Poor voter turnout in municipal elections can be largely attributed to voter perception, or rather misperception, of their importance. Ask most people to order the three levels of government in order of importance from highest to lowest and most will probably cite the federal level as the most important, followed by provincial and finally municipal. The perception is that municipal politics is boring, doesn’t matter and that the larger issues are at the provincial and federal levels. That could not be more wrong.

Our municipal government is the level of government which affects us the most. If the federal government were somehow wiped out tomorrow, how long would its absence go unnoticed? Those receiving EI payments would notice within two weeks, but most of us probably wouldn’t miss the federal level of government for months. The same goes for provincial. The absence of a municipal government, however, would be noted almost immediately: there would be no garbage collection, no building permits, or no parking permits, among other things.

Because of the low level of interest in local politics, municipal government lends itself more easily to corruption. It is much easier to broker shady deals when nobody is looking. (No doubt the lack of a scrutinising opposition party also increases the likelihood of corruption.) We need voters to pay more attention to local politics so that corruption may be avoided. However, people often cite government corruption as a cause of voter apathy.

It’s a catch-22. How do we get people interested in local politics so that corruption is avoided, when the corruption is what repels them? I don’t have the answers, but I hope that it starts with an election like the one we saw in Toronto earlier this week. David Miller’s promise to clean up City Hall seemed to attract a lot of attention. If he is successful, it could rekindle interest in participation at the local level and, hopefully, increase voter turnout to non-abysmal levels.

Not only were the candidates the best Toronto has seen for many a year, but we couldn’t have asked for a more exciting run-up to the mayoral vote: Tom Jakobek deciding to run in the wake of the MFP leasing inquiry, allegations that Barbara Hall started raising funds before announcing her candidacy, John Nunziata’s bribe claims, the issue of the airport expansion, John Tory attacking David Miller on highway tolls, not to mention the dozens of debates!

I’d like to take a few minutes to congratulate a few people for helping to make this election a great and interesting one. Congratulations go out to:

• David Miller, of course, for running a strong and winning campaign.
• The top five mayoral candidates for giving Torontonians the most exciting election in decades.
• The remaining 40-odd mayoral candidates for taking the incentive to run for public office.
• The following people for running informative and interesting weblogs either focusing on the Toronto election or containing numerous insightful posts about election issues:
  • Andrew Spicer both for his poignant weblog and for assisting the winning Miller team.
  • Rick McGinnis for his last chance city which featured a special series on fringe candidates.
  • James Bow.
  • David Janes.

I also want to thank everyone who tuned into my weblog during the election. Thanks to you, my web statistics have grown tremendously, peaking on Monday to levels not seen since the days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. October was a banner month, bringing in 50% more visitors than the previous record, and November looks to follow suit. I only hope that I can maintain interest without an election to feed off of.

As for the people going to work, the act of stopping work (and stopping all transit vehicles to work — any chance of doing that for all cars?) is a significant gesture that one is less likely to do at home.

The aforementioned co-worker told me that everything stops in Israel during the two minutes of Remembrance Day silence. Sirens wail about the towns and all traffic halts until the silence is over — a slight inconvenience compared to the lives and youth lost by those who went to war for our freedom.

I am of two minds in this matter. On the one side, everyone should remember. It is all too easy these days to run through the day without stopping for a few minutes of contemplation. Stopping all activity would only remind people to take a moment and remember the sacrifice of those who served during war. Two minutes is not much to ask. However, those who are inclined to take the time to remember will take the time no matter what, even if it isn’t at the eleventh hour. Those who would never take a minute or two to stop and reflect would only view an imposed silence as an annoyance or an inconvenience. They wouldn’t take the time even if they were given time.

It is in these gloomy days that Remembrance Day comes upon us, filling our heads with grainy images of fallen soldiers and scarred battlegrounds. As if coming out of hiding, aging heroes reveal their presence, hoping to infuse the sacrifice of others in our memories for just one more year. But every year their numbers dwindle, and so every year our memories lessen.

In the days leading up to Remembrance Day I do what I can to remember. I remember the story my father would tell about how the door of his family’s farmhouse was once blown open by the explosion of a fallen V-1 flying bomb. (If a V-1 passed over your head still buzzing its horrid noise then you were safe. If one ever stopped making that noise, it meant that it was falling.) I try to picture my grandfather in his RAF uniform, thankful that he was able to return safely home to Britain.

I remember the various war-themed books I have read and movies I have seen, their images melting together to coalesce into a series of horrific montages of death and destruction. One can never get a true feeling for war by watching its movies. The content is too sterile, too polished for a wider audience, too detached from the experience. I feel that books give a more honest picture, a more detailed first-person account which movies can never replicate.

I remember those who have died and those who are still serving in recent conflicts, like that in Afghanistan, to remind me that war is not a long-forgotten thing. Every year brings more veterans, and more names to remember.

Sadly, this year the hour of remembrance passed by without my acknowledgement. However, Remembrance Day to me is always more than the mere two minutes of silence at the eleventh hour. It is two minutes of contemplation, of gratitude, and of sorrow repeated many times over.

Oh well. Tom was never a contender anyway, although he gets a few points for recognising the weblog community.

Update: Tom Jakobek’s internet advisor responds, and rather nicely despite my being a complete ass:

As an internet advisor to Tom Jakobek I want you to know the reasons bloggers were included on www.tomjakobek.ca is because Tom recognizes the important role bloggers play in providing independant coverage of issues and a venue for dialogue. Yes the campaign has read the opinions expressed on the blogs and several have acknowledged the value of the policies and ideas Tom has put forward. We all want a better city, dialogue will help that happen.

Amen to that.

However, John Barber’s column is far from the last word on the topic of the island airport. Earlier today, the Globe And Mail posted a follow-up article on their website with a response from the CEO of the Toronto Port Authority:

According to the statement, Ms. Raitt noted “all three parties to the agreement have clearly agreed from the outset that there would be ‘no jets’ and ‘no runway expansion’ at the TCCA. We intend to keep that promise.

So now the question is, who are we to believe? Air Canada Jazz, who are pressuring the Toronto Port Authority into opening the island airport to commercial jet service, or The Toronto Port Authority, whose current CEO says that there will be no jets? One thing is for certain: CEOs can leave their posts, but corporate pressure to increase profits and break into new markets is constant.

Note: David Miller is the only mayoral candidate completely opposed to expansion of the Toronto Island airport, including the creation of a fixed link.

Update: Andrew Spicer has dutifully written a follow-up to the above article.

That wannabe terrorists in Toronto could be planning to shoot down a civilian aircraft is disturbing news indeed. But just as disturbing was Mr. Collenette’s weak-kneed response — a case study of exactly how not to respond to threats of terrorism. Instead of questioning the future of El Al’s presence in Toronto, the Minister should have expressed his resolve to eradicate any threat.

Certainly, if the threat is real then all leads should be followed and investigated. However, until the threat disappears it would be irresponsible to allow subsequent flights to land at the Toronto airport. Doing so would be placing the passengers of El Al flights, not to mention people on the ground, in jeopardy. In a perfect world, we could eradicate this threat in an instant. Unfortunately, investigations take time.

The threat to El Al flights is not like the Los Angeles airport incident which the letter mentions — that could have been avoided through better airport security. This threat may not even come from within the airport itself; it could come from anywhere along the landing or takeoff path of an El Al flight.

Despite what some people may believe, acting with temporary precaution does not mean that the terrorists have won. The terrorists win when they successfully kill people or cause damage, thereby increasing fear. Rest assured that if El Al flights are temporarily diverted from Toronto, terrorists will not be jumping up and down and cheering. They will, however, be jubilant if they successfully down an El Al flight over Toronto simply because we did not take precautions.