Rob seems particularly coherent and lucid in this press conference. Seems…odd.
Archive for 2012
It’s still making the rounds!
Rob Ford was taken out on a technicality! He never should’ve been tossed out since the original decision forcing him to repay was invalid!
And so on.
Let’s pick this apart. It won’t take too long, it’s very simple!
- Voting to let yourself off the hook for something is the very definition of “conflict of interest”. Had Miller put a motion before City Council to appoint himself Fuhrer of Toronto, and then voted on it, would that be considered a conflict of interest? Unlikely as that may sound, it would be within his power to do so, and yet it can easily be argued that it doesn’t involve any money. But I guess if you’re a Fordite, that kind of thing would’ve been perfectly fine — just so long as Miller didn’t make any money off of it. Thumbs up, Ford supporters; brilliant logic!
- Let’s say that the decision forcing Rob to repay the money was in fact beyond the pale of City Council — if that’s the case, what’s to stop any councillor from abusing their office at any time? Let’s say Adam Vaughan decided that he would support the destruction of the Gardiner Expressway in exchange for donations to his personal charity. That’s called “influence peddling”, and it’s exactly what Ford did. But guess what, Vaughan didn’t get any of the money, it went to his own charity, so once again it’s all perfectly fine and above board, right? Or is it only wrong if someone who isn’t Ford does it? Can’t have it both ways!
Furthermore, if Fordo believed that this was completely out of the Council’s jurisdiction, why did he completely validate it all by not only “explaining” how important it was for him to abuse his position as mayor, but also vote on it? By the same logic, any Fordite approached by anyone claiming to be a cop on the street should immediately submit to anything that the “officer” says, because after all, that’s how you insist that your mayor behaves. Then, once you’re in the back of the unmarked van, complain about how fucking stupid you were to have trusted the “cop” in the first place — just like Rob Ford.
- Maybe the mayor didn’t know that Council wasn’t able to make such rules? Maybe he didn’t read the handbook? Maybe he claimed complete ignorance of anything associated with his position? How about all of the above? But that’s okay — why would we need a mayor that knows how to do the job? It’s just like business: we should entrust the operation to someone who admits to complete incompetence and ignorance.
Once again, bravo on your logic, Fordites!
And Ford should be allowed to continue to be mayor in the face of all of this? Anyone who supports this position supports all of the above: incompetence, lies, naivete, brazen self-indulgence, ignorance, and corruption — none of which Ford denied.
I’m getting sick of repeating these simple facts, but the media are pumping out so much blatant misinformation, misdirection, and just plain bullshit, we need to keep repeating it for them.
Nice … and slow … and simple.
Does Toronto need more condos?
It’s not that I’m against development, especially when new buildings appear on top of parking lots. And although there are always naysayers out there who are against any changes, I doubt that they lament the loss of paved lots that much.
But when it comes to places like the section of King west between John and Spadina, I don’t see why developers and people like the Mirvish family need to rip out an established and thriving chunk of the downtown just so they can put in their own condos.
But that’s exactly what they’re trying to do right now, with the help of councillors like Adam Vaughan who seem to think that if it’s not a giant tower, it doesn’t belong downtown. And it doesn’t seem to matter that no one along the so-called Restaurant Row wants to move, or that the Bell Lightbox tower, freshly built, is right across the street.
I’m not at all against progress or development, and I think Toronto’s often better for it. But this is a matter of cutting off the nose to spite the face, leaving little in terms of culture or uniqueness behind, and replacing it with private, off-limits property intended to only generate money.
The Mirvhishes, who at one time were pretty big patrons of the arts, have managed to do a full 180 since the death of Ed, and are now not only ripping up their own father’s legacy of love for the city, but also trying to push smaller business owners out of their way in what’s proving to be a lust for money and control. Pretty sure Ed would be furious to see what his kids are doing under his name.
And besides, a cold, heartless, exclusivist, and corporatist Toronto is not where I want to live.
Please visit for more information:
Someone (presumably Ford’s election team), recently created a video called “Respect Democracy“. Toronto City Life has responded by including a few inconvenient facts in the same video — and unlike them, we won’t hide behind anonymity:
(Yeah, I realized I’d made a spelling mistake after I uploaded it. Oh well.)
I know that the headlines prior to “Respect?” in the video are hard to make out, so here they are (all easily found using Google):
This is not something I thought I’d ever be saying in my entire life, but Christie Blatchford actually hit the nail squarely on the head in a November 29 piece for the National Post (which makes it doubly stunning).
In it, she talks about Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who worked for free with Paul Magder to bring Rob Ford before the judge on the conflict of interest thing. I was instantly thinking she’d be ripping into the “lefties” who banded together to make this happen, but instead, and rather shockingly, she directly concedes that this is no left-wing conspiracy.
She puts an almost-human spin on both Ruby and Magder, describing some of their past work and the types of causes they put their weight behind. And rather than taking one side or another (i.e. the “left” or “right”), she exposes a much more direct and accurate picture of what motivated both men:
In April of 2010, Toronto Star food writer Corey Mintz wrote a piece headlined “My dinner with Clayton Ruby.”
Mr. Mintz was doing the cooking. As his friends discussed the “polarizing allegiance to the left or right,” Mr. Ruby cut through the verbal red tape, Mr. Mintz wrote.
“I think it’s all abstractly meaningless,” Mr. Ruby said. “There are people who do good in the world. And there are people who do not. And we make judgments.”
And that, I suspect, has much more to do with the efforts to fell Rob Ford than anything else: They do good; Mr. Ford, in their eyes, does not.
It’s interesting to compare this to Blatchford’s earlier pieces where she doesn’t come across in quite the same way:
November 26: “So, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been given the boot from office because an opportunistic citizen hired a smart and politically savvy lawyer who found a club of an arcane statute with which to tie the hands of a judge who was willing to play ball.”
November 23: “That week in court refreshed my memory, as the lawyers say. It was never that I loved Mr. Ford, either the detail of his politics or who he is particularly.
Rather, I liked who he wasn’t.
He wasn’t David Miller, his pretty-boy predecessor. He wasn’t the late Jack Layton. He wasn’t Sandra Bussin, the former councillor. He wasn’t Olivia Chow, another former councillor, Mr. Layton’s widow, who may yet return to run for the mayoralty (but only, of course, if “the people” demand it).
Mr. Ford wasn’t a part of that soft-left ruling class which, during my time at City Hall in the mid-1990s, ran the show, and appears to still. He wasn’t an earnest subscriber to the conventions of downtown city politics, with its sure convictions about What We Believe In.
I remember that so vividly, the smugness, the preening disdain for outsiders, even if, sometimes especially if, they were actual citizens.”
Maybe this is just some opportunistic writing now that it’s looking like Ford’s popularity isn’t all it was cracked up to be (how very Mamolliti of her). Still, the piece is out there, and I’m left with a profound sense of confusion.
Adding to this is feedback from newspapers like the Sun. Okay, well, that one’s perhaps a little more understandable ever since Ford made it clear he and they weren’t friends. Still, writers like Joe Warmington are usually through-and-through Fordites, often quoted by people like Newstalk’s Jerry Agar to prove just how much mainstream support the mayor has.
Just look at Warmington’s latest about a scuffle between Ford and Adam Vaughan:
But many of his leftists enemies — not all — have shown themselves to be graceless. Others have acted like classless lowlifes — the kind who would make fun of his weight, bother him at home with his kids and spread hateful, and hurtful lies, like him going to a gun club when he didn’t or incorrectly saying he called a 911 operator a “bitch” when the tape proves it did not happen.
To be fair, Warmington mentions Ford’s conflict of interest fiasco in this article, recognizing that Rob is somewhat responsible for some of his own mess, but it doesn’t quite stack up to the finger wagging that Warmington gave the mayor when the verdict was delivered:
In reality it would never have ever been put in the judiciary’s hands had Ford shown some humility and displayed a modicum of tolerance for people, and views that don’t walk lockstep with his.
Self-destructive or self-sabotage are other words. It’s as if he prefers the turmoil and conflict more than agreement. Every scandal he’s been involved in, he created himself.
He won’t go to Pride Parade. Dumb.
Talking on cellphone while driving. Avoidable.
Getting into ruckuses with reporters or comedians at his home. Childish.
In this instance, like he did when he slipped and fell at the Grey Cup event on the field in Nathan Phillips Square last week, he sacked himself.
“It is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement and a dismissive and confrontational attitude,” wrote the judge.
He played chicken with a judge and lost. Had Ford played the game a little bit it would not have come to this. Had he listened to his peers that he was in conflict and not voted on his own motion, there would be no story. There was no need for any of this. In a culture of us and them, he made it easy for them.
Compare this further with Warmington’s most recent representations of Don Cherry as he backs Ford:
November 28: “Cherry did that himself (get flack for public commentary) last hockey season for emotional comments about three former NHL enforcers and never looked back.
He said now that Ford has done that, there needs to be some compassion and let him get back to doing his job.
“Here’s a guy that has dedicated his life to helping under-privileged kids and this is what happens to him?” Cherry said. “The guy made a mistake with the letterhead (and voting) no doubt. But he didn’t waste or lose billions of dollars like so many other governments have. His was a minor mistake. A human mistake.”
The Hockey Night in Canada legend made headlines two years ago at Ford’s swearing-in by telling Ford’s enemies to “put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks.”
So he’s not surprised by what’s happening now.
“Let’s lay the cards on the table. The only reason this happened, the only reason, was because of the left-wingers out to get him,” Cherry said.
It has been difficult for him to watch.”
November 29: “Ford has no one to blame for this mess but himself since everybody from his brother Doug, to Don Cherry to deputy mayor Doug Holyday warned him to stop leading with his chin.”
Again, and shockingly so, Warmington is one of the most balanced voices at the Toronto Sun at the present time. Still, with only a day to separate his take on Ford’s situation, Warmington still meekly manages to flip flop more than a fish freshly tossed onto dry land.
And that right there is what I see as being the crux of the problem. It’s not a fight between the “left” and “right”, it’s a toss-up between those who choose a side and obstinately stay with it, even to the point of doing a 180-degree turn in their thinking whenever the breeze changes, and a more centrist approach that is willing to look at all sides with a more critical eye. In other words, the right/left stick bullheadedly with an ideology, often resorting to a 1984-like “doublethink” in order to maintain their blind allegiance.
Of course, I can’t say that this is true across the board, but it certainly seems to be more predominant with those who identify themselves as “right”-leaning (though I’ve seen plenty of examples of exactly the same thing among the “lefty” types too). I couldn’t even imagine the shock to their system when they realize that their beliefs are in line with the most repressive and conformist sort of communist-socialism one could conjure up.
Then again, these same people believe that the extreme right belongs to the Nazis — National Socialists – an extreme form of collectivized, totalitarian control — and the left to the Communists — an extreme form of collectivized, totalitarian form of control. Only rhetoric, lack of critical thought, and instantaneous doublethink could possibly keep such things separate.
To anyone who is critical, none of this sits well.
Take Adam Vaughan, for example. This Councillor is typified as the anti-Ford at City Hall. He is the predominant “leftie” who the Sun holds up as the source of all evils in their nonsensical didactic.
Because Vaughan has publicly butted heads with Ford, he is placed by the “right” as the man who played the leading role in the mayor’s downfall, and furthermore, that he’s one of the major figures responsible for the “gravy” at City Hall. Ipso facto, anyone who doesn’t blindly follow Ford must necessarily love Vaughan, and by extension waste and gravy and so on and so forth. You get the idea.
That would have to make me a Vaughan-loving “leftie” then, wouldn’t it?
Only problem is that I don’t subscribe to that kind of stupidity. I’m no more enamoured with Vaughan than I am with Ford.
I mean, Vaughan has had fewer dictatorial tendencies thus far, but there’s something I learned recently (and about which I’ll be writing), that make it obvious that both Ford and Vaughan are cut from a very similar cloth.
Point I’m trying to make is that we need to decide where we stand, not where our politicians stand, or what rhetorical one-liners we want to support, etc. Yeah, that does mean we all need to dig a bit deeper, follow politics a bit more closely, read the news (all of it!) with a critical eye, and be willing to take a stand when something doesn’t fit with our own souls.
Sometimes that might even mean — *gasp* — changing our minds about someone!
It’s clear that a large percentage of the population isn’t doing any of this.
And by the way, next time you’re hearing about or discussing the Nazi Holocaust, or the rise of the Communist regime, or any one of the multitudes of evil that spring up around the globe, and you’re wondering how people would allow themselves to fall under such systems en masse (and once you’re under it, good luck!), try comparing what happened then to what’s happening at this very moment.
Blatchford mentioned it, and people like Clayton Ruby are keenly aware of it. And the similarities are horrific.
Technically not the very first flakes, but definitely the first that decided to hang around for more than a few minutes. Enough, at least, for me to dust off the ole camera.
Not long ago I was accused of being brainwashed because I follow politics. I tried to get more information about my alleged brainwashing from my interlocutor and was bluntly told that I never used to follow politics, so why now?
This person also reads (or at least used to read), TCL, so really would’ve been fairly familiar with how long I’d been following politics; and when I look back through my old posts I realize it’s been for a lot longer than I’d been “brainwashed” for. In fact, the only real thing that’s changed is that I’ve become critical, begun to dig a lot deeper, and think about things a lot more thoroughly.
In other words, I’m “brainwashed” because I now think and express myself a lot more freely.
I have regular discussions about politics with this person and am often confronted with their obstinate support of the Harper government. This, at least in part, is one of the reasons I’ve been so vocal (if the word can be applied to writing), about my criticisms of the numerous ways that he and his gang are trying to destroy freedom in Canada.
By “freedom” I’m not alluding to some vague notions of self-expression (though that is certainly true), I’m talking about simple physical freedoms like being able to walk down the street without fear of arbitrary arrest, or being free to express simple opinions and truths without having the government crack down on you, harass you, or spy on you secretly.
This same person, the one who accused me of being brainwashed, came from a repressive communist country where such things were a regular thing, so I assumed that this kind of thing wouldn’t sit well with them. Yet when faced with stark evidence like Bill C-38 or Bill C-11, and expecting at least a modicum of thought, some skepticism, maybe a willingness to dig a bit deeper, even if just to prove me wrong, I instead got derision.
The best retort they can muster is to call me dumb (and brainwashed), and to demand to know why such things concern me.
The real question is, why don’t they concern you?! (And I’m brainwashed)
It’s not tough to imagine, then, with people willing to live with their eyes and ears covered like this, that Harper continues on his merry way to making Canada a massive repressive regime within which citizens are expected to cower in fear and dare not speak ill of the government lest they be “disappeared” into some dark dungeon, indefinitely, with no trial, judge, or jury. The same citizens are actually fully supporting such moves, and they sure don’t want to hear how such things could possibly be bad (even if they’ve lived through such terrors themselves). Heck, why would you even need evidence at that point?
If you’re still paying attention, though, there is still some hope.
In the US, the NDAA (innocuously disguised as a recurring military funding bill), includes a variety of passages that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens (in fact, anyone at all), without trial, in military Gulags not unlike Guantanamo Bay. With Bill C-38, Harper has allowed the US to legally waltz across the border with complete impunity and “remove” people at any time they wish.
Not to be outdone, of course, the Harper government is introducing Bill S-7, the “Combating Terrorism Act” (the catch-all term for everything and anything designed to separate you from your rights and freedoms these days), which has many of the same features as the NDAA. Here are some highlights to expect should this thing make it through:
- People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
- The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
- As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
- Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
- A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
- Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
- Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
- These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.
It’s interesting to see how the October 23rd vote on this bill went down: unanimously voted in by both Conservatives and Liberals. I’m sure I’ve stated my belief more than once that they’re now essentially one and the same apparatus (McGuinty’s latest escapades also illustrate this quite well). Literally anyone outside of these two parties voted against it.
It’s also worthwhile to read the discussion at the second reading of the bill, even just to get a sense of the basically blasé, done-deal rhetoric that proponents could muster (when they could be bothered to speak on such trivial matters at all) — oh, and don’t forget 9/11!
To me it seems self-evident that anyone and everyone should be at least slightly concerned about such laws and, moreover, the types of government that would be continuously bringing them forward. The only way to avoid concern is to be completely oblivious to everything when presented with it, to deny reality when it’s staring you in the face, and to sing the praises of our glorious leader even as he’s setting up mega-prisons and the means to fill them with anyone who doesn’t toe the line.
But I guess I’m just brainwashed.
I received a chain email yesterday:
The day that Albert Einstein
feared may have finally arrived.
Having coffee with friends.
A day at the beach.
Cheering on your team.
Having dinner out with your friends.
Out on an intimate date.
Having a conversation with your BFF
A visit to the museum
Enjoying the sights
You may have seen this already. Apparently it’s been making the rounds on a number of websites in various versions.
Whether or not you’ve seen it, though, it’s obvious that what this is is a not-so-subtle, inter-generational jab at the youth of today. And, at first blush, it has the appearance of being backed by one of the world’s foremost thinkers.
But once you dig a little deeper you quickly realize that this take on the “idiots” of today’s generation is really more of a reflection on those who perpetuate it.
Take the most obvious point, for example — the Einstein quote. It’s a fake. This is demonstrated on site after site; and really the thing that Einstein feared about technology is how dangerous it has become (in the form of things like the hydrogen bomb, for example). In fact, use of the word “idiot” by Einstein seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the quote in it’s current incarnation doesn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to 2012 (and I remember a reference to something similar dated to around 2000).
In any event, it ain’t Einstein. And you know how people could verify that? Technology, for starters!
But lets assume that the quote is correct, regardless of who said it.
A “generation of idiots”?
The pictures show kids on mobile phones — disconnected from the world around them, maybe, but what about this makes them “idiots”? Well, if a two-way interaction with a screen makes them “idiots”, what does it make the generation that precedes them?
Spending quality time
Yeah, that knife can cut both ways, and the older edge goes just a little deeper. Besides, the progenitors of these “idiots” are the ones responsible for making them that way (either that, or they’re a bunch of irresponsible goofs).
I also couldn’t notice the use of the acronym BFF in one of the images — something that came about as a result of the need for brevity in text-based conversations on small screens. Kind of ironic. Almost as ironic (maybe intentionally — if only it had been communicated with finesse), as one of the replies that to the thread that was broadcast back out to the email herd:
“Sad isn’t it
Sent from my “contract free” BlackBerry® smartphone on the WIND network.”
I rest my case.