January 21, 2008
TTC Drivers Stressed, Road Toll Plan Sure To Be Shot Down, Americans Can't Stop Politicking
The Star reports that TTC operators have a rate of post-traumatic stress disorder four times higher than Toronto police officers. The syndrome is often a result of witnessing, or becoming the victim of, physical violence, and is now the second leading cause of missed work days at the TTC. Arming operators a la Mad Max probably isn't the right solution, but hoping that the assholes who assault drivers will magically disappear may not be realistic. Anyone?
A study by a Trent University professor quite reasonably recommends tolls on pretty much all major highways in the GTA as well a local six cent per litre fuel tax, with the revenue going to subsidize roads and public transit. Strangely, nowhere in the report is the expression "political suicide" ever used. Academics are so cute.
The always confusing U.S. presidential race continues to muddle along, as the Nevada primaries saw Clinton barely beating Obama for the Democrats, while John McCain trounced evolution disbeliever Mike Huckabee among South Carolina Republicans. You know, if they chose the candidate based on whose name is the most fun to play the "Name Game" with, it would totally be Huckabee vs. Obama, but unfortunately that's not how they do it.
Some more bad financial news, as Asian markets tanked overnight, at least partially in response to disappointment with President Bush's economic stimulus plan. Come on, Asia, if you're going to save the world economy when the U.S. goes into the crapper, you're gonna need to get moving on that pretty soon.
And for Canadians who are betraying their heritage by watching American football instead of hockey, it'll be the Patriots and the Giants in the Superbowl on February 3. But you already knew that, didn't you?
Photo by FeXd from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
|
"...the Nevada primaries saw Clinton barely beating Obama for the Democrats in Florida, while John McCain trounced evolution disbeliever Mike Huckabee among Florida Republicans."
Why does your news blurb read this way? Florida's primaries have not occurred yet. Or do you think Nevada and Florida are two names for the same place? (They're really not.)
My apologies for the error and I hope I haven't disrupted the electoral process. A kind fellow Torontoist just just pointed it out to me too so you'll see it corrected momentarily. I have no idea what I was writing. Florida = beaches, Nevada = casinos, right?
No, flordia= rednecks and representatives who give away elections to the the highest bidder and we as citizens end up losing our country.
Nevada=rednecks who fight to be the highest bidder, drink too much, get in fights with their girlfreinds at the trailer park cuz they "lost all they rent money', then end up on an episode of "Cops".
Your brief blurb on the US political rate managed two significant errors, even *with* the correction.
1. Obama beat Clinton in Nevada. Obama won 13 delegates towards the nomination, while Clinton won 12. I understand that the media has been focused on the fact that Clinton won more delegates to the Nevada state convention, but because of the way delegates to the Democratic nominating convention are allocated, Obama still comes out ahead (essentially, he did well all over the state, while Clinton did well in Las Vegas). Since the goal is winning more *nominating* delegates, Obama pretty clearly won.
2. McCain most certainly did not "trounce" Mike Huckabee. Instead, he eked out a 33%-30% win, winning 135,000 votes. Contrast this with 2000, when McCain finished 2nd in South Carolina to Bush, but won 42%, while winning 240,000 votes.
I appreciate that you are simply repeating the great media narratives here, but I thought the whole point of these blurbs was to unpack them...
I'd already used "beat" so I went with "trounced" even though it clearly was less than a landslide. Sorry if the implication was confusing; "defeated" next time.
I understand Obama gets the 13 vs 12 delegates, if the AP unofficial count is accurate, and if noone changes their vote between now and the state convention on April 19. Assuming that remains unchanged, the single additional delegate is unlikely to mean much in the greater scheme of things; but the fact that Clinton got 45% of the vote vs 41% for Obama gives her greater momentum going into the next set of primaries. That may be why the media mostly declared her the winner, including the stories I used for the info.
Clinton got 45% of the vote vs 41% for Obama gives her greater momentum going into the next set of primaries.
Two points.
1. I don't know where these numbers come from, but we have no way of knowing what percentage of the vote Clinton or Obama got. The vote tallies were never kept. The media is reporting the percentage of state delegates each candidate got, but because of the structure of the caucus, that isn't necessarily representative of the number of people who supported each candidate.
2. In terms of "momentum", you are begging the question. The media, using a yardstick that isn't representative of victory [btw, showing the number of delegates to the state convention to show who "won" Nevada is a little like using the number of raw votes rather than the number of seats a party gets in the 416 to show who won Toronto] and uses that false metric to anoint Clinton the front-runner. I suppose, fairly or not, she has "momentum" with the *media*, but voters are a different matter (cf. New Hampshire).
So...right now I've got the Financial Times, Slate, CBS News, the Globe & Mail, and US News & World Report (to name the first 5 sources I picked off Google) calling Clinton the winner, and on the other hand, I've got you standing up for an Obama victory. I think I'll stick with the mainstream media on this one.
If you really want to debate the essential clusterfuckery of the primary system and how it's actually pretty much impossible to tell who's winning, I'm going to need some beer.
speaking of clusterf**ckery. every time a ttc operator gets a shot in the head [or just on argument] from a rider, hundreds/thousands must wait,wait,wait behind the car ahead.
hillary?.. barak?.. john?.. adam?...bob?.. answers!
p.s
now i'm really late for work.
peace.
According to the additional information in The Toronto Star, it appears that all of the professions taking sick days due to stress are public(and there seem to be a lot of sick days!)
I would like to see similar statistics for private industry. For taxi drivers for example.
Of course there would not be similar statistics for private industry, since if you took so many sick days off due to stress you would be fired.
I think that TTC employees are taking too many sick days off and now they are covering themselves by claiming that they are being harrassed and abused and of course, NEED MORE MONEY.
Where else can you earn $50,000 per annum without any customer service skills and can abuse your customers without any fear of reprisal? For example, the extremely rude and abrupt public address system messages to get away from the doors on the subway.
I spend 20 hours every week on the TTC, 7:15 am to 8:30 am and 4:45 pm to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday and 8:30pm to 9:30 pm Saturdays, 6:15 am to 7:30 am and 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Sundays and 6:00 am to 6:30 am on Monday mornings. Besides travel for errands.
I am middle-aged and have been taking the TTC since I was carried on by my father. He never owned a vehicle and neither do I. I have never seen any TTC driver abused in my presence, rather the opposite situation.