Last year, since we didn’t move in until mid-May—and even then took a while to get ourselves together—I didn’t have the chance to plant much. We bought some tomato and pepper plants and threw them in a little patch of dirt in the backyard but it didn’t yield much anything to speak of. But this year I’m prepared.

My brother-in-law purchased The Vegetable Gardener’s Bible for me for Christmas and while I was a bit remiss with buying my seeds sooner things are now moving along swiftly.

We’ve got a patch of land, behind our back fence, that used to be an old delivery lane-way for the coal trucks. I’ve spoken to the City and while we don’t own the land, gardening on it is fine. And perfect for a vegetable garden: Nice and wide and long and fenced off so that Penny can’t get into it and snoop around.

View from the Fenced Backyard

View of the Lane-way

It’s a bit difficult to see from the photograph but it’s about 2m, wide enough to accommodate 2 wide, raised bed gardens and a walkway, all running the entire length of the backyard without disturbing the neighbours too much. This year, I think we’ll go with only one row to begin because I don’t want to get in over my head but eventually this whole lane-way could accommodate a pretty sizable garden.

Once the weather warms up and the ground thaws it’ll be time to start digging things up. Just in time for the City of Cambridge’s annual compost giveaway!

In a nutshell, here’s why the whole Robocall Scandal is something to be seriously concerned about.

During the 2006 election, the Conservatives used a little bit of creative accounting that’s since come to be known as the “In and Out” scheme. Under this scheme, which Conservatives at the highest levels approved, money was funneled into local ridings and then withdrawn to be used for federally-disseminated campaign material. Through this perceived loophole in Canadian electoral law, the Conservatives were able to spend well beyond the limits that traditionally apply to federal campaigning. The Tories could use money that was, on the books, being spent locally, to actually fund, say, federally-run commercials.

This scheme was discovered, deemed illegal, and the Conservatives were made to pay a fine and apologize. Which they did.

But now they have a history of gaming the system.

So when the National Post—not a newspaper that’s particularly unfriendly to the Harper government—comes out with a scandal that traces itself right back to the doorstep of 24 Sussex Drive it’s something to give Canadians, perhaps, at least a slight cause for concern.

The idea of a robot making a telephone call is, to me, pretty hilarious but unfortunately this isn’t a laughing matter. The fact that Stephen Harper himself has used the company behind the robocalls for his own election campaigns is troublesome. The fact that the Tories have, in the past, broken electoral rules makes all of this a bit more than a weekend news story. There is a precedent for Conservatives behaving badly during election campaigns. There is a history to this and because of that, robots aside, this is serious business.

Our Prime Minister Stephen Harper  has been on a trade mission in China this past week. His first since 2009 when he was chided for not visiting sooner. This trip, from all accounts, including the Prime Minister himself on CBC’s The House, has been successful. But is it successful for the wrong reasons? Would it have been a success if, say, the Prime Minister brought up some of the pressing issues facing that country and, more importantly, its citizens?

For a country that supposedly prides itself of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its generous immigration and refugee policy isn’t it our job—even if no one else will step up—to ask the tough questions of foreign powers?

CBC’s annual book competition, Canada Reads, aired this week and among the celebrity panelists was Alan Thicke. The Canadian-born actor now lives in the United States and it was some of his comments that started me thinking about our commitments, as a country. Among other things, Thicke described the Canadian he knew was a peace-loving country, a champion of human rights and of the immigrant, a global player interested in freedom for all, everywhere. But Thicke is an outsider and it left me wondering, does the Canada that Thicke might have in mind actually exist? Is the Canada that Thicke sees from the outside, that he’s proud to call his place of birth, a reality?

If the Canada that Thicke was thinking of existed, would we be entertaining the idea of free trade with a country that openly oppresses its citizens rights? If we were truly a champion of human rights, truly a nation of peacekeepers, wouldn’t we be involved, in a real way, in the dispute between China and Tibet? Israel and Pakistan? Syria? The Congo?

I can think of two ways to approach the question of China.

First, is our current approach. The idea that opening up trade routes will, in some way, promote Canadian values.

This is a meek approach. An approach that seems possibly more like sunshine and rainbows than actually reality. An approach that has questionable results. Certainly, taking a long-term view of things, China has been progressive in its treatment of its citizens and its perspective on human rights. But this is the long view. Considering the fast-paced, break-neck speed of the Arab Spring where decades of atrocities and injustice can be undone in the matter of a few weeks progress in China seems pathetic.

Certainly, China is opening itself up but opening itself up to what? iPhones and iMacs, not freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Is mentioning  human rights on a once-every-few-years trade mission enough to make it count? Or are we merely exporting products, not philosophies?

This first approach assumes some kind of osmosis; that China will adopt our social values just by us being us. But as China grows in stature, in economic and military clout, in power, isn’t there the real possibility that China will simply grow to be too big to influence? That we’ll become too small to influence their policies?

The other approach to China would be to take a principled approach. To ask, what would happen if Canada stood up to China on the world’s stage and said, “No.”? What would happen if Canada demanded that human rights be respected? What if our country and our government chose, as a whole, to move towards a principled policy?

Alan Thicke’s perspective on Canada is under threat and has been under threat for quite some time. In reality, we aren’t the peacekeepers anymore, even if we did invent to concept (and we did). We aren’t this mecca for immigration and refugees, we are closing our borders and turning refugees away. We have our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms but are we doing enough to promote human rights around the world? Are we doing enough to speak truth to power?

What would happen if we took a principled approach?

I don’t think we know. But is that enough to keep us from standing up for what we believe?

In the end, the result of our Prime Minister’s visit to China is a refreshed, reinvigorated relationship with the Asian super-power, new talk of a free-trade agreement, and a couple of pandas coming over to Canada on loan. It’s being hailed as a big success. On the other hand, I wrestle with a lot of difficult questions. After all, as recently as a couple of weeks ago it was China (and Russia) that blocked the UN resolution to do something with the conflict in Syria. I have a hard time celebrating it as a success… the fact that we’ve deepened our relationship with a country like this.

We want better human rights in China, we want change, social justice and progress. I know, we’re a very small and mild-mannered country but is this really the Canadian approach?

Paranormal Activity 3 is the third installation in a film franchise that up to now I’ve really enjoyed. I’ve previously reviewed Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2 on pretty positive notes. Like The Blair Witch Project, which scared the crap out of my friends and I in the 90′s, the Paranormal Activity series has been pretty pioneering in its creation of thrills and chills.

The third installation, however, makes it clear that the premise has worn itself absolutely thin.

The premise of all these films has been simple: Something is haunting the house, let’s film it. In Paranormal Activity the entire film is shot through the perspective of a single camera that’s either on a tripod or being carried handheld for the purpose of capturing something crazy that’s going on somewhere in the house.  It’s convincing and the perspective doesn’t feel contrived. In Paranormal Activity 2, almost all of the action is captured by the homeowner’s robust video surveillance system which neatly covers all of the rooms, and outside, with well-placed stationary cameras. It’s very convincing and allows the narrative to unfold in a way that makes the viewer feel truly like a helpless bystander. Loved it.

I admit, I had incredibly high hopes for Paranormal Activity 3 and that’s probably, in part, why I was so completely disappointed.

Paranormal Activity 3 was directed by the same team that brought us Catfish, an incredibly well-craft documentary from 2009. Unfortunately, the team’s penchant for human interest stories doesn’t translate into creating a great horror film. The camera, in part, is what ruins it. Unlike the previous two films, Paranormal Activity 3 is set in 1988 so we can’t expect high-tech surveillance systems or high-definition cameras.

Instead, our main protagonist is a wedding videographer with an editing studio and all kinds of video equipment lying around. He does create some pretty cool means to monitor the house’s paranormal activity. A camera mounted to on oscillating fan is probably this movie’s most unique thrill. Watching a room come slowly in and out of the frame as the camera pans back and forth… depending on what’s in that room it can be terrifying! But that’s about it. When the protagonist is constantly dragging a heavy handheld camera everywhere, and I mean everywhere, it really falls apart and becomes a lot less convincing for the viewer. At some point the viewer begins to ask themselves, “Would he really be bringing a camera with him right now?” And the spell is broken.

The other disappointing aspect to the film is that they simple show and tell too much. The last twenty minutes of the film is about where it comes off the rails. At this point our protagonist is running around with a camera the whole time and not only is that wholly unconvincing but the plot itself is just down-right silly. The whole strength of the Paranormal Activity franchise and why it was so pioneering was that it showed very little. The thrills were, literally, bumps in the night. A noise off camera. A door opening ever so slightly. And then the occasion great big thrill like someone being dragged out of bed by invisible hands or something flying across the screen. It ramped up and always very little was shown. Paranormal Activity 3 disappoints by showing way too much, and what they show is way too goofy to be terrifying.

According to the Internet a fourth installment in this series is being produced by the same directors as the third. Try again? Unfortunately, all three of these movies broke box office records in their own right. They were all successful. So I guess the money machine will keep on cranking out more. I’ll probably end up watching them, as a diehard fan, but I’m fairly confident that the franchise has run its course and it’s time to put it to bed.

This year marks the 200th birthday of British novelist Charles Dickens and even though he’s been dead since 1870 that isn’t stopping the BBC from heartily marking the occasion. And, honestly, that’s OK with me.

The celebrations kicked off after Christmas, just before the dawn of the new year, with a three-part adaptation of one of Dickens’ most celebrated titles Great Expectations.

Now, for those new to the blog, my wife and I love a good mini-series based on a British novel. Dickens’ Little Dorrit, which I reviewed in a roundabout way last year, is simply one of the best mini-series you’ll find. Considering we both love Great Expectations, the novel, we had high hopes. The cast looked promising too with Gillian Anderson, a great actress in her own right, and David Suchet who all fans of British detective dramas will recognize instantly.

Unfortunately, this particular adaptation, has been aptly coined by my wife as “Great Expectations for Dummies.”

The whole problem hinges on the brief nature of the mini-series. Three parts is hardly enough time to properly tell this story. As a result, a lot of what is left inferred and implied in the novel (and, my wife adds, in an earlier serialization) must be explicitly told to the viewer. This ruins a lot of both the character and plot development. Things seem incredibly rushed and entire storylines are deleted for the sake of simplicity. If you’re expecting to meet the beloved aged-P, for example, you’re shot out of luck.

Sadly, what could’ve been a great adaptation of a great novel ends up being somewhat of a rush job. Compare this mini-series, a tiny adaptation of a colossal work, to something like Little Dorrit, which was thirteen-part mini-series based on a Dickens novella, and, well, the proof is in the pudding. A good adaptation takes the real meaty, interesting bits and lets us dig into them. A shoddy adaptation tries to cram hundreds of pages into a ten-minute parley. For connoisseurs of great television, Great Expectations will satisfy (and the Art Direction is absolutely breath-taking!) but for those who were looking forward to a thorough and successful adaptation, in the history of other great adaptations, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Dig up your VHS copy of the last BBC adaptation, says my wife.

As the rhetoric leading up to this weekend’s Liberal convention in Ottawa begins in earnest I must—I simply must—say my piece.

I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I joined… gee I don’t know, back when what’s his name with the squeaky voice beat out Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae for the party leadership. I joined because I was interested in having a say in who would replace Jean Chretien or Paul Martin or however you want to look at it. At any rate, I’ve stuck it out for exactly that reason: because I want to have a say in the party going forward but as the outlook turns grimmer every year I’m beginning to wonder if I can get my money back.

Since Chretien stepped aside amidst the damning Sponsorship Scandal (remember that?) the Liberals have been left reeling, and lurching from election to election. And that was a while ago. But it’s easy enough to point out the flaws, nevermind that they’re glaringly obvious.

In-fighting. The Liberals are brilliant at fighting amongst themselves while slowly imploding. The results of said infighting are immediately tangible, just look at how mismanaged Michael Ignatieff’s election campaign was last time around. He was a genuinely bright and progressive guy but he ended up losing in an historic fashion. Why? Well partly because the party is so fragmented and divided. Ignatieff himself was brought in through backroom channels and never had support of all the party brass.

Denial. Not only has infighting and witless bickering brought the once might Red Machine to its knees but the whole party has a serious case of denial. No, you can’t close your eyes and everything will go away. The party has been in collapse since mid-way through the last decade and has been doing next to nothing to change their tact. No sweeping policy reviews, no ambitious goals or strong stances on, well, pretty much anything. The party has been trying to govern from the centre while in opposition and, frankly, that doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Looking back. Finally, the Liberals are absolutely fixated on reliving the good old days. It’s easy enough, say, to compare a character like Igantieff to Trudeau but—and this is important to remember—Trudeau governed in an extremely different climate than we have today and stood on, well, principles.

The way going forward for the Liberal Party is not easy, and that’s a point I want to stress. The party needs a complete ground-up renewal and while that is what a lot of prominent members are calling for it isn’t going to be simply done. A serious shake up needs to take place to eliminate fighting amongst the party prominent. A realization needs to be made that what worked as a governing party isn’t going to work in opposition, things need to change and serious policy planks need to be established to differentiate the Liberal brand from Harper’s Conservatives. And the party needs to stop looking back and reliving the old glory days. An honest, earnest focus on the future needs to struck and stuck to if the party is going to genuinely rebuild itself. It’s not something that can be fixed with a particular leader, a particular social media campaign, or a particular among of capital to spread around.

I know I said as few words as possible but let me say one more thing. With Canada’s top three political parties crowding as close as they can to the Canadian political centre it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish who is who. I guarantee you if the average Canadian were given an anonymous sampling of party platforms in most areas they couldn’t pick out which party held which view. To succeed, the Liberal Party needs to stand out and despite similarities there are obvious areas where the party could distinguish itself. I say, going forward, a principled approach is the way to success. Stand for something, plant a flag in the ground, look forward, shake off all those old cobwebs (let them get jobs in the private sector!), and begin the serious hard work of rebuilding what used to be the country’s natural governing party.

That is all.

When the Sherlock series first debuted a couple of years ago on the BBC Maria and I almost missed it. Surprising because we’re both huge fans of both Sherlock Holmes and British detective dramas in general. This time around, for the second series of Sherlock, we were on the ball. And waiting.

The first 90-minute installment in the three-episode second series run is called ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ and like the mysteries from the last season it’s a take off on a familiar Sherlock story with a whole bunch of twists and turns.

Sherlock and Watson find themselves confronted with a number of mysteries from an outdoorsman killed by a backfiring car to a dead man in a trunk to a dominatrix trying to bring down the British monarchy. It’s a bit of an everything goes but, of course, like any good Sherlock story it all works itself out in the end and ties itself together in a neat little package.

What’s great about Sherlock is, well, a number of things really. The writing is brilliant. From quick-witted dialogue to out-standing plots I really have to applaud the writing staff. I mean, you really need to have the longview to see your way through such complicated twists and turns and it’s impressive. The acting is top-notch. Benedict Cumberbatch remains an absolute perfect Sherlock: disengaged and disinterested yet sharp as a knife and violently unemotional. Martin Freeman is a great Dr. Watson as well: humble, clever, and wholly loveable—yet dangerous, too.

As far as the episode itself, ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ is pretty quickly-paced, even for Sherlock. It’s difficult to follow, at times, and perhaps that’s simply because they wanted to pack as much into the episode as possible. At several points I was sure there wasn’t going to be a clear and concise resolution to the case—I hate when detective shows end up with muddy conclusions—but I wasn’t let down. This episode packs it in and doesn’t let up, you’re in for a real mind trip but it’s absolutely worth it in the end.

The story itself is interesting, centering around a scheme to bring down the government and the makings for an international incident, and leave lots of room for the characters to amaze us. Like Sherlock from last season, this episode packs the same energy and, importantly, comedy that I loved. Cumberbatch and Freeman have great chemistry on the show and this episode even gave us a chance to enjoy the company of Mrs. Hudson, the landlady. If I had a criticism of the cast it’d be Lestrade, so far his character has left me just a little bit disinterested—compare him to Guy Ritchie’s take on the hapless inspector in his adaptation and they’re miles apart.

I will say this: I was a tad bit skeptical given some of the controversy surrounding this episode. A plot line about a dominatrix and what some of the papers were calling “full nudity” ended up being nudity—but, tastefully, you don’t see anything—and, well, a dominatrix but nothing bizarre and no scenes of her at, um, work. I could editorialize here and lament over what’s wrong with hyper-sexualized shows like Game of Thrones but suffice to say I’m glad Sherlock opted for tastefulness over curb appeal.

Overall, ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’ is another fine installment in a very fine series. When you hear “modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes” it’s enough to send shivers up the spine of even the most dedicated of Sherlock fans. Fear not, BBC’s Sherlock has absolutely hit the mark. It’s high-tech, high-paced, and high-drama. A warning though, jumping in mid-series is not recommended. If you’re interested in this show get your hands on the three-episode first season and start there. And enjoy.

Favourite Films of 2011

I had a quick look around because I was curious and it seems like Tree of Life is topping everyone’s lists this year. We have it in the queue but haven’t got around to watching it yet. I’m curious now though and I wonder if it would change things if I were to watch it first.

The curious bit, however, about the two films that did make my list is that both feature the unmatched Paul Giamatti as the leading actor. This wasn’t intentional but when I looked at everything I’d watched this year and boiled it down to just a couple of my favourites… Do I have a particular bias towards anything that Paul Giamatti does? Perhaps. Is he undoubtedly the best actor working in Hollywood right now? Yes, sir.

Barney’s Version

Barney’s Version is a brilliant take on the novel by Canadian literary heavyweight Mordecai Richler. I remembering having to read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in my O.A.C. (Grade 13) English class. I probably only understood about a third of what I read at the time but I can certainly appreciate a heavily nuanced and deeply moving plot a lot more now that I’m older. Barney’s Version is a movie about love, marriage, family, and memory. It’s wonderfully-acted (duh), well-written (duh), and unfolds itself in a fantastically pleasing fashion distilling all the very best parts of a well-developed Woody Allen movie. Complicated, comedic, and charming sums it up pretty well too.

Win Win

Win Win follows in the same genre of comedy as another of my all-time favourite movies Lars and the Real Girl. I’ll sum it up like this: Small town, quirky characters, social conundrums, and the kind of plot that sometimes seems like something you couldn’t make up if you tried. Like Lars, we’re treated to ninety minutes of some truly great and wholly surreal story-telling about people, a place, and a number of situations we’d never even thought about before. In this film, Giamatti plays and small-time lawyer and high-school wrestling coach as if he were born for the role.

Favourite Music of 2011

I have to be honest here, I’m losing my touch a little bit. It used to be that I’d troll around the Internet for hours every week seeking out new musical entrees to dig my teeth into. This past year, between teaching, walking the dog, union work, and taking a couple of extra courses online I haven’t had the opportunity to avail myself of a whole lot of new music. I worry I might’ve missed something great—it keeps me up at night.

Paul Simon, So Beautiful or So What

If you ever get a late night phone call from a heavily-disguised voice saying they’ve got me hostage and won’t release me unless you pay $1,000,000 the first thing you should do is ask some kind of question that only I can answer, just to prove they really have me and that I’m alive. If you asked who my favourite artist of all time is the answer, bar none, is Paul Simon. If the hostage-takers say differently then I’m probably already dead.

I didn’t love Paul Simon’s 2006 Surprise. Musically it had a lot going out and I loved that but Simon felt vocally weak, tired even. I don’t like tired Paul Simon. I used to put on Surprise and long for the Graceland days when Paul was younger and more energetic and I worried that maybe, finally, the great Paul Simon was on the out and out. Of course, I was absolutely wrong.

So Beautiful or So What is Simon’s greatest album since Graceland. It’s a guitar album—which is a pretty awesome direction for Simon—and features a lot of songs driven by virtuosic guitar melodies. It’s clear that Paul Simon has some serious guitar chops and he didn’t want us to forget. Both lyrically and musically this album is an absolute powerhouse. It runs the gamut from slow, lyrically rich near-ballads to lyrically rich up-beat, foot-stomping tracks and even some songs that are both.

tUnE-yArDs, w h o k i l l

Be honest, the first thing you think when you see a band name stylized like that is, “Avoid!”

Fortunately for me, when I first year about tUnE-yArDs it was on the CBC Radio’s Q—if I had actually seen their name first I probably wouldn’t even have given them a chance. Prejudice avoided!

tUnE-yArDs is mostly New England-based Merrill Garbus and a whole lot of loops. Her first album, I gather, was recorded entirely on cassette tape and was a one-woman show. 2011′s w h o k i l l is studio-produced and features help from some of her friends as well.

How to describe how great w h o k i l l is? I’ll say a few things. First, Garbus evidently spent some time in Kenya, a place that I’ve been to as well, and adapts a lot of African percussion rhythms into her music. Second, there are saxophones. Third, well OK, tUnE-yArDs is like a jazz, afro-funk, nouveau politique explosion that packs so much power I feel like you could take this record, play it for the people of North Korea, and instantly the entire country would rise up, overthrow their government, and democratically elect a new leader. Oh, and it’d be a she.

Bon Iver, Bon Iver

I missed the Bon Iver craze the first time around. Despite the best efforts of my good friend Andrew, I never really bothered with Justin Vernon’s 2008 For Emma, Forever Ago. I heard all about the mystique of being locked in a cabin in the woods, writing and recording using an old reel-to-reel recorder or something like that. I liked the idea but, for whatever reason, not enough to actually do any investigating. Finally—through what must’ve been an act of compassionate grace from the God—I decided to check out Bon Iver’s self-titled second album.

What how.

Bon Iver (2011) is like a sonic dream that Brian Eno would be envious of. What sets this album a part from everything else released in 2011 is the kind of depth packed into every track. The songs are stories about people and places set to music that can only be described as something out of someone’s wildest imagination. It’s soft and subtle and you kind of just float a long but there’s so much going on at the same time that you’re swept away just trying to take it all in. Not to mention Vernon’s now-trademarked vocal delivery which is, also, like something out of a dream I had once.

R.E.M., Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage (1982 – 2011)

It turns out that half of my picks this year were thanks to one particular friend with very good musical tastes.

I’ve always liked R.E.M., kind of in the background. Growing up when I did I missed my chance to like them when they were at their very best so whenever I thought about accessing their catalog of music it always seemed a little bit daunting. Where to begin? I knew, from loving Taking Heads, that I would like their early stuff but I was dying for some kind of career retrospective, something to serve as an overview.

Thankfully, Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage came out and it was a steal on iTunes—40 tracks for $16. As far as retrospectives go, you really can’t go wrong here.

Favourite Television of 2011

It’s been a decidedly good year for television and if I’ve been remiss when it comes to seeking out good new music I think I’ve compensated in terms of what we’re watching these days. There’s a lot out there so it’s been a bit of a challenge picking out just a couple but here they are.

The Good Wife

The Good Wife is a legal drama with a lot of layers. Underneath the normal case per episode format is a pretty hefty plot line about politics, adultery, and corruption—a depth that sets it a part from all the other legal dramas that came before it. It’s as much a character study as it is a series of cases to be solved and that’s what I like about it. It’s timely and relevant and tackles big issues with a great cast of characters.

Once Upon a Time

From some of the people behind the epically successful LOST, Once Upon a Time takes a bunch of fairytale characters and plunks them down in the real world with absolutely no idea who they are. Like LOST, Once Upon a Time plays with the idea of alternate universes, alternate identities, memory, and mystery. I’ll say this: Finally, a show that we can really sink our teeth into.

Honourable mention goes to shows that have become reliable stalwarts like Modern Family (which never ceases to be funny) and Being Erica (which ended its run in dignity after jumping the shark mid-season).

Rob Ford lumbered into political office on the power of a lot of pretty pathetic promises. I didn’t vote for him but a lot of people did. Granted, the choices were miserable so it’s hard to blame everyone.

Nonetheless, one of the first things that Mayor Ford did upon taking office was to scrap the city’s Vehicle Registration Tax. A $60 charge for Toronto residents which appeared when you renewed your license plate sticker. When we lived in Toronto last year and I had to renew my plates I dutifully paid my $60. The fee went directly to pay for transportation infrastructure, something the city sorely needs to improve and, honestly, I pay enough taxes but I gritted my teeth and forked over the dough. I wanted to drive my car in an already congested city, I guess I gotta pay.

But of the few things Ford campaigned on eliminating the Vehicle Registration Tax was one of them and so it was the first to go. The elimination of the tax, Ford himself admitted, would cost the city about $64 million in lost revenue but would mean money back in the pockets of Toronto’s tax-payers and they could spend it however they wanted. Hilarious, given yesterday’s budget announcement.

For the record, I consider myself a realist so the deep-slashing Ford budget, tabled yesterday, isn’t going to get me all worked up. Yes, there are cuts to programs that I think are pretty essential: transportation for dialysis patients and breakfast programs for children, for example. Yes, I think that asking all departments to cut 10% across the board seems ridiculously arbitrary. Yes, I think that the cuts to public transit are coming at the worst possible time economically and environmentally. But, at the same time, we’re in what is arguably the foreword to a recession and costs need to be cut.

What I will get all worked up about—or at least spend a few more paragraphs pointing out the irony in—is Ford’s increase to property taxes. And here’s why.

When Ford cut the Vehicle Registration Tax, the $60 fee to Toronto’s drivers, he saved Torontonians about $64 million altogether. Simultaneously, because the money was going into Toronto’s coffers, he cost the city $64 million. While promising Toronto’s residents more money in their pockets Ford also froze on property taxes.

When budget time rolls around, however, Ford finds that a 2.5% increase in property taxes is necessary to balance the books. Why? Because, according to his own math, he is missing about $60 million. And how much will the tax increase cost the average Toronto homeowner? $60!

So, like I argued, along with so many others, when the Vehicle Registration Tax was cut, the Ford Administration was going to have to make up those lost revenues somehow. It’s just kind of hilarious that he’s having to do it so blatantly. A property tax increase that’s nearly identical to the revenue lost by scrapping the Vehicle Registration Tax.

The cost of a ride on the gravy train? Apparently, $60.

I didn’t grow up on fairy tales — I grew up on Sesame Street — but my wife did and that’s the reason why she wanted us to watch ABC’s Once Upon a Time. I was skeptical at first, as one would understandably be when approaching a television show based on the premise of fairy tale characters living in real life. But after an episode, and then another, and then another, you suddenly realize that this show’s grown on you, and fast.

Indeed, after the first episode we were hooked.

Once Upon a Time is from some of the creators and writers of Lost, a show that I loved and have written about extensively, and it successfully harnesses all of that goodness that made Lost such incredible television. It channels the imagination, the story-telling, the awe-inspiring, and couples it with some of the best plotlines known to TV. Not to mention twists and turns. It’s that same great all-encompassing imaginative story-telling that made Lost great and it’s that same story-telling that’s going to make Once Upon a Time a winner as well.

In case you aren’t already interested, the premise is simple. Following the marriage of Snow White and Prince Charming in the fairy tale reality the Evil Queen puts a curse the whole fairy tale realm, sending them into real life with no memory of their pasts or their true identities. Their only hope is Emma, that daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming who is hidden in a magical wardrobe and saved from the curse. Emma is transported, as a baby, into the real world along with everyone else from the fairy tale realm but since she was so young she has no memory of her parents.

Emma, played by Jennifer Morrison of House fame, grows up on the foster care system and, at 18, has a son of her own who she gives up. The show begins with her young son tracking her down and bringing her back to Storybrooke, the setting of our show, where all the fairy tale characters are obliviously living their lives. As it turns out, Emma’s son was adopted by the mayor of Storybrooke, the Evil Queen. From then on it’s up to Henry, Emma’s 10-year old son, to convince her and the rest of Storybrooke of their true identities all the while plotlines and character traits from the fairy tale world continue to play themselves out in real life.

Oh, and I said the premise was simple.

Nonetheless, Once Upon a Time is a breath-takingly original show. It has the quality markings of a show like Lost, thanks to its creators, and it has what’s so far been a top-notch cast. And, according to preliminary ratings, despite its late-season start it’s maintaining a solid viewing audience even after its pilot episode—something that’s incredible rare in the TV world.

If you’re looking for something original and interesting to watch, something that distinguishes itself from all of the other rif-raf out there, I’d suggest giving Once Upon a Time a try.