Pages to Fold
A Trash Bin Quandary
Lake Shore's Dump Sites Get the Blues
Introducing Ask Torontoist
City of Toronto Releases Union Offer Details
City councillor Rob Ford has at times been accused of making a career out of saying tremendously stupid things, but we here at Torontoist fully back his latest proposal to automatically name all new streets in Toronto after dead soldiers, even if the dead soldiers aren't from Toronto.
If anything, we think Rob Ford doesn't go far enough. Sure, families of Canadian soldiers killed in action receive an immediate $250,000 death benefit plus an ongoing earning loss benefit until the soldier would have turned 65, but is that really enough compensation, even with a street name on top of that? Can't we do more to immortalize their sacrifice?
Torontoist hereby proposes the following four-point Memorial Action Plan for the names of all dead soldiers:
1. Streets renamed after dead soldiers. After all, most new streets in Toronto nowadays are dinky little side alleys. Surely our brave boys in uniform deserve better than, for example, Ben Kerr (no matter how tasty his hot sauce was). And besides, let's be honest––nobody thought "Sherbourne" or "Adelaide" sounded good anyway. Under Torontoist's plan, within ten years every street in Toronto will be renamed after a dead Canadian soldier. You won't be able to get stuck in traffic without remembering their brave sacrifices.
2. Renaming of all city parks after dead soldiers. Reverence for the military must begin at an early age; indoctrinate the sandbox-playing kids of today and tomorrow you've bred a population with one hundred percent respect. (Possible extra component: removal of "jungle gym" from public lexicon, replace with "sacrifice gym.")
3. Rename CN Tower "Dead Canadian Soldier Hero Tower Of Hero Soldiers."
4. Okay, at this point the cocktail napkin is kind of getting smudgy so it's getting hard to reproduce all the brilliant ideas, but we're pretty sure this one is about a system of badges all citizens would be compelled to wear. Or maybe it's a song, there seem to be some musical notes in the margin. Actually, it might be both, and the badges might have those little microchips in them, the ones that make music when you press on them.
In any case, Rob Ford is most certainly not just a foolish hack spouting forth ridiculous ideas with no forethought in a desperate attempt to fetishize the military in order to score political points, and that's what's important. And that's why Torontoist totally endorses his idea.
Original photo by skechy from the Torontoist Flickr Pool. Photo illustration by Christopher Bird.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
On the other hand, maybe naming streets after the people our government has gotten killed might shame the general public into seeing the danger of militarism.
Damn, I think the Canadian military had the US Army beat when it came to payments. I don't think the US Army paid an ongoing earn loss benefit. They did raise our max death benefit to about $450,000 but I can't remember how much was payable upfront.
My only question though is doesn't the military unit name facilities for their fallen soldiers when they are built? I remember when I was stationed in Hawaii we had a battle buddy die and they renamed one of our rooms and a gym after him.
Wow, this article was really in bad taste. Canadian soldiers who lose their lives serving our country are heroes. I think that Rob Ford's proposal is stupid, but your post is inappropriate.
"Sure, families of Canadian soldiers killed in action receive an immediate $250,000 death benefit plus an ongoing earning loss benefit until the soldier would have turned 65, but is that really enough compensation, even with a street name on top of that?"
No, it isn't enough. They also deserve our respect.
Eugh.
Please read this (tips from Gawker on how to write with a snarky-informative voice and not sound like an idiot)
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/how_to_be_a_gawker.html
...Torontoist needs to get a similar writing guide, stat.
Really bad taste. I bet you're some kind of student, right?
I'll second Ling's post.
Ford's is an absurd idea, but the tone this article takes is callous. Opposition to Canada's ongoing role in Afghanistan is one thing, but to make light of the grinding and miserable reality that the fighting represents to the family of a killed Canadian soldier is another matter entirely.
I believe we need a stronger measure of rationality in the debate on this issue. It seems to me that university educated, politically sensitive and civic-minded citizens, living in downtown Toronto should be in an excellent position to calmly and soberly engage in rational debate over whether or not Canada should be in Afghanistan. Instead, I find an increasing amount of essentially polemical, ideological positions like the one taken in this piece.
Rob Ford has made an ass of himself, again, and suggested an entirely foolish course of action in keeping with a 'blinders-on', stubborn & conservative view of the subject. Torontoist has replied with a sarcastic criticism so entirely lopsided as to be equally foolish and equally dismissable.
It's disappointing.
That respect shouldn't be automatic just because they wear a uniform. I gotta be honest...I think that a person who sacrifices for their country deserves full compensation from the government that sends them, and yeah, for the most part, they deserve our respect.(I don't respect our US soldiers who stand, thumbs up, next to hooded, prisoners in extreme positions at Abu Ghraib).
That being said, I'm sick of the military and the increasing acceptance of military authority to solve everything.
And really, if you asked a soldier, if they died in combat, would they even want a street named after them? Most of these guys don't consider themselves heroes...just guys who want to do their job, survive and go home.
And yeah, Damon, I think Canada has the US beat on compensation, which is no surprise....America treats it's vets like crap.
Ok can we try to be a little more clear on who we are trying to diss here...if you wanna diss the councillor, fine...but was it really necessary to write a whole article that instead disses the soldiers...
For those who want a sober, rational debate about the issue of honouring soldiers, rather than satire, I direct you to this Torontoist vs. Torontoist article about "Support Our Troops" ribbons.
Bird: You should be embarassed. While you might not think much of Councillor Ford's idea (which, in my opinion, isn't as ridiculous as the article infers), it is clear that his intent is, at least, admirable.
Your article, on the other hand, is pathetic - Your weak attempt at sarcasm fails miserably.
Bird: You should be embarassed. While you might not think much of Councillor Ford's idea (which, in my opinion, isn't as ridiculous as the article infers), it is clear that his intent is, at least, admirable.
Your article, on the other hand, is pathetic - Your weak attempt at sarcasm fails miserably.
hi.
i'm a regular torontoist reader, but i just signed up now specifically in order to request that this article be taken down and an apology posted.
i oppose the war in afghanistan, but this article is in tremendous bad taste.
I don't think you know what satire means.
Oh my, you broke the cardinal rule of blind patriotism, you dared to question how to honor a soldier. Horror. I'm a regular Torontoist reader, and I request that this article stay up and no apology needed. Psst, I think the soldiers can take it, besides, they're more worried about bullets than sarcasm.
Does anyone maybe see the irony in honouring soldiers, who died in a war over oil, by naming streets after them.
I imagine an SUV with a "support Our Troops" sticker on it, driving down an asphalt street named after a soldier who gave his life for the very resource that is being wasted.
Call me silly, but I would think lowering our dependence on foriegn oil, or oil altogether and questioning this war, our governments' foriegn policies that led us to this war, or just working to END this war, would be a much more fitting tribute to those hwo have given their lives. But hey, that's just me.
This is either written in poor taste, or an example of particular bad satire.
Before going further, allow me to state that I'm not a supporter of the Cdn mission in Afghanistan. I'm rather progressive in my views, and like the Torontoist (as evidenced in this entry), I'm not a fan of the constant valorization of service personnel as the exclusive sort of "hero" within contemporary western culture. The 401 should never have been renamed "Highway of Heroes", for instance.
Nonetheless, to make light of the situation as you have done is a complete and utter disrespect to not only people who have died overseas, but to their families as well. The people who have gone overseas have, for the most part, signed up for the Service on their own accord and "believe in the mission" - whatever that means. The same can be said for their families. But while you're pulling satirical punches with the weight of **dead people**, their families are grieving at their loss.
Let me put it this way. People Have Died. And you're making light of that. Take away the political rhetoric that surrounds our forces in Afghnistan - take away every yellow ribbon, every mention of the word "hero", every red shirt worn on Friday, and you are left with families across Canada who have lost loved ones.
In many ways this is no different from what the people of Queen West have lost recently. But because your politics and principles don't jive with the politics and principles of service personnel, you're making fun of it. I do not support the mission in Afghanistan, at all, but I do feel as sorry as can be for the people who have lost loved ones. Do they need a street named after them? Certainly not. Such a course of action is a politicization of their death. But these people certainly don't need your abuse, either.
Christ, wisen up, guys. Make your your satire is aimed in the right direction. Press like this will not help to further sway public opinion to a pull-out from Afghanistan. You're making us look heartless and contemptuous. Don't make fun of the fact that people are dying. There are alternatives.
wannabintoranna:
it has nothing to do with patriotism.
making glib jokes about human beings who recently died, and doing so in a public forum where their family and friends could easily encounter it, is simply reprehensible.
basic human decency should trump politics.
jennyfish: and tackier yet, widows and orphans.
This may be Mr. Bird's weakest effort ever. Even the Photoshoppery isn't anything special.
hello.
this is a terribly poor piece of satire. i don't agree that it should be taken down, freedom of speech still means something here, but geez.
how do you screw up taking a pot shot at rob ford? seriously. that's like letting 20 runs in in the bottom of the ninth or losing to a 6-year-old in the triple jump. do you guys have no political radar?
between helping asinine politicians like ford with shoddy editorials and providing free campaign support to a candidate that represents a party with an openly right wing agenda (campaign confidential) you guys are really not living up to your potential as a meduim representing the vanguard of progressive and reasonable discourse in the t dot.
just to clarify. i'm not suggesting any curtailing of freedom of speech. in no way is the torontoist obligated to take down anything.
i think the torontoist has every right to post this, but should be ashamed of themselves for doing so. and i hope that after taking a second look at it, they realize this and retract it.
Free campaign support.......priceless. Make sure you pick up all the straws.
Are we reading the same article? Not once does Christopher Bird make fun of or mock Canadian soldiers, living or dead, for doing their jobs. The satire, the lampoon, the very point of the article is quite obviously aimed at Ford and his imported-from-the-south suggestion and the growing cult-of-uniform hero worship.
Some of you should be embarrassed by how quickly your knees jerked.
Agree with Rek. Pointing out the absurdity of Ford's proposal...it's such a "slam-dunk" for politicians to jump on the "How can we honour our troops today" bandwagon.
If you want to honour the fallen, f*** the street names, f*** your parades and all that other dog and pony shit that does nothing for the fallen or their families and bring the living ones back now. Besides, if you are going to name a street after a fallen soldier, you better make damn sure you maintain that street and it's the cleanest street in the city.
"Uh, gee, sorry your loved on died...but hey, we named a street after him/her....um...sorry about the potholes and stuff, the city will get right on that."
I think Chris is just indicating what a "slippery slope" we would face if Toronto enacted Ford's idea.
Personally, I could give two s&#t's what he writes. Last time I checked I fought for his right to say whatever he wants to say. Just like I fought for the right of the KKK and Neo-nazi's to be able to get on their soapbox and express their views about how my race is hurting Whites.
This article doesn't really offend me and I'm pretty sure if I sent it off to my buddies still serving it wouldn't offend them either.
Those of you who argue that the soldiers deserve respect we don't care if you respect us or not. The only respect I care about is my buddy in the foxhole to the left or right of me to make sure that he or she will do his utmost to protect me just like I'll protect them.
I have to agree with Rek.
It's not the greatest satirical piece ever written, but it effectively pokes fun at yet another stupid Rob Ford idea as well as the cult of memorializing.
If someone wants to name streets after heroes, they should be naming them after teachers and social workers.
The problem is how poorly the satire is written. Frankly, we're all informed to understand the point - that much is clear by following this conversation. The real issue is the quality of what is written. Most people don't think twice to what they read (and they read it so quickly) on the internet.
I get the satire. But its done poorly. Some one should have forced a re-write on it.
Rek: You claim that "not once does Christopher Bird make fun of or mock Canadian soldiers... the satire... is quite obviously aimed at Ford...". I will direct your attention to the following paragraph:
Now, the tone of the item is sarcastic and insincere. In that context, it's entirely sensible to read this paragraph as saying that Rob Ford goes too far, that all of that lovely money is ample or even undeserved compensation to the families, that naming streets after the dead is excessive, and that we should not do more.
Better yet, half of those apparent sentiments are both supportable and consistent with the rest of the article. The other half are apparently malicious nonsense: yeah, you got your gold-plated pay-off, what more do you want?
WannaBinToranna's comments do a better job of mocking Ford without incurring civilian casualties, so to speak. Mr. Bird may be employing what one would in literary criticism call "unstable irony," but it's more likely that this item is just sloppy. As he says himself in a recent post to his personal blog, "stay off my side, will you?"
Rob Ford. More girth than brains.
Makes me have a bilious attack.
In the National Post photo, Rob Ford looks like renovator Mike Holmes' handicappable older brother.
The problem is not the satire, but the satire's quality.
Some one should have forced a re-write on this one, to clarify its context for most surfers who read quickly without giving further thought (I would bet that any stats page would show that the TOist's average visit length is as incredibly short - under 2 or 5 minutes, as any other site).
Good satire is difficult to achieve. When poorly done, it merely offends. That's what's going on here.
You know Dooggiez, I thought he looked just like someone and you just nailed it for me. LOL
Rob Ford is a walking heart attack.
Well, let's humour Ford's idea for a moment and name streets. As opposed to a memorial, where the names are equal (say the Vietnam Wall). When a family drives down their loved ones street and asks, "Why is that soldier's street longer than ours?". "Why is there so much litter on our street?" "Why don't they plant more trees on this street?", "I don't like that row of houses on my son's street?" "Did you see that sorry excuse of a street they named after my kid? They gave a better street to so-and-so's kid...some street, my kid dies for his country and gets an alleyway."
Then you get, "John Doe Street? Who the f*** is John Doe? Probably some jerk...never heard of him."
You'll notice at memorials such as Normandy, all of the crosses are uniform, no one stands above the other. The names on the Vietnam wall, no one is given special treatment. So, aside from politicizing some brave people's sacrifice, it is simply a bad idea.
Is there any chance of Torontoist resurrecting the Spy Magazine era "Separated at Birth" photos? A lot of famous and near-famous Torontonians look like other people, and side-by-side photos could be pretty funny as a semi-regular feature.
Speaking as a concerned patriot: as our military engagements continue, will we have enough streets?
lol
Seconding Mitchellirons here, if satire requires this much discussion to cement itself it's probably not the most well-written satire.
It's kinda like how most Ctrl-Alt-Del comics use the 4th panel to explain the poorly written joke on the previous three panels; it wouldn't need to be there if it was done right the first time around.
Well, that's the thing too, how many streets do you want to rename? When or at whose name, do you decide to stop? When does someone notice that we're renaming an awful lot of streets? When is it too many?
Honour the dead by bringing home the living.
I really don't think the notion of naming the streets carries enough merit to be discussed any further. It truly is a bad idea, and those who have pointed out it's political nature, or how it would do nothing to help honour the dead or console their loved ones are, of course, correct.
Rek: Sometimes knees jerk for a reason. Remember, jumping out of the way of a careening vehicle is a kneejerk reaction, too.
I can just hear the cabbie directions now for the renamed streets: "Take a left down Iwanna Fagina Boulevard, and then a right at Wee Phucem Yung Laneway."
At what point would the city go back to naming the streets as usual? It kinds makes me think of all the American TV network jingoism that followed 9/11, when they all put waving American flags into their logos, set pieces, and commercial bumpers. Yesterday morning, I was watching Regis and Kelly (yeah, yeah, I know) and they have this little post-9/11 American flag stuck to the desk and I was thinking that if they ever decided to remove that now, people would go apeshit. (Why does Gelman hate freedom?)
It's the same with the streets—if we started naming them after fallen war heroes and a decade from now attempted to switch to something different, accusations of disrespect and patriotic disloyalty would start flying. Plus, whom of the deceased are to be left out when granting street names? Do some get an avenue while others just get a lane? Are our Afghanistan dead more worthy of honour than our World War I dead?
Methinks Rob Ford secretly fantasizes about getting a street named after him someday...if Lastman can get a square and Judy Sgro can get an avenue, surely there's room for a Blowhard Boulevard? Mind you, all the houses would have to be drafty, painted bright red, and festooned with stupid novelty ties.
EricSmith - I don't see where Chris mocked soldiers or their surviving families in that paragraph either. Phrased differently, pointing out that families are compensated could come off meaning 'isn't that enough?' but the article goes in the opposite direction and the rest of that sentence sets up the game of oneupmanship.
jonnyr00 - In this case it's just a picture of a careening vehicle.
What is this maddening dogma that anything that relates to soldiers - remotely or otherwise, must be pure and unequivocal as it relates to our feelings of support?
There's a difference between valuing human life, and not supporting the military. I don't support the war, I don't support the troops in said war, but this doesn't mean I want them all to die. Just like it means I don't want civilians in Afghanistan to die.
Anyway, viewed without the hypersensitive paradigm, this doesn't mock our troops, it mocks Rob Ford, who deserves to be mocked incessantly.
I propose we rename Rob Ford.
How about an annagram? Borf Rod sounds kindof gross. "Don't make me pull out my Borf Rod."
Blob Gourd, perhaps?
dear god, i hope no canadian soldiers read this, or we may soon be faced with a proposal to name toronto streets after dead city-bloggers.
Okay,
Maybe I jumped out of the way of the careening bus a bit prematurely. In my defence, it was actually on fire, too.
Sarah: Ha! Though I wouldn't worry too much about it. We're all gonna get 'rubbed out' in our sleep by the same people Home Depot 'contracted' to burn down Queen Street.
Man, when we're right, we're right.
'Jon'
People need to chill a bit. The post was mocking of Rob Ford, but also subtly hints at a deeper problem with this type of knee-jerk jingoism by Ford and his ilk.
By naming a street after a dead soldier, you aren't "honouring" all soldiers - just that one. When you privilege one person in this way, you effectively do a disservice to the rest by failing to provide a corresponding honour. This runs entirely contrary to military tradition.
That is why, as well-intentioned as it may have been, veterans opposed the proposal to fly the flag at half-staff on Parliament hill every time a Canadian soldier died. The flag is already lowered once a year, in honour of *all* fallen soldiers. If the flag were lowered every time a soldier died it would dilute the significance and importance of that one time a year it honours all soldiers.
But people like Rob Ford, who fall over themselves to decry anyone who doesn't reflexively genuflect to anything to do with the military, don't actually understand these military traditions and ethos.
Ok, so meet me at the Starbucks on the corner of Bird and Topping...
Very poorly written, misses the mark completely.
When did Bird stop being explosively talented? Did he get his pony? Was that it? Am I the only one who remembers that and still finds it funny?
If anyone is interested in reading Ford's motion, here's the PDF.
Seriously, isn't the embarrassing renaming of the 401 enough? Highway of Heroes? Goddamn... are we living in a Marvel comic now or something?
I'd like to think that journalists write to get people thinking about the issues, to start dialogues.
The number of comments here is proof that this article is doing exactly what it should be. Taking it down would just cause people to stop talking about things that are clearly important to our national psyche, and that would be tragic.
@Dipp
exactly my sentiments...
I find the notion of treating all paid professionals whom 'volunteer' to put themselves in harms way, as heroes strange.
It's like cops who sign-up to be a cop, then complain cause they have to deal with violent people all day.
You join the army (especially in war time), you 'might' get shot, it's a part of the job. I don't see how dying in said circumstances makes you a hero.
I think we often mistake the word martyr with hero.
post WW2: wars are not heroic, they are often cowardly and driven by prejudice.
Interestingly enough, only one comment has been posted on the National Post's website about their article:
"by donald.blair
Feb 29 2008
9:37 AM Rob Ford should be mayor.
And Joe Pantalone is a hypocrit."
if you read, "Brave Men, Gentle Heroes", by Michael Takiff, most of these guys will shy away from the "hero" title and just say, they were doing their job, looking out for their friends while their friends looked out for them. They rarely care about the politics. It's this belief that anyone who wears uniform is a hero, and militarization of our societies, which is disturbing. We watch parades of soldiers and missiles marching through Moscow and think totalitarianism...but how much different is it from what we're doing? In our town, just last week, a firefighter was indicted for raping a young girl...so much for "hero" or "angel". Then, of course, you get the, "well, there are a few bad apples..." argument.
We send our young into a war, and then act almost surprised to find them coming back in coffins. Never once asking, did these people really need to die. We just accept their deaths, give them a day, a parade or memorial, then it's on to the next "hero" story in the news. I'm not sure how many times this has to replay over and over.
Five years ago, those of us against this war, were called unpatriotic and weak...but had more people asked questions BEFORE this war started, these young people might still be alive. Knowing what we know now, how many people would've still sent them? So, I would think, that to honour those who died in the "last" war, we should do all we can to prevent the "next" war.
I've seen parents ask more questions about parties that their kids were going to.
"Party? No way. War? Well, I guess we should just trust our leaders. Ya gotta go, ya gotta go...good luck."
What war are you even talking about? Not that it has any bearing on your broken-record argument, anyway.
x, you fucking asshole...what war do you think I'm talking about?
Fuck you, x!
I'm tired of your shit.
In a more recent story on naming streets after deceased soldiers, Rob Ford states:
"What I'm trying to do is acknowledge the soldiers that are fighting for us in Afghanistan - remembering the ones that lost their lives for democracy basically," said Ford. "What I want to do is with any new streets or any new developments I want to take it out of the councillors' hands, so they don't name streets after certain individuals." (source: http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/News/Etobicoke/article/42510)
I, for one, would love to hear from Ford directly who these "certain individuals" are? John Sewell Street? Mel Lastman Laneway? The David Topping Turnabout? :)
This conversation is clearly into different territory now... Not that I'm complaining.
Agreed, I think hero is a bad word for this... I recall reading letters written by fallen soldiers to family in Maclean's recently and while I felt absolutely horrible that these people would not be in their wife/husband/parent/child/friend's lives, I didn't feel sorry for them - or consider them a hero. It was their choice. I don't agree with their perspective/moral values, and at the risk of sounding egregiously blunt, their death doesn't change that.
I imagine someone will slam me now for not supporting the troops and for hating freedom and all that, but, I find it interesting that no one gets this upset to the daily fatalities as a result of military action in Afghanistan or Iraq. These dead people didn't have that choice. And it's unlikely that their local mullahs will suggest naming streets after them.
"I don't agree with their perspective/moral values"
This is bothersome because it conflates service with belief. This is where all of the military arguments get lost - for example, the support our troops stickers - by opponents of the war.
The armed forces have chosen to serve their country and may too have misgivings about the nature or purpose of a mission. It is the sacrifice of service which deserves honour. Whether it is heroic or not is a red herring - they still have made the ultimate sacrifice for the decisions made by our country, decisions they had no more impact in making than you or I as voters.
As for the article itself, I fully support the right of the author to make an ass of himself. This isn't satire, though, it is belittling the sacrifice that the members of the armed forces have made, which is why many have reacted so viscerally. in an attempt to score a cheap point on a bloated idea from a wind-up toy caricature of a politician, it instead managed to alienate what is, I conjecture, an audience that is pretty suspicious of the war in Afghanistan. Thats a real achievement.
re: "expletive ... what war do you think I'm talking about? .. expletive"
I have no idea, which is why I asked. You might know that Canada does not have personnel in Iraq, which I think is the basis of most of your observations in this thread. Moscow parades? I'm thinking cold war, which ended. I think their might be something about it on wikipedia.
Re comment 64:
"Canada does not have personnel in Iraq..."
Canadian Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern is the deputy commander of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, according to Antiwar.com.
Second in command, I believe.
Our army in is Afghanistan, and there is a war going on there. It is not in a peacekeeping role. Just because we haven't "declared war" doesn't mean there's no war.
Pedant.
Unless one has annexed the other earlier this afternoon, Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same country, the missions are not the same, the causes belli are not the same ... etc..
One would think a pedant would be a little more detail oriented.
It`s about what they stand for that matters so much, and only somebody spoiled beyond repair would not make any attempt to understand it or demean it.
Oh yeah "x", I`m nowhere near tired of you, it appears however, that enlightenment is reserved for those with corresponding opinions.
Rob Ford now wants to cut the number of Toronto city councillors by half, from from 44 to 22. Let's see... if we cut Rob Ford in half, then half of 450 pounds is 225 pounds. Sounds pretty good to me.
Looks like Ford is really quite the hero.
Ford showing his love for Asians
Good catch, Damon. According to The Star, "Speaking last night during a debate over expanding business openings on holidays, Ford said, “Oriental people are slowly taking over.”"
Yellow peril, indeed!
Ford also said that Asians are more advanced that they were in business 100 years ago. I guess anything beats dropping dead while laying Canada's railroad tracks, or being locked up in an internment camp during WWII.