So the interrobangonets are abuzz about how Mitt “I Am The Next GOP Presidential Candidate, Really” Romney managed to lose three states in a single night to Rick Santorum of all people. I’ve previously discussed how I’ve long felt that Romney is the weakest “prohibitive favorite” in a long time, but now that the campaign is eight states in, we can more accurately assess this, as follows:

1.) The majority of Republicans will vote for not-Romney over Romney, given the chance. Mitt has only won three of eight states. In only one state (Nevada) has he managed to crack 50% of the vote (and then only just). In more conservative states he has trouble cracking 40% of the vote. The base does not like Romney, and for a long time their problem has been that they could not decide if they preferred Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to him, which is understandable because Gingrich is an awful person and Santorum a proven loser, but it seems that, barring something weird happening (which has been the case frequently so far) that Santorum is finally getting the nod, mostly because Gingrich’s entire strategy was to say “I can beat Obama in a debate, I will own his ass” and then could not beat Mitt Romney in a debate. (Of course, Gingrich’s entire strategy was also predicated on the notion that Barack Obama would be lost without a teleprompter, which is blindly stupid – Obama owned McCain at the debates in 2008 and has always been a careful and eloquent extemporaneous speaker – but hey, nothing like the GOP for demanding that we all pretend that the black guy can’t speak well without help.)

2.) Despite this, Romney can still win. Since most of the GOP primaries are no longer winner-take all, Romney can still win the nomination by being able to get a healthy dollop of each state’s delegates plus a larger percentage of the big states like New York and California where he would never win in the general election but which are comfortable enough with him to give him their support. That, combined with the fact that Romney has practically all of the announced superdelegates so far, could give him the nod. Of course, a large part of Romney’s victory path has always required him to be viewed as the inevitable result, and if Romney appears to not be an inevitable result then he could very well crumble.

3.) No matter what happens, this is not a GOP version of Hillary/Obama 2008. That primary campaign was between a longtime Democratic party top dog and the Future of the Party ™ who was a legitimate threat. This primary is between a Republican version of John Kerry except less likeable and human, a dude who lost a re-election campaign by twenty points, a guy who was so dishonest that his fellow Republicans said “dude, whoa” and an insane dwarf.

4.) Nobody likes Mitt Romney. Mitt has run an excruciatingly negative campaign. He has spent more than the rest of the field combined, almost all of it on negative ads against Newt Gingrich. This is not someone who will convince you to vote for him; he can only say “don’t vote for the other guy.” That’s not how you win elections. He could still very possibly win the primary, because money can go a long way. But in the general?

I’m surprised it took anti-same-sex-marriage campaigners so long to ape the common tactic of SSM families to use little kids to speak to their views. Granted, it’s nowhere near as compelling for the anti-SSM crowd as it is for the pro-SSM crowd, because when kids of SSM families say that they grew up just fine and their parents love each other, they’re both refuting the common argument that SSM weakens families and reiterating the pro-SSM argument that same-sex love is dignified, healthy, and deserving of all the societal endorsement that straight relationships get.

In comparison, when a kid speaks up against gay marriage, we get this:

I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids feel like it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don’t want any more kids to get confused about what’s right and OK. I really don’t want to grow up in a world where marriage isn’t such a special thing anymore. It’s rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislator or the court can change the definition of any word they want. If they can change the definition of marriage, then they could change the definition of any word. People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice.

In order, that’s

1.) An endorsement of traditional straight marriage as “special” and “wonderful” without bothering to explain why it is special or wonderful
2.) A suggestion that homosexuality is wrong without bothering to explain why it is wrong
3.) The old saw that same-sex-marriage will make straight marriage less special, which is an argument from privilege
4.) Sky-is-falling assertions about the powers of the courts to change legal definitions (which have existed since there were courts, basically)
5.) The suggestion that homosexuality is chosen behaviour despite mountains of evidence to the contrary

On the bright side, this young woman’s career path is most likely already mapped out for her. In ten to twelve years, expect to see Sarah Crank (and oh my god is that not the most appropriate last name ever) either writing for National Review or on Fox News, depending on how conventionally pretty she is.

So the L.A. City Council voting to require male pornographic actors to use condoms has been getting play from around the internet, including the nigh-mandatory Reason article that thinks it is much funnier than it in fact is. Seriously, reading that post just made me feel bad. You could tell the writer thought they were coming up with really awesome zingers, and sadly the zingers are not that awesome and in fact are sad and predictable.1

Let’s be clear: this regulation won’t work. It won’t work because there’s no viable enforcement mechanism, which you kind of need in order to enforce municipal regulations.2 It won’t work because it’s a local regulation in an industry which is, to an extent, notoriously mobile. (Even were this regulation federal – numerous porn producers already book time in the tropics and shoot multiple features in a row there. There is no reason this practice would not continue and/or expand.) And it won’t work because the performers – both male and female – mostly don’t want to use them, because pornographic sex takes a lot longer than regular sex and, to put it bluntly, there are chafing issues when condoms are used.

But the spirit of the regulation, at least, is welcome. I don’t believe there’s another economic sector that is as large and as under-regulated as porn is, which is the product of a public that is not willing to admit they mostly use porn regularly and equally not willing to stop using it. The result is an industry whose exploitation of young just-off-the-bus girls has become a well-known joke, where worker protection is essentially nonexistent and where HIV flareups are, sadly, not uncommon.3 We should demand a healthier, safer work environment for pornographic actors, because all it will do is make the industry better. (People who worry about whether better treatment of women within the industry could result in less wild porn should consider that some of the raunchiest and craziest pornographers working today are women. I won’t link here, but Google “Burning Angel” or “Ovidie” or even Nina Hartley.)

Plus, as a bonus for pornographers, regulation carries with it official recognition as well, and in an industry where copyright violation has become so endemic that numerous films are produced simply as loss-leaders to get additional longterm money from the shrinking portion of the porn audience that is still willing to pay money for it, official recognition is worth quite a bit.

1. Memo to all writers everywhere: when you use “bratwurst” as a euphemism for “penis,” you’re writing subpar Krusty the Klown material. CUCAMONGA! [↩]
2. Presumably police will not be accidentally wandering on to porn sets on a regular basis. [↩]
3. Many porn companies will talk about their rigorous testing schedules, but the day I trust self-regulation is the day I join the GOP and start ranting about immigunts takin der jerbs. [↩]

So far:

• Chuck Norris
• TaleSpin
• Abiogenesis
• True Story Swear to God
• Final Fantasy XIII
• Hetalia: Axis Powers
• Gorgeous George
• Ex nihilo
• Costa Concordia disaster
• List of unusual deaths (I sometimes read this when I’m bored)
• Adolfo Tapia
• List of websites participating in January 18 SOPA protests (d’oh!)
• Sliders

One clear lesson from this event is that I can kind of live without Wikipedia, which may run counter to the stated goal.

Also: If you try visiting any of Wikipedia’s pages, you’ll notice the article appears in full for about half a second before the standard blackout message appears, without redirecting to a new page.  That would suggest the blackout is being implemented with client-side scripting, and that I could probably override the whole thing with GreaseMonkey.  But that’s too much work just to check who replaced Jerry McConnell in the last season, or whether the guy on Sliders was even named  “Jerry McConnell.”

So today Wikipedia and Reddit and WordPress and a bunch of other sites have all “gone dark” for 24 hours to protest SOPA. They’re right to do so and if you’re one of my American readers, you should make sure you voice your opposition to the bill. Not least because it would be exceptionally easy for me to get SOPA-blacklisted. After all, I am foreign (from an American perspective), and I make use of an exceptional amount of copyrighted material.1 That it might be fair use is besides the point: SOPA does not discriminate. Why, I could be SOPA-blacklisted just for embedding this awesome tribute video to La Parka, who as we all know is the greatest wrestler of all time (as well as a brilliant political pundit).

Now, granted, if La Parka were President23 he would just hit Jim DeMint with a chair and do a little dance and then SOPA would fail, because that is what La Parka does. But since La Parka is not President, it is instead up to you American readers to put down your RC Colas4 and get up and make yourselves heard. Although you probably shouldn’t hit Jim DeMint with a chair. I suspect that would not turn out well, and you probably wouldn’t even get to do the little dance.

1. Ironically, the reason I swore to forever host myself on a Canadian server was so that I could avoid unfair takedowns under the DMCA. American copyright law on the internet: It never stops getting worse! [↩]
2. Having found a way to get past the natural born citizenship requirement, of course. [↩]
3. NOT THAT THIS STOPPED SECRET KENYAN MUSLIM PRESIDENT BARRY SOETERO!!!!!!11!!!1!!!one! [↩]
4. Or whatever Americans drink. [↩]

Macleans has been getting a lot of hits the past week for its 99 Ways The Government Wastes Your Money series of posts, which is about what you’d expect from Macleans, a magazine that for the most part started downhill in the late 90s and never looked back, instead deciding to celebrate itself for championing free speech by publishing Mark Steyn’s vaguely racist twaddle instead of, and this is just a thought, publishing a counter to it.1

But, even by the standard of “look at all the ways government wastes your money” articles, this one is really amazingly slapdash. First off, it’s just a laundry list of governmental spending at all levels: municipal, provincial, federal, et cetera. This makes it sort of meaningless, because the article isn’t a complaint about how a specific government wastes money. It’s a general complaint. It’s like writing “99 Reasons We Hate Cloudy Days And Not Looking at Puppies.” It’s generic and doesn’t actually describe any specific solution. It’s just free-form bitching. When Jim Demint writes Here Is 350 Instances Of Government Spending That I Hate, Vol. 6, he at least makes sure to stick to the federal government, because then he can actually use his findings – intellectually bankrupt as they may be – to make something resembling a point.

Worse, it’s free-form bitching that’s all over the place. The article conflates government spending that is wasteful (giving a high-paid management official an enormous pension, for example) and government spending that is malfeasant (the Tories spending government funds to advertise their policy initiatives in the run-up to the most recent election) and government spending on subsidies, economic stimulus and infrastructure that the writers even admit might have purpose, but hey it’s a recession and we all need to tighten our belts and yadda yadda yadda (spending money to build a footbridge in rural Quebec). This is ridiculously sloppy. It’s getting offended at the government spending money not because the writers object to the government spending in any particular way (wastefully, borderline illegally, to promote policies with which they disagree, whatever) but because whatever, it’s gubmint spendin’ and gubmint is baaaaaaad.

But worst of all, it’s free-form bitching without context. We ran a budget deficit of about $33 billion in Canada in fiscal 2010-2011. The spending Macleans is bitching about adds up to maybe a couple of hundred million dollars, using the most generous math and the largest figures for each item. But it`s worth remembdering that the Tories`GST cut is probably responsible for at least $10 billion of that deficit. If runaway government spending existed – and that is a premise Macleans has most certainly not proven – it is to some extent a manufactured problem. Not acknowledging this is bad journalism. But these days, unfortunately, one expects little more from a cover story in Macleans.

1. Seriously, the constant backpatting by Andrew Coyne during the whole Steyn thing was kind of nausea-inducing. [↩]

My guess:

Rick Santorum 22
Ron Paul 20
Mitt Romney 16
Newt Gingrich 13
Rick Perry 10
Michele Bachmann 5
Anti-Liberal, The Superhero Who Hates Liberals 3
Herman Cain 2
Sarah Palin 1.75
Spuds Mackenzie 1.5
Zombie Reagan 1.25
Gary Johnson 1
Glenn Beck 1
Victoria Jackson .5
Chuck Norris .5
Orly Taitz .5
Frank Miller .5
Buddy Roemer .5
Jon Huntsman 0.25

Your guesses/predictions in comments.

By popular request (presumably because of this). Originals via.

Gene Marks’ “If I Was A Poor Black Kid” has been getting widely trashed around the intertoobz for its shameless display of white privilege and jaw-dropping ignorance about what actually being a poor black kid is like. You can read numerous takedowns of this and they’re all good. Smarty P. Jones’ response is an excellent one, as is Jeff Yang’s “If I Were A Rich White Dude.” Both pieces address the essential fact that poor black kids have a hell of a lot on their plate before they even get to the issue of doing well in school and both are worth reading.

But my problem with Gene Marks’ drivel isn’t that it’s privileged. My problem is that his underlying argument is simply morally abhorrent.

Gene Marks barely concedes at the beginning of his screed that poor black kids have it tougher than, say, middle-class white kids. What is Marks’ solution to this problem? Ah ha, that’s a trick question because so far as Gene Marks is concerned, there is no problem:

But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

Marks then goes on to describe how poor black kids can should just get ahead with Technology ™ and how you can get a cheap computer or a free one even (from generous accountants!). And this is of course its own brand of stupid, ignoring the basic truth that a kid isn’t gonna know how to buy a cheapo computer at the age of eight much less be able to afford one.1 But he soon comes back to reaffirm the idea that the way things are is merely a minor setback.

In Philadelphia, there are nationally recognized magnet schools like Central, Girls High and Masterman. These schools are free. But they are hard to get in to. You need good grades and good test scores. And there are also other good magnet and charter schools in the city. You also need good grades to get into those. In a school system that is so broken these are bright spots. Getting into one of these schools opens up a world of opportunities. More than 90% of the kids that go to Central go on to college. I would use the internet to research each one of these schools so I could find out how I could be admitted. I would find out the names of the admissions people and go to meet with them. If I was a poor black kid I would make it my goal to get into one of these schools.

And if not – then what? “Tough luck, kid – we know you wanted to go to a good school, but it turns out there was at least one more kid than you who was just too qualified to pass up. I bet you’re wishing you spent more time on math so you didn’t only get an A-minus in it three years ago, huh?” No, wait, Gene Marks has you covered too!

Or even a private school. Most private schools I know are filled to the brim with the 1%. That’s because these schools are exclusive and expensive, costing anywhere between $20 and $50k per year. But there’s a secret about them. Most have scholarship programs. Most have boards of trustees that want to give opportunities to kids that can’t afford the tuition. Many would provide funding for not only tuition but also for transportation or even boarding.

You know, it’s not often I say this any more, but what the fucking fuck.

His next answer is private school. Really. Look, I know from private school tuition assistance. More often than not, they’re willing to help out. But for those students who have nothing? The competition for those plum spots is insanely tight and makes the magnet school spot competition (which is already crazily intense) look like a relaxing garden party.2

It continues in that vein, of course. If you can’t go to a magnet school or a private school you can work with your school’s guidance counsellor. You can always learn to code software (and I have plenty of friends who work in software and I will say, straight up, that the idea of coding as a universal panacea to aid all social mobility problems is wildly overrated whether it is coming from Stupid McRichdude or Cory Doctorow). In Gene Marks’ world there are always opportunities. I know this because he says so repeatedly, and if a poor black kid has to work harder to get those opportunities, well, maybe that’s not fair, but that’s just how things are.3

And this is where I just throw up my hands because I was not a poor black kid. I was a middle-class white kid, possibly quite like Gene Marks. I did not have to memorize half a dozen pieces of software in order to study or learn skills that would be valuable to future employers instead of sneaking out with my friends to play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.4 Indeed, I got into an elite private school and got kicked out of it. And I still went to university and got a degree, and then eventually got into law school. Because I was a middle-class white kid, I got to spend my childhood playing rather than working tirelessly to have a decent future. And that’s all right. What isn’t all right is expecting that poor black kids are just going to have to work their asses off to get even a fraction of the opportunities I got.

Everything about Marks’ stupid, stupid essay assumes as unchanging truth that a poor person will have to work ridiculously hard in order to have a future where they are not poor, and this is the root of the problem that Marks not only doesn’t address but asserts is just not that big a deal in his preamble when, after applauding Barack Obama for talking about income inequality, claims that the superrich aren’t getting vastly more than their fair share. Because there’s nothing wrong with expecting someone to work hard to rise above their current status. But there’s plenty wrong with expecting kids to load themselves to the bone with work in order to have a chance to rise above their current status.5 He’s willing to pay lip service to the idea that inequality is wrong, but he’s not willing to suggest that something be done to address the problem of inequality. It’s just another hurdle for poor black kids to jump, and he’s ever so gracious to admit that he, Gene Marks, did not have to jump these hurdles – and that’s just how it is. Tough luck, poor black kids! Those of you who cannot do these incredible and amazing things to struggle upwards, well, there’s always McDonald’s.

In the end, Gene Marks’ prescription for the societal problem of inequality is that individuals be exceptional. But that doesn’t work, because everybody can’t be exceptional. That’s kind of the opposite of what the word means. And that’s why his essay is abhorrent and stupid: because it doesn’t address the problem. Indeed, it’s barely willing to admit the problem exists. His entire idea consists of tinkering around the edges with stale, stupid advice that comes as no surprise to anybody who’s thought even for a second about it,6 and that just isn’t enough.

1. Also, some of Marks’ ideas about how Technology ™ can help are kind of stupid. What makes Project Gutenberg better than, say, a public library? [↩]
2. And let us not forget that many private school scholarships oddly have a tendency to go to poor kids who are also athletes. [↩]
3. It’s worth remembering that in order for a poor black kid to receive all of this useful advice, the poor black kid has to be reading Forbes magazine. You know – as poor black children are wont to do. [↩]
4. Granted, I probably should have been getting high instead, but there you go. [↩]
5. And even in Marks’ scenarios, he admits you need to be lucky. [↩]
6. Did this guy not see Waiting for Superman? I mean, it’s a flawed movie, but at least it makes the point about poor parents being willing to bust ass to get their kids into good schools and failing. [↩]

My “Villain” entrant in Torontoist’s 2011 Heroes and Villains is sort of a repeat.

Bob Garon, Vietnam veteran:

The bit I love is watching Mitt Romney’s dead eyes as he initially assumes that this old, crotchety, flannel-wearing gentleman is “safe” and then realizes that in fact that this is not the case.

The Toronto Police shut down the Occupy Toronto encampment in St. James Park this morning, and from 3 AM through to about 8 I was onsite liveblogging it for Torontoist.

I have to say, I feel vaguely robbed by the lack of a riot. Dear police and protestors: next time I have to get up at 3 AM to cover your potential clash, please have at least a small riot or something, okay? Not a big one, just… something? This was so painfully civil it felt like somebody’s idea of a parody, “Canadian Protest Riot” or something. The police were respectful and helpful, the protesters were largely polite and cooperative (okay, there was one guy who was barefoot and half-dressed who kept taunting the cops and getting up in their faces, and honestly I don’t think it would have been controversial if the police had arrested him, but they didn’t), and the media were all over the place basically ensuring that both sides were as amiable as possible and kibbitzing with both sides.

I mean, nice to get back to that after the G20, don’t get me wrong. But why couldn’t we do this at, like, noon or something so we could all sleep in?

(Previously. Two. Three.)

TOrontoist asked me to weigh in on Toronto’s new proposed cycling bylaw, so I did just that. Because that is how I roll. (On a bike, you see.)

So on the Twitters, people are reacting to news of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries’ divorce rather predictably: e.g. they are following the example of George Takei and snarking about how brief marriages such as these demean the institution of marriage way more than letting gay people marry does. (Memo to George Takei: Whenever Perez Hilton is on your side, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are wrong.)

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I am a Kardashian fan – I am not. I don’t particularly care about her marriage either. In fact I’m feeling distinctly unpleasant at the prospect of writing a bunch of words defending her, as I am about to do. Hell, I have made fun of the Kardashians on numerous occasions. But I think a few points need to be made here.

1.) It is not Kim Kardashian’s fault that you are not rich and famous. Let’s be honest: a lot of the Kardashian animus is fueled by dislike and jealousy of the fact that Kim Kardashian and her family are famous in the Paris Hilton way of not actually doing anything but still being talked about. Granted, it would be a finer world if only people who actually did things of merit became famous, but “merit” is an awfully subjective thing. I mean, there are people out there who think Taylor Lautner can act or that Ben Roethlisburger doesn’t sexually assault women, for example. Is Kim Kardashian’s fame less earned because she got it by knowing the right people and getting to be on reality shows?

After all, it is quite clear that the Kardashians have worked their ass off to establish themselves as brands; fame such as this does not happen by accident, much as some might wish it did. It is valid to believe that society should not be this way and that the Kardashians’ fame is improper (and I am with you there!); however, it is not valid to suggest that the Kardashians’ fame is undeserved. Which leads me to point two:

2.) Snarking at someone’s personal misery is a bit low, regardless of whether or not they may be rich. People who are not rich have a tendency to assume that being rich means that any personal humiliation is somehow lessened, and this is not an unfair instinct, but it’s still wrong. Yes, Kim Kardashian had a public relationship and a wedding that she turned into a TV special, and made a lot of money doing so, and there is much about it – particularly the wedding – which can be considered to be in very bad taste. But conversely: this is someone who went on TV to have their wedding in front of the entire world and is now being more or less publicly humiliated as a result.

Unless you believe the entire wedding was a fiction – and I personally don’t, because there are simply easier and less embarrassing ways to make a buck when you are a Kardashian – then you should accept the proposition that just possibly Kim Kardashian is mortified right now, and publicly so. And I say this, understand, as someone who mocked the TV wedding to hell and back, because the wedding is fair game – they’re happy during the awful thing, so they can take it.

Now, I understand the joys of schadenfreude in this situation, but this time around it might be worth considering holding back. And why do I say that?

3.) Kim Kardashian supports gay marriage. Yep, she does, and she does so unreservedly. Now, if this were another celebutante opining about some horrible social opinion, then I would probably throw my first two points out the window and pile on anyway. But Kim Kardashian has been pro-gay-marriage for a long time, and judging by Keeping Up With The Kardashians‘ demographics numbers, her fame is driven by many people who are not inclined to be pro-gay-marriage, so her public and enthusiastic support of gay marriage did not come without risk to her (admittedly awful) livelihood.

Is it possible, then, that those proponents of gay marriage looking for their hypocrite-of-the-week could look elsewhere? Because, and I am not going to say this terribly often, this time Kim Kardashian deserves better treatment.