand up on behalf of people who are in need. So far, so good. But then he said, “This is especially a problem in America; people there don’t help each other.”
Wow.
I wanted to say to him, "I’m an American, pal. Where do you get off generalizing about an entire country? That’s horrible chinuch (pedagogy)." (And I’m a New Yorker, so I also wanted to hit him, but that’s another matter.)
Not to mention, he was wrong – wasn’t he?
I instinctively assumed he had to be wrong, although I had no statistics to offer to the contrary. Of course he was wrong. How could he be right? Wasn’t my life saved by… um, no, come to think of it. But didn’t I have a relative who was in… no, not that, either. Didn’t I know someone who was saved by a stranger’s intervention, or something? Um… no.
So all I had to go with was my general intuition that Americans are not the soulless, internally focussed drones who ignored the screams of Kitty Genovese in the 1960’s. Not exactly convincing, that.
But it realy did bother me, and continues to bother me, in terms of the generalization. Did that really serve a purpose in educating his son? Did his son internalize the lesson of intervention by picturing genial Canada’s southern neighbor as a self-centered slob?
It reminded me of the way that some Jews generalize about non-Jews in teaching their kids, actually. Also a very uncomfortable thing.
Bottom line: I don’t think we need to put down others in order to teach our children lessons about positive behavior. And Gd bless America.
[Post very worth seeing: Conquests of Jerusalem and Israel's Control at Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations]
Some weeks back, I was sitting in a shul somewhere in Canada waiting for Maariv to begin, and I heard a man learning with his pre-adolescent son. They were talking about the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך – “You shall not stand by your brother’s blood” – which requires us to act to save others who are in danger.
The father explained to his son that this is a critical mitzvah, that we must stand up on behalf of people who are in need. So far, so good. But then he said, “This is especially a problem in America; people there don’t help each other.”
Wow.
I wanted to say to him, "I’m an American, pal. Where do you get off generalizing about an entire country? That’s horrible chinuch (pedagogy)." (And I’m a New Yorker, so I also wanted to hit him, but that’s another matter.)
Not to mention, he was wrong – wasn’t he?
I instinctively assumed he had to be wrong, although I had no statistics to offer to the contrary. Of course he was wrong. How could he be right? Wasn’t my life saved by… um, no, come to think of it. But didn’t I have a relative who was in… no, not that, either. Didn’t I know someone who was saved by a stranger’s intervention, or something? Um… no.
So all I had to go with was my general intuition that Americans are not the soulless, internally focussed drones who ignored the screams of Kitty Genovese in the 1960’s. Not exactly convincing, that.
But it realy did bother me, and continues to bother me, in terms of the generalization. Did that really serve a purpose in educating his son? Did his son internalize the lesson of intervention by picturing genial Canada’s southern neighbor as a self-centered slob?
It reminded me of the way that some Jews generalize about non-Jews in teaching their kids, actually. Also a very uncomfortable thing.
Bottom line: I don’t think we need to put down others in order to teach our children lessons about positive behavior. And Gd bless America.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
En retard 7:30
[For non-Francophones, the title of this post means "Late - 7:30 PM". We ended up taking off at 8 PM or so.]
And so it begins, the delays that are native to Pearson Airport... It was a 7:15 PM flight, who knows when it will be by the time we take off...?
For your amusement and mine, here's a real live news article regarding a new Toronto regulation:
City orders condo developers to buy annual metropass for every unit
Developers building condos on Toronto transit lines will now have to buy every unit a TTC metropass for a year in order to obtain condominium approval from the city, a policy critics say comes at a high cost and without proof people will use it.
“How does the city know that everyone is going to want or need a metropass?” said Stephen Dupuis, president and chief executive officer of Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
City council voted yesterday in favour of the policy, which Mr. Dupuis said adds a systemic cost of about $1,400 per unit. He said his organization is pro-transit, “but people are going to take transit if it suits their lifestyle.”
Councillor Howard Moscoe, however, believes it “will cause people on transit lines to abandon their cars.”
He pushed the initiative forward, which passed council without debate. The policy states the cost of the metropasses cannot be passed on to the condo buyer.
City staff describe it as a “transportation demand management measure” that is aimed at encouraging transit use and reducing dependency on cars. It applies to condo projects with 20 or more units in areas that “are or will be well-served by transit.”
Yet more paternalism by the Canadian government... these policies drive me to lean more Republican every day.
And so it begins, the delays that are native to Pearson Airport... It was a 7:15 PM flight, who knows when it will be by the time we take off...?
For your amusement and mine, here's a real live news article regarding a new Toronto regulation:
City orders condo developers to buy annual metropass for every unit
Developers building condos on Toronto transit lines will now have to buy every unit a TTC metropass for a year in order to obtain condominium approval from the city, a policy critics say comes at a high cost and without proof people will use it.
“How does the city know that everyone is going to want or need a metropass?” said Stephen Dupuis, president and chief executive officer of Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
City council voted yesterday in favour of the policy, which Mr. Dupuis said adds a systemic cost of about $1,400 per unit. He said his organization is pro-transit, “but people are going to take transit if it suits their lifestyle.”
Councillor Howard Moscoe, however, believes it “will cause people on transit lines to abandon their cars.”
He pushed the initiative forward, which passed council without debate. The policy states the cost of the metropasses cannot be passed on to the condo buyer.
City staff describe it as a “transportation demand management measure” that is aimed at encouraging transit use and reducing dependency on cars. It applies to condo projects with 20 or more units in areas that “are or will be well-served by transit.”
Yet more paternalism by the Canadian government... these policies drive me to lean more Republican every day.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Canada says: Taxes and severance packages all around!
[This month's Kosher Cooking Carnival is here]
Another sign that Canada is not “United States North”:
On July 1, 2010, Ontario is going to move to a “Harmonized Sales Tax.” The plan is to merge and expand an existing 5% federal GST tax and an 8% provincial PST, to charge people a 13% HST on almost all products and services, including many of those which had been exempt from GST or PST in the past.
This broader and more expensive tax provides enough to complain about, but it’s not my point today. Rather, my point is this: The tax collectors who previously worked for the province will now work for the federal government, and therefore some 98% of the 1,250 affected workers will receive six-month severance packages for ‘losing’ their provincial jobs.
Challenged on this, the government simply said, “Our word is our word; their contracts require this severance package.”
This is so Canada.
I’m not referring to the policy of honoring the union contract; the American government would do that as well. But the idea that the workers can actually come out ahead is very Canadian. If this were the US, the government would hand the workers the severance package, fire them, and hire new, untrained workers.
This US policy of firing the old staff and hiring new people would serve several purposes:
1. It would satisfy the union contract;
2. It would take more than a thousand people off the employment rolls;
3. It would lower the payroll since the new workers would not have seniority, and
4. It would guarantee that anyone who needed to interact with the tax collectors would be faced with someone who was new to the job and didn’t know what he was talking about.
Can’t understand why they do things so differently up north.
Another sign that Canada is not “United States North”:
On July 1, 2010, Ontario is going to move to a “Harmonized Sales Tax.” The plan is to merge and expand an existing 5% federal GST tax and an 8% provincial PST, to charge people a 13% HST on almost all products and services, including many of those which had been exempt from GST or PST in the past.
This broader and more expensive tax provides enough to complain about, but it’s not my point today. Rather, my point is this: The tax collectors who previously worked for the province will now work for the federal government, and therefore some 98% of the 1,250 affected workers will receive six-month severance packages for ‘losing’ their provincial jobs.
Challenged on this, the government simply said, “Our word is our word; their contracts require this severance package.”
This is so Canada.
I’m not referring to the policy of honoring the union contract; the American government would do that as well. But the idea that the workers can actually come out ahead is very Canadian. If this were the US, the government would hand the workers the severance package, fire them, and hire new, untrained workers.
This US policy of firing the old staff and hiring new people would serve several purposes:
1. It would satisfy the union contract;
2. It would take more than a thousand people off the employment rolls;
3. It would lower the payroll since the new workers would not have seniority, and
4. It would guarantee that anyone who needed to interact with the tax collectors would be faced with someone who was new to the job and didn’t know what he was talking about.
Can’t understand why they do things so differently up north.
Monday, March 1, 2010
3-2, eh?
Okay, so the US lost the gold medal hockey game to the Canadians.
In overtime.
A measly one-goal differential.
After the US beat Canada 5-3 in an earlier game.
And after the US thrashed everyone else, beating Finland 6-1 in the semi-finals while Canada just squeaked by Slovakia (Slovakia!) 3-2.
But, yes, Canada took the gold medal. Fine. I can live with it.
I can even live with the guys who put a "We Won" poster on my door last night.
Especially with the following “Top Ten” list of responses to all of the “3-2, eh?” ribbing I’ve been taking:
10. I’m glad; this Olympic victory will definitely make our kollel even more attractive to prospective avrechim.
9. Okay, but when was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup? (Answer: 17 years ago, 1992-1993, Montreal Canadians – even though there are 6 Canadian teams out of 30 overall...)
8. The Olympics are treif Greek hedonism, anyway.
7. Great; hope that keeps you guys happy up here for the next four years or so.
6. The series MVP was an American! (Ryan Miller, and much-deserved I might add.)
5. Interesting to realize that only 2 members of the Canadian roster play on Canadian teams (Iginla and Luongo); the other 21 players are on American payrolls. Guess they really love the old Maple Leaf,huh?
4. Fine, you won, but you know that Sidney Crosby goes shopping at Target in the US, like every other Canadian, before heading home to Nova Scotia.
3. Does it really count as “owning the podium” if the US wins more medals than you?
2. And while we’re on the topic of medals, should we really be counting medals in Curling at all?
1. Huh? Was there an Olympics? I didn’t really hear much about it here in Toronto.
You just wait for Sochi…
In overtime.
A measly one-goal differential.
After the US beat Canada 5-3 in an earlier game.
And after the US thrashed everyone else, beating Finland 6-1 in the semi-finals while Canada just squeaked by Slovakia (Slovakia!) 3-2.
But, yes, Canada took the gold medal. Fine. I can live with it.
I can even live with the guys who put a "We Won" poster on my door last night.
Especially with the following “Top Ten” list of responses to all of the “3-2, eh?” ribbing I’ve been taking:
10. I’m glad; this Olympic victory will definitely make our kollel even more attractive to prospective avrechim.
9. Okay, but when was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup? (Answer: 17 years ago, 1992-1993, Montreal Canadians – even though there are 6 Canadian teams out of 30 overall...)
8. The Olympics are treif Greek hedonism, anyway.
7. Great; hope that keeps you guys happy up here for the next four years or so.
6. The series MVP was an American! (Ryan Miller, and much-deserved I might add.)
5. Interesting to realize that only 2 members of the Canadian roster play on Canadian teams (Iginla and Luongo); the other 21 players are on American payrolls. Guess they really love the old Maple Leaf,huh?
4. Fine, you won, but you know that Sidney Crosby goes shopping at Target in the US, like every other Canadian, before heading home to Nova Scotia.
3. Does it really count as “owning the podium” if the US wins more medals than you?
2. And while we’re on the topic of medals, should we really be counting medals in Curling at all?
1. Huh? Was there an Olympics? I didn’t really hear much about it here in Toronto.
You just wait for Sochi…
Monday, February 22, 2010
5-3, eh?
The only thing better than the USA beating Canada in hockey at the Olympics...
...is living in Canada when the USA beats Canada in hockey at the Olympics.
Listening to the radio this morning, listening to the people at minyan this morning, it's amazing how American I've suddenly become.
All the build-up on the radio before last night's game, Canadian-on-the-street interviews with average, mild-mannered citizens coaxed into proclaiming, "Yeah, we're gonna beat them, eh! This is our game!"
Liquor stores closed in Vancouver yesterday evening, in anticipation of the need to control a rowdy Canadian celebration.
Don Cherry on his show this morning, ranting about the Canadian lines and penalty-killing.
Grumblers second-guessing Team Canada in shul at shacharis.
Radio announcers talking about how they need to stop obsessing over last night's game, and instead need to channel the spirit of the come-from-behind 1972 team.
Headlines like, "Canada in shock after ice hockey loss to the US."
Gotta love it. Happy birthday, Torczyner.
...is living in Canada when the USA beats Canada in hockey at the Olympics.
Listening to the radio this morning, listening to the people at minyan this morning, it's amazing how American I've suddenly become.
All the build-up on the radio before last night's game, Canadian-on-the-street interviews with average, mild-mannered citizens coaxed into proclaiming, "Yeah, we're gonna beat them, eh! This is our game!"
Liquor stores closed in Vancouver yesterday evening, in anticipation of the need to control a rowdy Canadian celebration.
Don Cherry on his show this morning, ranting about the Canadian lines and penalty-killing.
Grumblers second-guessing Team Canada in shul at shacharis.
Radio announcers talking about how they need to stop obsessing over last night's game, and instead need to channel the spirit of the come-from-behind 1972 team.
Headlines like, "Canada in shock after ice hockey loss to the US."
Gotta love it. Happy birthday, Torczyner.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Advertising Idiocy
With lots of time in the car these days, I’ve become more sensitive to radio advertising styles. I’ve noticed that in addition to the traditional spokesman model – “I use this product and I’m attractive/smart/succesful/cool, so you should use it too” – there is also a reverse model, and it's all over the place.
It goes: “I don’t use this product and I’m completely un-cool; only an entirely senseless person would fail to use this product.”
Examples:
• Scotia Bank’s “I-Trade” service features Bill, whose RRSP [retirement account] “died” because he failed to switch to I-Trade;
• A television product features a husband who forgets to record 30 Rock and is miserable ["Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!"], because he didn’t use the auto-recording product;
• Another financial services company features a man who childishly refuses to look at his retirement account statements [“Not gonna look, not gonna look, look, look, look”] and so misses important information;
• A restaurant advertises its “Kids’ Fun Pack” that comes with every kids’ meal, featuring an adult male who throws a tantrum because he really, really wants one [“I want one. I want one! I - want - one!!”];
• Ads for Certified Accountants feature CEOs who make their key business decisions by spinning a Wheel of Fortune or reading a fortune cookie.
Interesting, too, that all of them are males. Wonder what to make of that; is someone afraid of a lawsuit by women's groups?
In any case, I find the model truly annoying.
Although, on the other hand, we do the same thing in Torah. We play up the foolishness of our enemies:
Pharaoh - “Gd swore not to flood the world, therefore He can’t drown us!”;
Bilam - Dumber than his donkey; and
Haman - “Moshe died in Adar, so it must be a bad month for the Jews,” ignoring that Moshe was also born in this month,
are all played for mocking laughs.
This, by the way, is not to be confused with a third advertising method: The Foolish Announcer. As in the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” ads, and the Subaru commercials with “Completely Biased Car Advice.” [“Rhymes with TOO-bah-roo.”] Those, I enjoy.
[Side note: Had two odd, mixed-feelings “homecomings” yesterday.
First, I went to the US Consulate to renew my passport. Felt like a member of a VIP club, as I was taken to the front of the line, then around another line, then up to an upper floor which looked much nicer than the area below. And as much as I long for aliyah, there was a definite warmth that came with seeing the Stars and Stripes out front.
Second, I went to a funeral for the relative of a friend. I had not been to a funeral in six or seven months, my longest stretch since 1997. Beneath the grief, and beneath feeling bad for the rabbi (two in one day for him; I had that two or three times over the years, and it’s rough), was a lurking feeling of ‘Home.’ Pretty grotesque, huh?
Oh, and an ‘O Canada’ item – Heard a commercial for Casinorama this morning, advertising that “The New Kids on the Block have been around the world, and now they’re coming home” to Toronto. I had no idea I was living in the home of the New Kids on the Block. That would have given me serious reason to think twice before moving here…]
It goes: “I don’t use this product and I’m completely un-cool; only an entirely senseless person would fail to use this product.”
Examples:
• Scotia Bank’s “I-Trade” service features Bill, whose RRSP [retirement account] “died” because he failed to switch to I-Trade;
• A television product features a husband who forgets to record 30 Rock and is miserable ["Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!"], because he didn’t use the auto-recording product;
• Another financial services company features a man who childishly refuses to look at his retirement account statements [“Not gonna look, not gonna look, look, look, look”] and so misses important information;
• A restaurant advertises its “Kids’ Fun Pack” that comes with every kids’ meal, featuring an adult male who throws a tantrum because he really, really wants one [“I want one. I want one! I - want - one!!”];
• Ads for Certified Accountants feature CEOs who make their key business decisions by spinning a Wheel of Fortune or reading a fortune cookie.
Interesting, too, that all of them are males. Wonder what to make of that; is someone afraid of a lawsuit by women's groups?
In any case, I find the model truly annoying.
Although, on the other hand, we do the same thing in Torah. We play up the foolishness of our enemies:
Pharaoh - “Gd swore not to flood the world, therefore He can’t drown us!”;
Bilam - Dumber than his donkey; and
Haman - “Moshe died in Adar, so it must be a bad month for the Jews,” ignoring that Moshe was also born in this month,
are all played for mocking laughs.
This, by the way, is not to be confused with a third advertising method: The Foolish Announcer. As in the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” ads, and the Subaru commercials with “Completely Biased Car Advice.” [“Rhymes with TOO-bah-roo.”] Those, I enjoy.
[Side note: Had two odd, mixed-feelings “homecomings” yesterday.
First, I went to the US Consulate to renew my passport. Felt like a member of a VIP club, as I was taken to the front of the line, then around another line, then up to an upper floor which looked much nicer than the area below. And as much as I long for aliyah, there was a definite warmth that came with seeing the Stars and Stripes out front.
Second, I went to a funeral for the relative of a friend. I had not been to a funeral in six or seven months, my longest stretch since 1997. Beneath the grief, and beneath feeling bad for the rabbi (two in one day for him; I had that two or three times over the years, and it’s rough), was a lurking feeling of ‘Home.’ Pretty grotesque, huh?
Oh, and an ‘O Canada’ item – Heard a commercial for Casinorama this morning, advertising that “The New Kids on the Block have been around the world, and now they’re coming home” to Toronto. I had no idea I was living in the home of the New Kids on the Block. That would have given me serious reason to think twice before moving here…]
Thursday, January 28, 2010
A solution to Toronto traffic accidents: Get the cars up to speed
[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]
Toronto has seen more than a dozen pedestrian deaths in traffic over a period of two weeks, and so, naturally, Toronto police and city council are adding new traffic restrictions. They’re talking about increased ticketing for speeding, lowering the speed limit, cracking down on reckless driving, along with increased ticketing for jaywalking pedestrians and better design of intersections and extending the time for pedestrians to cross.
Some of these ideas have merit – as does the mathematical argument that the spike is just a random fluke – but I think they’re missing a major point.
The point: Frustrated drivers are poor drivers. To increase traffic safety, don’t slow things down –Speed things up!
Alternatively, you could try to calm down the drivers – but I wish you lots of luck.
Think about the guy who is stuck behind a 30-mile-per-driver in the left-hand lane of a highway for a mile, before he finds a way to get around the turtle. Out he zooms, barely looking to make sure he’s not cutting anyone off. Around a corner he flies, anxious about making his appointment and minimally glancing at the foot traffic nearby.
Think about the woman who misses four consecutive lights on Bathurst Street. On the next light she comes to a Yellow, of course she’s going to zoom through. Ditto for the driver sitting in the left-hand turning lane; do you really think he won’t go through as the yellow turns red?
I'm not condoning frustrated driving; the drivers are morally as well as logically wrong. But this is what human emotions do.
It’s one of the reasons that the a Jewish court is not empowered to issue decrees which are beyond the tolerance of the community – גזירה שאין הציבור יכול לעמוד בה. Such decrees frustrate people and weaken loyalty to the system, overall.
Back in October, Toronto officials admitted that their traffic lights are staggered in such a way that traffic is slowed, and people miss lights at consecutive intersections.
A couple of months ago, Toronto officials [correctly] banned the use of hand-held phones, and of the practic of texting, while driving.
We’re now in the heart of winter, and traffic becomes much worse and visibility becomes much worse due to snow and rain and slush.
Back on January 7th, the Globe and Mail reported that Toronto commuting times have spiked in the last two years. "In some cases, average 2008 speeds were less than half of what they were two years earlier. Drivers taking Highway 410 from Bovaird Drive to Highway 403 were crawling at an average of 38 kilometres an hour, down from 71 in 2006; the average speed on the 401 collector from Mississauga Road to Dixie Road was 50 kilometres an hour, down from 95 two years ago."
Not to mention, aggressive city buses are licensed to cut off cars entering and exiting bus stops, thereby frightening drivers and forcing them to swerve, as well as slowing down traffic lanes.
The end result: Frustrated drivers can’t get where they want to go, can’t take care of work in the car [again, correctly!], and can’t see pedestrians or maneuver around them easily. And so the number of accidents skyrockets.
Slowing down cars and cracking down on traffic laws is guaranteed to increase the number of frustrated drivers. I'd advise working to get things up to speed, engineering the lights and patterns to help drivers get where they need to go, so that they’ll feel more capable of waiting out a light, taking a corner slowly, and generally being more accomodating on the road.
[PS Yes, of course, I know that even speeding things up won't solve frustrations entirely; people will simply come to have higher expectations for getting where they want to go. But let's see if we can't improve this, nonetheless.]
Toronto has seen more than a dozen pedestrian deaths in traffic over a period of two weeks, and so, naturally, Toronto police and city council are adding new traffic restrictions. They’re talking about increased ticketing for speeding, lowering the speed limit, cracking down on reckless driving, along with increased ticketing for jaywalking pedestrians and better design of intersections and extending the time for pedestrians to cross.
Some of these ideas have merit – as does the mathematical argument that the spike is just a random fluke – but I think they’re missing a major point.
The point: Frustrated drivers are poor drivers. To increase traffic safety, don’t slow things down –Speed things up!
Alternatively, you could try to calm down the drivers – but I wish you lots of luck.
Think about the guy who is stuck behind a 30-mile-per-driver in the left-hand lane of a highway for a mile, before he finds a way to get around the turtle. Out he zooms, barely looking to make sure he’s not cutting anyone off. Around a corner he flies, anxious about making his appointment and minimally glancing at the foot traffic nearby.
Think about the woman who misses four consecutive lights on Bathurst Street. On the next light she comes to a Yellow, of course she’s going to zoom through. Ditto for the driver sitting in the left-hand turning lane; do you really think he won’t go through as the yellow turns red?
I'm not condoning frustrated driving; the drivers are morally as well as logically wrong. But this is what human emotions do.
It’s one of the reasons that the a Jewish court is not empowered to issue decrees which are beyond the tolerance of the community – גזירה שאין הציבור יכול לעמוד בה. Such decrees frustrate people and weaken loyalty to the system, overall.
Back in October, Toronto officials admitted that their traffic lights are staggered in such a way that traffic is slowed, and people miss lights at consecutive intersections.
A couple of months ago, Toronto officials [correctly] banned the use of hand-held phones, and of the practic of texting, while driving.
We’re now in the heart of winter, and traffic becomes much worse and visibility becomes much worse due to snow and rain and slush.
Back on January 7th, the Globe and Mail reported that Toronto commuting times have spiked in the last two years. "In some cases, average 2008 speeds were less than half of what they were two years earlier. Drivers taking Highway 410 from Bovaird Drive to Highway 403 were crawling at an average of 38 kilometres an hour, down from 71 in 2006; the average speed on the 401 collector from Mississauga Road to Dixie Road was 50 kilometres an hour, down from 95 two years ago."
Not to mention, aggressive city buses are licensed to cut off cars entering and exiting bus stops, thereby frightening drivers and forcing them to swerve, as well as slowing down traffic lanes.
The end result: Frustrated drivers can’t get where they want to go, can’t take care of work in the car [again, correctly!], and can’t see pedestrians or maneuver around them easily. And so the number of accidents skyrockets.
Slowing down cars and cracking down on traffic laws is guaranteed to increase the number of frustrated drivers. I'd advise working to get things up to speed, engineering the lights and patterns to help drivers get where they need to go, so that they’ll feel more capable of waiting out a light, taking a corner slowly, and generally being more accomodating on the road.
[PS Yes, of course, I know that even speeding things up won't solve frustrations entirely; people will simply come to have higher expectations for getting where they want to go. But let's see if we can't improve this, nonetheless.]
Friday, January 8, 2010
A Social Health Insurance Nightmare
Warning: This is not a Torah post. This is not a Life-in-the-Rabbinate or Life-in-the-Kollel post. This is an O Canada post. Skip to another one if you don’t want to hear a rant about something that may not seem like a big deal to you.
Also, while reading this, Americans should keep in mind that the planned US Healthcare plan will require orchestration between state and federal bureaucracies, as well as the IRS... I wish you lots of luck.
So there we were, innocently approaching the Canadian border back on August 18, our passports and papers in hand, complete with a letter from our beit midrash attorney explaining our immigration status. We looked at this as a momentary nuisance, 90 minutes in a squat brick office building watching our children’s behavior deteriorate while a clerk stamped and coded and printed out the documents that would render me eligible to work in Canada and would, 90 days later, qualify us for our the much-balleyhooed OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Phiasco).
Screechy, Hitchcockian violins should have been playing in the background, to warn the audience of the six-month nightmare that awaited.
The clerk incorrectly entered me as a Minister of Religion, instead of a Religious Worker. This affected my ability to work; I should not have been able to get a Social Insurance Number on that entry visa, although, somehow, the SIN office didn’t realize it and granted me one anyway. Go figure.
Also, it meant I would not qualify for OHIP, Ontario’s provincial health insurance plan.
So, after several false starts, we got our papers together and went to the Federal Immigration office to have our visa changed. This was November 26. After some confusion, they granted us the new status, taking back our old permit and giving us our new, Religious Worker papers. They stipulated that our 90-day wait for OHIP would be counted retroactive to our original, August 18 entry. The new working papers noted that they were a substitute due to administrative error, and that despite the November 26 date on our new working papers, we had entered the country on August 18. My wife’s work permit, and all of my kids’ permits, listed August 18 as their official date and needed no replacing. All good, right?
After a few false starts, we went to the Provincial OHIP office to formally file – and they insisted that the 90-day count would not begin with August 18, but would instead begin with November26, because my working papers listed that as the official date of entry. So we don’t qualify for OHIP until February twenty-something.
Contacted our beit midrash attorney, who insisted that they should accept the papers, since they listed the August 18 date as well. Went back to OHIP this morning. Got nowhere. They wanted to see the original working papers – which don’t exist, because the government takes back the old when they grant the new. Offered them a xerox, but copies are not accepted.
They did offer us one option: Write an appeal to the OHIP General Manager. Want to guess the turnaround time on that? About four weeks – or the time when we’ll get OHIP anyway, even with the late date.
I understand that policy requires that they work with the official date on the work visa – but when the visa itself states that the right date is months earlier, the clerk should be flexible. In this case, neither the clerk nor the manager, for all of their politeness, listened to a word of reason.
Thank Gd and thank YU/TMZ, the Beit Midrash is generously retaining a supplemental insurance package for us until we get OHIP, however long that takes. It’s pay out of pocket, and it’s costing the Beit Midrash funds unnecessarily, but it’s the best we can do for now. But I worry about what happens to people who lack that kind of employer, or who lack the means to pay out of pocket.
I fancy myself a liberal on many issues, and I want to see universal healthcare; it’s a sane policy, not to mention a moral one. But it must be done right, which includes working with people intelligently and not obeying blind protocol. IT also includes agencies that work with each other – as opposed to Federal Immigration promising the 90 days will start retroactively, and Provincial OHIP demanding a document that Federal chose to destroy.
Otherwise, the very people you want most to help – the indigent, the homeless, the people without a safety net or support system, the ones who have no recourse when government dronesmanship takes over – will suffer most.
Also, while reading this, Americans should keep in mind that the planned US Healthcare plan will require orchestration between state and federal bureaucracies, as well as the IRS... I wish you lots of luck.
So there we were, innocently approaching the Canadian border back on August 18, our passports and papers in hand, complete with a letter from our beit midrash attorney explaining our immigration status. We looked at this as a momentary nuisance, 90 minutes in a squat brick office building watching our children’s behavior deteriorate while a clerk stamped and coded and printed out the documents that would render me eligible to work in Canada and would, 90 days later, qualify us for our the much-balleyhooed OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Phiasco).
Screechy, Hitchcockian violins should have been playing in the background, to warn the audience of the six-month nightmare that awaited.
The clerk incorrectly entered me as a Minister of Religion, instead of a Religious Worker. This affected my ability to work; I should not have been able to get a Social Insurance Number on that entry visa, although, somehow, the SIN office didn’t realize it and granted me one anyway. Go figure.
Also, it meant I would not qualify for OHIP, Ontario’s provincial health insurance plan.
So, after several false starts, we got our papers together and went to the Federal Immigration office to have our visa changed. This was November 26. After some confusion, they granted us the new status, taking back our old permit and giving us our new, Religious Worker papers. They stipulated that our 90-day wait for OHIP would be counted retroactive to our original, August 18 entry. The new working papers noted that they were a substitute due to administrative error, and that despite the November 26 date on our new working papers, we had entered the country on August 18. My wife’s work permit, and all of my kids’ permits, listed August 18 as their official date and needed no replacing. All good, right?
After a few false starts, we went to the Provincial OHIP office to formally file – and they insisted that the 90-day count would not begin with August 18, but would instead begin with November26, because my working papers listed that as the official date of entry. So we don’t qualify for OHIP until February twenty-something.
Contacted our beit midrash attorney, who insisted that they should accept the papers, since they listed the August 18 date as well. Went back to OHIP this morning. Got nowhere. They wanted to see the original working papers – which don’t exist, because the government takes back the old when they grant the new. Offered them a xerox, but copies are not accepted.
They did offer us one option: Write an appeal to the OHIP General Manager. Want to guess the turnaround time on that? About four weeks – or the time when we’ll get OHIP anyway, even with the late date.
I understand that policy requires that they work with the official date on the work visa – but when the visa itself states that the right date is months earlier, the clerk should be flexible. In this case, neither the clerk nor the manager, for all of their politeness, listened to a word of reason.
Thank Gd and thank YU/TMZ, the Beit Midrash is generously retaining a supplemental insurance package for us until we get OHIP, however long that takes. It’s pay out of pocket, and it’s costing the Beit Midrash funds unnecessarily, but it’s the best we can do for now. But I worry about what happens to people who lack that kind of employer, or who lack the means to pay out of pocket.
I fancy myself a liberal on many issues, and I want to see universal healthcare; it’s a sane policy, not to mention a moral one. But it must be done right, which includes working with people intelligently and not obeying blind protocol. IT also includes agencies that work with each other – as opposed to Federal Immigration promising the 90 days will start retroactively, and Provincial OHIP demanding a document that Federal chose to destroy.
Otherwise, the very people you want most to help – the indigent, the homeless, the people without a safety net or support system, the ones who have no recourse when government dronesmanship takes over – will suffer most.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Is Judaism a Cult?
First, in the “O Canada” category: The radio is full of reports today that if we make it through the day without measurable snow, we will have the first snow-free November in Toronto since 1847. A snow-free November is an oddity…! And what really gets me is all the interviews with people who talk about how wonderful this is; don’t they know that most of the world doesn’t have snow in November? If they don’t want snow in November, why don’t they go join the rest of civilization outside the Arctic Circle?
Come to think of it, that actually relates to our topic; hold on to that question, please.
Last week I spent some time with a Christian gentleman who marveled to me that Judaism so encourages religious questioning. He was very impressed with our emphasis on religious literacy and serious continuing education for all, and he was certain that this must catalyze highly challenging debate for our religious leaders.
Judaism does encourage debate, of course, but only in certain areas (note: I speak here of traditional observance.); other areas are quite out of bounds:
• R’ Akiva decrees a ban on ספרים החיצונים, works of heresy (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1).
• The mishnah forbids inquiring about “what is above, what is below, what came before and what happens after” (Mishnah Chagigah 2:1).
• Even the Rambam, Maimonides, the heralded advocate of secular study, writes explicitly (Hilchot Yesodei haTorah 4:13) that one may only study the cosmos after “filling his belly” with study of the Talmud, and that one may not study works of idolatrous or heretical thought, lest one be drawn after it (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:2-3).
Certainly, Judaism endorses questioning, but specifically regarding the accepted text of the Torah, the accepted set of commandments, the accepted language of intramural debate:
• “What are we meant to learn from Yaakov and Esav, from Dinah and Shechem, from our ancestors’ slavery in Egypt?”
• “How are Rashi’s comments on the laws of eating a picked fruit on Shabbat resolved with the laws of muktzeh?”
• “What does the Torah say about surrogate pregnancy?”
All of our permitted investigations take as given that the stories of our ancestors are meant to provide ethical instruction, that the principles of Shabbat are internally consistent, that the Torah presents extrapolable guidance on issues far beyond its literal text. We are all required, by law, to begin from an identical starting point of axioms, and only afterward are we able to go for each other’s philosophical throats.
Which leads me to my title question: Is Judaism a Cult?
I define a “Cult” as an ideocentric group which forbids questioning and forbids interaction with those outside its boundaries, lest one be drawn astray.
And based on my principle that certain questions and certain materials are out of bounds, it is possible to argue that Yes, Judaism is a Cult.
I am often bothered by this question, particularly when I see Jews make claims about the special character of our Torah without actually knowing anything about others’ texts and traditions. How could I claim, “There is nothing like our Torah,” if I don’t know anything about any text held sacred by others? How could I say, “That rabbi is so brilliant, he could have been an incredible cosmologist/author/philosopher,” if I know nothing about those fields and their experts? Does that not reinforce the idea that we are, in fact, a closed-minded cult?
It’s like us Torontonians with our snow. People who are not thrilled with a frozen world of November snow, but who would never consider anything else, are cultic as well; it’s the Cult of Canada.
But I do think there is a difference between Judaism’s traditional restrictions on questions, and the cult’s ban on investigation. The result (non-questioning) is the same, but the idea behind it is very different.
I see a difference between a Jewish ideology that says, “This philosophy is designed to address certain issues, but as part of doing so it accepts certain items on faith,” and a cultic ideology that declares, “This philosophy is frightened of being undermined.” Both end up in the same place, but they take quite different routes.
The cult fears being undermined; any question which endangers its security is automatically verboten, not based upon a philosophical argument but based upon the natural danger to its system. That fear is what dictates what is in and out of bounds. One day the high priest could hold forth on a topic – and the next day he could refuse to discuss the same topic, when a question is raised. Rule One of the cult is, “Protect the cult.”
In contrast, Judaism is designed to address certain issues and so deepen and broaden and enrich spiritual life. It is meant to connect human to Gd, to build a healthy and faithful community, to address the way one lives life. It is meant to address peoplehood and individual growth. It is meant to address the place of a person in this world. And those are the areas that are up for discussion and debate within Judaism’s philosophy.
An organic part of that philosophy, though, is the concept of אמונה, of acceptance of certain, non-negotiable givens, elements that are beyond the scope of Judaism’s investigation because of the very nature of human and Deity.
This idea of אמונה, of core belief which is not logical or rational but simply revelatory and accepted, means that topics like “The Origins of Gd,” “Free Will: How do you know?” and “What will happen in the end” are beyond logical discussion. The discussions are off-limits not because they are a threat, but because they have no meaning within this religion and its goals and conversations.
We do end up in the same practical place as the cult – note the Rambam’s language above, “lest one be drawn after it” – but that’s for causes pragmatic rather than philosophical. The core difference remains: A cult’s philosophy is to protect itself. Judaism’s philosophy is to answer great questions and inform lives. And therein lies the difference.
Enough bloviation. Am I wrong? What do you think?
[Note: Part II is here.]
Come to think of it, that actually relates to our topic; hold on to that question, please.
Last week I spent some time with a Christian gentleman who marveled to me that Judaism so encourages religious questioning. He was very impressed with our emphasis on religious literacy and serious continuing education for all, and he was certain that this must catalyze highly challenging debate for our religious leaders.
Judaism does encourage debate, of course, but only in certain areas (note: I speak here of traditional observance.); other areas are quite out of bounds:
• R’ Akiva decrees a ban on ספרים החיצונים, works of heresy (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1).
• The mishnah forbids inquiring about “what is above, what is below, what came before and what happens after” (Mishnah Chagigah 2:1).
• Even the Rambam, Maimonides, the heralded advocate of secular study, writes explicitly (Hilchot Yesodei haTorah 4:13) that one may only study the cosmos after “filling his belly” with study of the Talmud, and that one may not study works of idolatrous or heretical thought, lest one be drawn after it (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:2-3).
Certainly, Judaism endorses questioning, but specifically regarding the accepted text of the Torah, the accepted set of commandments, the accepted language of intramural debate:
• “What are we meant to learn from Yaakov and Esav, from Dinah and Shechem, from our ancestors’ slavery in Egypt?”
• “How are Rashi’s comments on the laws of eating a picked fruit on Shabbat resolved with the laws of muktzeh?”
• “What does the Torah say about surrogate pregnancy?”
All of our permitted investigations take as given that the stories of our ancestors are meant to provide ethical instruction, that the principles of Shabbat are internally consistent, that the Torah presents extrapolable guidance on issues far beyond its literal text. We are all required, by law, to begin from an identical starting point of axioms, and only afterward are we able to go for each other’s philosophical throats.
Which leads me to my title question: Is Judaism a Cult?
I define a “Cult” as an ideocentric group which forbids questioning and forbids interaction with those outside its boundaries, lest one be drawn astray.
And based on my principle that certain questions and certain materials are out of bounds, it is possible to argue that Yes, Judaism is a Cult.
I am often bothered by this question, particularly when I see Jews make claims about the special character of our Torah without actually knowing anything about others’ texts and traditions. How could I claim, “There is nothing like our Torah,” if I don’t know anything about any text held sacred by others? How could I say, “That rabbi is so brilliant, he could have been an incredible cosmologist/author/philosopher,” if I know nothing about those fields and their experts? Does that not reinforce the idea that we are, in fact, a closed-minded cult?
It’s like us Torontonians with our snow. People who are not thrilled with a frozen world of November snow, but who would never consider anything else, are cultic as well; it’s the Cult of Canada.
But I do think there is a difference between Judaism’s traditional restrictions on questions, and the cult’s ban on investigation. The result (non-questioning) is the same, but the idea behind it is very different.
I see a difference between a Jewish ideology that says, “This philosophy is designed to address certain issues, but as part of doing so it accepts certain items on faith,” and a cultic ideology that declares, “This philosophy is frightened of being undermined.” Both end up in the same place, but they take quite different routes.
The cult fears being undermined; any question which endangers its security is automatically verboten, not based upon a philosophical argument but based upon the natural danger to its system. That fear is what dictates what is in and out of bounds. One day the high priest could hold forth on a topic – and the next day he could refuse to discuss the same topic, when a question is raised. Rule One of the cult is, “Protect the cult.”
In contrast, Judaism is designed to address certain issues and so deepen and broaden and enrich spiritual life. It is meant to connect human to Gd, to build a healthy and faithful community, to address the way one lives life. It is meant to address peoplehood and individual growth. It is meant to address the place of a person in this world. And those are the areas that are up for discussion and debate within Judaism’s philosophy.
An organic part of that philosophy, though, is the concept of אמונה, of acceptance of certain, non-negotiable givens, elements that are beyond the scope of Judaism’s investigation because of the very nature of human and Deity.
This idea of אמונה, of core belief which is not logical or rational but simply revelatory and accepted, means that topics like “The Origins of Gd,” “Free Will: How do you know?” and “What will happen in the end” are beyond logical discussion. The discussions are off-limits not because they are a threat, but because they have no meaning within this religion and its goals and conversations.
We do end up in the same practical place as the cult – note the Rambam’s language above, “lest one be drawn after it” – but that’s for causes pragmatic rather than philosophical. The core difference remains: A cult’s philosophy is to protect itself. Judaism’s philosophy is to answer great questions and inform lives. And therein lies the difference.
Enough bloviation. Am I wrong? What do you think?
[Note: Part II is here.]
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Of Rabbis and Poppies and Remembrance Day
I’ve noticed more than a few people walking around with felt poppies attached to their lapels over the past week, in honor of Remembrance Day (November 11). I don’t recall ever seeing this in the US, but upon investigation I have found it to be the standard way to mark Remembrance Day/Veterans Day/Armistice Day in Canada, as well as several other countries.
The question, of course: Will I wear a poppy?
I’m torn on this issue. (No, this is not another semi-serious post about being an American in Canada. This one is serious.)
Why wear it?
1. I believe patriotism to a secular government is an important value for the Jewish community, on levels both moral and pragmatic.
2. Further, as a friend has pointed out, lack of overt patriotism in our institutions may contribute to the delinquency of those few but notorious Jews who violate the laws of the land.
3. I also feel personally patriotic, as I wrote here.
4. And how could one not feel and display gratitude to people who knowingly risked their lives – and lost that gamble – for the sake of fighting Nazism and other scourges? It would seem to me that the Jewish community should produce poppies en masse, and make them mandatory garb.
Further, this is clearly not “chukot akum (the ways of the nations - the Torah prohibits us from emulating the nations around us),” for two reasons:
A. As the Sifri (Devarim 81) points out, the major concern of the prohibition against emulating non-Jewish ways is about being drawn into acting like them, and I would be hard-pressed to apply that to the poppies. (Rashi also introduces the similarly inapplicable concept of superstition in Shabbat 67a.)
B. The halachah is fairly clear that we would not apply the rules of chukot akum to an ornament that is not, in its nature and definition, an irrational חוק. See Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1: This is all prohibited only as far as conduct they practice for the sake of immorality, such as the red clothes their aristocracy wears, and practices they have inaugurated and made into rules for themselves, without reason; there is cause to be concerned for Emorite superstition or idolatry behind these practices. If they have a beneficial practice, though, such as that expert doctors wear a certain garment which signifies their expertise, then one may wear such a garment. Similarly, one may wear garments which are worn for honor or for some other reason.
And yet, and yet…
Overt patriotism is still somewhat “un-cool” in the observant community, perhaps a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people, as well as our externally and internally imposed sense of being “other.” Although I have seen many observant Jews around Toronto wearing these decorations, my sense is that they are the minority. (This may change on November 11 itself; we’ll see.)
And then there is the added factor of my role as Rabbi, even sans synagogue. For those who do see the poppies as a sign of assimilation, I would be written off as left-wing, and that would make teaching in those parts of the communities impossible. (And, let’s not deny it – I don’t particularly cherish the possibility of personal unpopularity. I imagine teenagers go through the same thing re: poppies. Peer pressure lives.)
But I do think it's the right thing to do.
So I don’t know what I will do. I'm inclined to wear it... but I'm still mulling.
[Update: In the end, I did wear a poppy on my coat.]
The question, of course: Will I wear a poppy?
I’m torn on this issue. (No, this is not another semi-serious post about being an American in Canada. This one is serious.)
Why wear it?
1. I believe patriotism to a secular government is an important value for the Jewish community, on levels both moral and pragmatic.
2. Further, as a friend has pointed out, lack of overt patriotism in our institutions may contribute to the delinquency of those few but notorious Jews who violate the laws of the land.
3. I also feel personally patriotic, as I wrote here.
4. And how could one not feel and display gratitude to people who knowingly risked their lives – and lost that gamble – for the sake of fighting Nazism and other scourges? It would seem to me that the Jewish community should produce poppies en masse, and make them mandatory garb.
Further, this is clearly not “chukot akum (the ways of the nations - the Torah prohibits us from emulating the nations around us),” for two reasons:
A. As the Sifri (Devarim 81) points out, the major concern of the prohibition against emulating non-Jewish ways is about being drawn into acting like them, and I would be hard-pressed to apply that to the poppies. (Rashi also introduces the similarly inapplicable concept of superstition in Shabbat 67a.)
B. The halachah is fairly clear that we would not apply the rules of chukot akum to an ornament that is not, in its nature and definition, an irrational חוק. See Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1: This is all prohibited only as far as conduct they practice for the sake of immorality, such as the red clothes their aristocracy wears, and practices they have inaugurated and made into rules for themselves, without reason; there is cause to be concerned for Emorite superstition or idolatry behind these practices. If they have a beneficial practice, though, such as that expert doctors wear a certain garment which signifies their expertise, then one may wear such a garment. Similarly, one may wear garments which are worn for honor or for some other reason.
And yet, and yet…
Overt patriotism is still somewhat “un-cool” in the observant community, perhaps a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people, as well as our externally and internally imposed sense of being “other.” Although I have seen many observant Jews around Toronto wearing these decorations, my sense is that they are the minority. (This may change on November 11 itself; we’ll see.)
And then there is the added factor of my role as Rabbi, even sans synagogue. For those who do see the poppies as a sign of assimilation, I would be written off as left-wing, and that would make teaching in those parts of the communities impossible. (And, let’s not deny it – I don’t particularly cherish the possibility of personal unpopularity. I imagine teenagers go through the same thing re: poppies. Peer pressure lives.)
But I do think it's the right thing to do.
So I don’t know what I will do. I'm inclined to wear it... but I'm still mulling.
[Update: In the end, I did wear a poppy on my coat.]
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
At last, an ally to break Ontario’s DriveTest Strike?
[Warning: There is no Torah in this post, just frustration. And another reason to wonder about Canada.]
680 News reported this morning that truckers would protest Ontario’s DriveTest strike today – I’m glad to finally have an ally.
We moved to Toronto in August, and our auto insurers want us to get Ontario driver’s licenses. It’s a reasonable enough request, but we can’t fulfill it; the Serco DES corporation responsible for licensing has been on strike for months (since August 21, four days after we moved here), and there’s no end in sight.
Part of the problem is that the government lacks any incentive to bring the strike to an end; every day the workers stay home is a day that the government saves money. At one point the employees actually offered to go back to work provisionally, and the government told them not to bother.
Who’s going to lobby for this strike to end - the minuscule number of people who have immigrated to Canada over these couple of months? Even the soon-to-be-voting teenagers have no leverage as they wait to be licensed, since most of their parents are just overjoyed that they don’t need to pay for a car and insurance for their children.
More, strikes here are just part of the culture. They're part of an economic system that favors labor unions. They're as Canadian as the air you breathe, the water you drink, the trash you compost in those tiny rolling green bins you had better lock tight or the natives of the raccoon capital of the world will have a party Wednesday night (video here).
And so it goes. The auto insurers have agreed to extend our insurance for now, but there’s no telling how long that will last. There is one ServiceOntario office in Toronto offering licensing services, but that’s a joke; I went there last week and was told it would be a four-hour wait just to get to the head of the line.
Perhaps the truckers will be the ones to bring this mess to an end. Snarl enough roads, delay enough shipments, and maybe someone will listen.
Ah, for the days of Reagan and the air traffic controllers. Or even the days of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, when the Canadian Army (yes, there is one) came in to break the police strike.
Ironically, this strike was about job security. What does “job security” mean when you sit at home without a paycheck for more than two months? And how much job security do you deserve, when 99% of the province can do just fine without you?
680 News reported this morning that truckers would protest Ontario’s DriveTest strike today – I’m glad to finally have an ally.
We moved to Toronto in August, and our auto insurers want us to get Ontario driver’s licenses. It’s a reasonable enough request, but we can’t fulfill it; the Serco DES corporation responsible for licensing has been on strike for months (since August 21, four days after we moved here), and there’s no end in sight.
Part of the problem is that the government lacks any incentive to bring the strike to an end; every day the workers stay home is a day that the government saves money. At one point the employees actually offered to go back to work provisionally, and the government told them not to bother.
Who’s going to lobby for this strike to end - the minuscule number of people who have immigrated to Canada over these couple of months? Even the soon-to-be-voting teenagers have no leverage as they wait to be licensed, since most of their parents are just overjoyed that they don’t need to pay for a car and insurance for their children.
More, strikes here are just part of the culture. They're part of an economic system that favors labor unions. They're as Canadian as the air you breathe, the water you drink, the trash you compost in those tiny rolling green bins you had better lock tight or the natives of the raccoon capital of the world will have a party Wednesday night (video here).
And so it goes. The auto insurers have agreed to extend our insurance for now, but there’s no telling how long that will last. There is one ServiceOntario office in Toronto offering licensing services, but that’s a joke; I went there last week and was told it would be a four-hour wait just to get to the head of the line.
Perhaps the truckers will be the ones to bring this mess to an end. Snarl enough roads, delay enough shipments, and maybe someone will listen.
Ah, for the days of Reagan and the air traffic controllers. Or even the days of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, when the Canadian Army (yes, there is one) came in to break the police strike.
Ironically, this strike was about job security. What does “job security” mean when you sit at home without a paycheck for more than two months? And how much job security do you deserve, when 99% of the province can do just fine without you?
Monday, September 14, 2009
My new Toronto life: Different, but good
[Haveil Havalim is here!]
This post is for all of our wonderful friends who are emailing and asking, “How are things going in Toronto?”
Thank Gd, our adjustment is going well. The kids are happy in school, they have friends. After far too long watching the kids at home, Caren finally has a little time during the day to get things in order before Yom Tov hits. And my position with the new (pause for breath) Zichron Dov Yeshiva University Torah MiTzion Beit Midrash (pause to catch breath) is, thank Gd, turning out to be a lot of fun.
The beginning was somewhat tough, as per my earlier post about humility. And I’m running hard, as seen in the poster in my last post. But the work is good, and challenging. I feel like a kid in a candy store, with all of the opportunities to give shiurim and try new ideas. No one is saying ‘No’ to anything we offer, and there is a wealth of venues and crowds and demographics to serve.
I do miss the rabbinate, in terms of feeling like I’m doing something for people personally. I was always able to approach Rosh HaShanah knowing that despite my many, many flaws, I could point to specific people I had helped, people who likely could not have received that help elsewhere; the same feeling doesn’t apply to teaching classes, and that leaves a serious gap for me. But I haven’t had the time to really ponder that yet, and to think about ways to fill that need of mine.
Here's my big discovery, after one month here: Canada is really different from the US.
I don’t just mean the flag, or the anthem, or the electoral system, or the accents and the ‘eh’ thing; I mean that they really run this place differently. (pause while Canadians laugh at my provincial naivete)
Among the things I wish people had told me before we moved:
• Pandora is not available here. Ditto for Hulu, and other media content sites. I don’t have time for them anyway, but I imagine this creates a seriously different Internet experience for other Americans who move here... although, on the other hand, Canada’s few ISPs charge by gigabyte downloaded, so maybe that’s for the best.
• Gas prices here are fixed – all gas stations in a given region charge the same price. And better than that: Tomorrow’s price is rigged today, and they announce it today on the radio (680 AM is where I get it, but you can also find it here), after 5:30 PM. I’m not kidding – they have a gas price forecast, and it’s always right.
• The metric system seems to be a kind of half-hearted phenomenon here, as though they realize it's a lot to expect of people. Even at Immigration, when they asked for our kids’ height and weight, they said using inches and pounds would be fine. And public temperature displays routine show Fahrenheit numbers.
• Trash pickup here is once every two weeks. Compost (meaning food remains) and recyclables are once per week, but trash is every two weeks. I think the drosophila melanogaster lobby got that arrangement passed.
• Pediatricians don’t have group practices; perhaps this ties into the whole socialized medicine phenomenon, but all you have are solo practitioners. That makes “call” a mess, of course, and it means very, very long lines in waiting rooms.
• Since summer, there’s been a strike by sanitation workers, a strike by driver’s license testers, and more. Somewhere, someone has a schedule of strikes and knows who is going off the job and when. The only strike to be averted so far was a strike by liquor store workers. I kid you not.
So I’m learning a new system. But people here are great – no substitute for Allentown, but great nonetheless – and I’m enjoying it, and the kids are happy, and that's the wholeball hockey game.
This post is for all of our wonderful friends who are emailing and asking, “How are things going in Toronto?”
Thank Gd, our adjustment is going well. The kids are happy in school, they have friends. After far too long watching the kids at home, Caren finally has a little time during the day to get things in order before Yom Tov hits. And my position with the new (pause for breath) Zichron Dov Yeshiva University Torah MiTzion Beit Midrash (pause to catch breath) is, thank Gd, turning out to be a lot of fun.
The beginning was somewhat tough, as per my earlier post about humility. And I’m running hard, as seen in the poster in my last post. But the work is good, and challenging. I feel like a kid in a candy store, with all of the opportunities to give shiurim and try new ideas. No one is saying ‘No’ to anything we offer, and there is a wealth of venues and crowds and demographics to serve.
I do miss the rabbinate, in terms of feeling like I’m doing something for people personally. I was always able to approach Rosh HaShanah knowing that despite my many, many flaws, I could point to specific people I had helped, people who likely could not have received that help elsewhere; the same feeling doesn’t apply to teaching classes, and that leaves a serious gap for me. But I haven’t had the time to really ponder that yet, and to think about ways to fill that need of mine.
Here's my big discovery, after one month here: Canada is really different from the US.
I don’t just mean the flag, or the anthem, or the electoral system, or the accents and the ‘eh’ thing; I mean that they really run this place differently. (pause while Canadians laugh at my provincial naivete)
Among the things I wish people had told me before we moved:
• Pandora is not available here. Ditto for Hulu, and other media content sites. I don’t have time for them anyway, but I imagine this creates a seriously different Internet experience for other Americans who move here... although, on the other hand, Canada’s few ISPs charge by gigabyte downloaded, so maybe that’s for the best.
• Gas prices here are fixed – all gas stations in a given region charge the same price. And better than that: Tomorrow’s price is rigged today, and they announce it today on the radio (680 AM is where I get it, but you can also find it here), after 5:30 PM. I’m not kidding – they have a gas price forecast, and it’s always right.
• The metric system seems to be a kind of half-hearted phenomenon here, as though they realize it's a lot to expect of people. Even at Immigration, when they asked for our kids’ height and weight, they said using inches and pounds would be fine. And public temperature displays routine show Fahrenheit numbers.
• Trash pickup here is once every two weeks. Compost (meaning food remains) and recyclables are once per week, but trash is every two weeks. I think the drosophila melanogaster lobby got that arrangement passed.
• Pediatricians don’t have group practices; perhaps this ties into the whole socialized medicine phenomenon, but all you have are solo practitioners. That makes “call” a mess, of course, and it means very, very long lines in waiting rooms.
• Since summer, there’s been a strike by sanitation workers, a strike by driver’s license testers, and more. Somewhere, someone has a schedule of strikes and knows who is going off the job and when. The only strike to be averted so far was a strike by liquor store workers. I kid you not.
So I’m learning a new system. But people here are great – no substitute for Allentown, but great nonetheless – and I’m enjoying it, and the kids are happy, and that's the whole
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
