Recently, Emily Viegas, a 13-year-old Brampton girl died of Covid. I’m sure you can find more information than I’ve included but here’s a link just in case.

Basically, the story is that the vaccinated father (an essential worker, as if that was somehow relevant), was staying home with the girl to take care of her as both the mother and her brother had also come down with Covid. Seems the dad didn’t want to take Emily to the hospital because he didn’t want to overburden the healthcare system, something the media have been screaming about lately.

In many ways, this would’ve been just another sad story of a Covid victim except certain reprehensible fucks just couldn’t even keep their political agendas in their pants long enough to let Emily’s body grow cold before pushing them; sick assholes like Andrew Boozary, so-called “Doctor”, who proudly advertises that the doctor’s primary task is to be political (not saving lives or reducing suffering), and who was immediately on television when Emily died — the same television warning of hospitals being “on the brink”, a warning that Emily’s father clearly took to heart — while doing his best “human sadness” impression in order to push through his agenda of provincial paid sick days. Oh yeah, and systemic racism … of course.

Because sick days would’ve prevented Emily’s death how, exactly? Maybe by allowing the father to stay home to take care of her? Oh wait … he did. Maybe the mother could’ve stayed at home? Oh wait … she was in the hospital with Covid. Well, obviously the solution is sick days legislation. Logic! Science!

Naturally, Doug Ford caved and now Emily’s father can rest easy knowing that nothing would be different today had this legislation been passed earlier.

I personally don’t have a horse in the sick days race but it’s obvious that Emily’s death was immediately, coldly, disgustingly scooped up by people like Boozary (not the only one, I should mention), in order to push through a political agenda that had absolutely nothing to do with her death.

The fact that people like Boozary are idolized and applauded for their inhuman callousness is a stark reflection of the horrible dregs of humanity that have been slavishly published and worshipped since the start of Covid. People like Boozary are sociopathic monsters, pushing politics and hateful ignorant racism based on abject lies (many examples here on TCL), supported by media networks that are in many ways directly responsible for Emily’s death by frightening her father into avoiding the hospital (of course Boozary made no mention of this obvious fact). And they’re working hand in hand to keep you “informed”.

Why don’t people trust the media, politicians, and increasingly the medical community? Big mystery.

The chickens are back and they’re ready to roost.

With the US election having run its course and everyone losing their shit about Trump’s victory I thought it might be good to remind anyone thinking of disparaging our “democratic” system that this is what it’s all about!

You really shouldn’t be complaining since you went out of your way to agree to be ruled for another four years. While I stubbornly reject the vote you chose to acquiesce because it’s “the best system we have”, so why all the fussin’? Do as you tell others to do: just accept it and get over it.

Not to mention that with November 11^th just around the corner, wouldn’t it be incredibly disrespectful of you to disparage the freedoms that all those soldiers ostensibly gave their lives for? That goes doubly for any shameful attempts at shutting down anti-military protests and other displays of freedom that you are solemnly thanking the dead for — you wouldn’t dare dishonour their memory like that, would you?

While we’re on the topic of recollection, don’t you remember demanding that “our” government is the best solution to pretty much every problem, despite the “wrinkles” and “hiccups”? Feel free to sing hosanna at being given the privilege to choose from the lesser of two evils every four years. After all, isn’t it idiotic to suggest that maybe you shouldn’t be choosing evil in the first place? I mean, what’s the alternative to centralized control — warlords? Obviously death by the millions and untold suffering brought on by the state and its endless lust for violence is far better.

Besides, who would build the roads?

Anyway, let me remind you of the phrase that you so gleefully deliver when you tire of explaining why the state is God and why we should all blindly obey, a piece of advice that you so handily dole out to dismiss the stupidity and pointlessness of critical thought, your superior response to the suggestion that maybe government & friends isn’t the best way forward:

You did your duty, now go out there and proudly wave your flag!

And don’t forget to pay your taxes.

I didn’t care for the man.

Although it’s lacking teeth,  an op-ed piece in the National Post fairly succinctly summarizes what I’ve been blathering on about for God-only-knows how long now. You don’t need to have a PoliSci degree to see what’s happening but although I doubt I’ll ever be able to shake my ageing parents’ (and many of their generation’s) scorn at my “naiveté”, “ignorance”, and “radical” views on government, at least I know I’m in fine scholarly company.

…the prime minister seems to have the unchecked power to decide when the House should be in session, when elections should occur, and even, in some circumstances, when their governments do or do not have the confidence of the House.

In the past I’ve referred to this as fascism, sometimes as a dictatorship, and often as a tyranny, but as I’ve tried to point out labels ultimately matter far less than deeds.

In the House, the prime minister and government have considerable control over day-to-day operations. This allows governments not only to set the agenda, but to carry it out with ease. The prime minister commands the steadfast loyalty of his MPs, largely through a carrot-and-stick approach; co-operative MPs might be rewarded with cabinet posts or coveted committee positions, while rogues can be — and at times are — punished with removal from caucus or even barred from running as a candidate for the party in future elections. All of these are vestiges of prime ministerial power. The party caucus has little leverage with which to counterbalance the prime minister’s power because party leaders are chosen (and replaced) by the party at large, rather than by the caucus. Thus, the government’s MPs have no effective mechanism through which to stand their ground against a very powerful leader or effectively represent his or her constituents.

Critics regularly cite our seemingly dizzying array of market choices as proof that government has little control in our day-to-day lives. Although they can hardly provide a straight and articulate answer without sneering derision, state supporters are often stumped by simple facts. For example, all of the so-called “choices” that the so-called “free market” offers are all directly controlled by government.

No?

Okay, name any product or service in Canada that doesn’t require government legal authorization, licensing, approval, etc. In other words, you have only the choices that government allows and you’re coerced, backed by threats of violence and imprisonment, into paying for this through taxes. Yes, you can buy things on the black market but you face the wrath of government if you decide thusly to exercise your “free choice” and of course you’re guilty until you can prove otherwise (which they can still arbitrarily reject).

Because they’re now stumped, government lackeys immediately pivot their argument to deflect by claiming that this is necessary to “keep us safe”. To this I would simply suggest cracking open a newspaper – the evidence of how government doesn’t keep us safe is in the news pretty much on a daily basis. Whether this involves food, health, personal safety, privacy, and a litany of other claims about protections, there are regular and glaring examples of how this simply isn’t true.

The statist argument typically changes course once again at this point to demand that nothing – our hospitals, roads, water and electrical systems, etc. – would exist without government. I’ve addressed these obviously specious arguments a number of times in the past but I will concede that government vehicles with government employees do sometimes drive up to a pothole, and one labourer and three supervisors spend three to four weeks filling it with a cop or two gladly accepting extorted taxpayer money to text or browse the web on their cell phones or chat with the crew, while out of sight pedestrians and cars are left to their own devices to share the dangerous inches left for them. Sounds an awful lot like the lazy welfare whores that government is keen to trot out to justify how we should receive even less state “benefits”, doesn’t it?

In other words, government supplies a few services through a wasteful, overpriced, badly (if at all) regulated process, something that is typically done far more efficiently by the private sector. This makes sense – the private business has to look out for their bottom line, government can just raise taxes and you’ll be brutalized or extorted by “authorities” and go to jail if you don’t like it. There’s no incentive for government to be efficient or benefit citizens in any way, and every single government institution behaves according to this.

Don’t believe? Just try and apply for any government “benefits” to see how hard your loving, benign government works for you. Call up a government “service” phone line and see for yourself how much service you receive. While you’re at it, try calling the cops when you actually need them – I have and that’s why I know better.

Rather than becoming more like a system of presidential executive authority, this situation has left Canadian prime ministers in a position more akin to historical monarchs. The evolution of Westminster democracy in Canada is very much a story about the struggle to wrestle power away from the Crown and shift it to Parliament, and specifically the House of Commons, our primary democratic body and check on unfettered prime ministerial power. The ability of prime ministers to retain and use these Crown powers, alongside other powers over MPs and the House of Commons, is resulting in a situation where prime ministers have the power to make decisions, partisan and otherwise, that limit or negate Parliament’s role as a guardian for accountability in our democratic system.

This is not simply about politics or even personalities. Almost all recent prime ministers have used these powers to try to advance their partisan interests. What it is about is the erosion of our democratic institutions and the effect on democratic governance.

The next rhetorical recourse of any good government lapdog is to state that, yeah, okay, maybe government isn’t perfect but we have “checks and balances” to ensure that things more or less work out for most people. And if we don’t like it we can vote in someone else!

These are other points I’ve addressed at length and are yet more claims that can be factually rebutted with a mountain of evidence to the contrary (this blog is filled with it). And while it’s claimed that the media would surely alert us to these issues it’s easy to demonstrate that this is highly unlikely to be the case. Unless you seek out increasingly derided alternative sources you will only know what government and friends want you to know.

If your final argument is that people are too stupid to know what’s good for them, hence the need for unquestionable government, then kindly shut your ignorance hole – you’ve just brilliantly insisted that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Put this all together and the will of the people is entirely irrelevant and, in fact, something to be suppressed.

It’s at this point when state defenders throw up their hands and exasperatedly exclaim, “Oh well! Then I guess we must be living under a King or Queen then, huh?!”

Yeah, smart guy. Flip over your Canadian money or do a Wikipedia search – Canada is a monarchy and whether the titular head is the queen or Harper the effect is the same.

Giorgio Mamolliti, one of Rob Ford’s criminally leaning supporters on City Council started a chain of events yesterday that underscored the achingly obvious, on many fronts.

After a heated exchange with Adam Vaughan, a disruptive Mammoliti refused to leave and was heard to say that he would “physically” resist any attempt to oust him from chambers. Citizens would likely be forcibly removed by security for this kind of thing, and police wouldn’t be far behind, but unapologetic Councillors are not held to a similar standard even when they physically assault others.

Council Speaker Frances Nunziata directed Mammoliti to apologize. He refused to say sorry, then refused to leave, and then made the statement that he’d physically resist anyone who tried to get him to budge.

In Mammoliti we have a two-faced, law-breaking, witless goof who has no problem reproaching those around him with blazing hypocrisy while supporting waste, lies, greed, and corruption; the perfect set of qualifications for a member of Ford’s inner circle, the kind of person that the Ford brothers would defend against all opposition.

And that’s exactly what Ford did in Council, claiming that “the most corrupt ones can stay” while Mammoliti was being asked to leave. Considering that neither he nor Mammoliti apologized or left, I’d say that the statement was partially accurate.

I’m sure that Ford Nation would claim that both Ford and Mammoliti apologized. But if that’s an apology…

Mr. Mammoliti had objected to city staff giving their advice between votes on the council floor.

After his apology, Mr. Mammoliti told reporters that procedural bylaws require council members to apologize when asked to, but do not require the members to “actually feel sorry for what they’ve done. In my particular case, I can’t feel sorry for saying that city staff seem to be running city hall,” he said.

For the benefit of Nunziata, a through-and-through Fordite who has given the Ford camp pretty much free reign in Council until now, Robbie’s apology for his accusation was:

“How about ‘I am so sorry? Super, super, super, super, super, super, super, sorry? So sorry?'”

To Ford Nation, everything I’ve claimed so far must seem like incredible hypocrisy. I accuse Mammoliti and Ford all sorts of things, then I fault them in the next paragraph for doing exactly the same thing. But as I keep saying, the difference between slander/libel and merely uncomfortable but completely legal statements are facts.

For example, a statement like Mammoliti being an aspiring criminal might seem like just plain name-calling except for the fact that the claim is linked to an earlier post in which Mammoliti announced (live in an on-camera interview), that he was willing to break the law to push through Ford’s subway agenda (which itself was based on an illegal cancellation of previous transit plans). It wasn’t an off-the-cuff statement and it wasn’t taken out of context, much like Mammoliti’s most recent statement that he’s once again ready to break the rules in order to get his way.

But in the Ford universe, a mountain of evidence backed by a public admission (a fact by most standards), is equal to completely baseless and slanderous comments. If the Toronto Star can accuse Rob Ford of smoking crack without (initially) providing evidence then Rob Ford is entitled to call Daniel Dale a pedophile without evidence too!

The only problem is, of course, that almost every accusation about Rob Ford thus far has been proven true, while almost every accusation made by Rob Ford has vaporized into thin air. And when Ford’s denial of the growing mountain of proof simply can’t be maintained any longer, he blurts out a bizarre admission and, in very rare times, a sort-of half apology.

Adding to this lengthy list of about-turns is Ford’s apology to Dale in Council today, peppered liberally with finger pointing (damn neighbour! damn Star editors!), contradictory statements, and qualifications ensuring that we all understand the limits of Ford’s apology. He sure as heck isn’t sorry for lying to us.

“My comments related to the fear I had for my family when my long time neighbour told me that someone was lurking at my fence, and appeared to be taking pictures of my family home over the fence. To be clear, I never personally saw Mister Dale peering over the fence or taking pictures. My neighbour told me, however, that he did see someone doing this. Mister Dale, apparently, denies that.

At that moment I honestly believed, I honestly believed, my neighbour’s account of the events. I had no idea, at the time, who the person was, my neighbour told me was leering over my fence. At that moment I had the same fears and concerns that I believe many people would have when such a report from a neighbour that they’ve known for over 15 years, and I ran to the area as quickly as I could to accost the person and attempt to protect my family. When I arrived at the corner of my home, very far from the land Mister Dale he implies was researching a story about, I indeed find an individual beside my fence in the general area my neighbour advised me. This confirmed my fears at the time. I accosted this person as I believed he was a threat to my family. This individual turned out to be Daniel Dale on assignment from the Toronto Star.

I have no issue with Mister Dale personally. I understand that he’s an employee in the very competitive news business and must do as do as his superiors instruct him. I do take issue with his bosses at the Toronto Star to put him and I into this situation. I do not mean to insinuate anything about Mister Dale personally in my interview with Mister Black. I certainly did not intend to suggest that he is a pedophile. I was merely commenting on the thoughts that went through my mind on the night of May 2012, before I had any idea that person — my neighbour told me he saw peering over the fence — was a reporter on assignment from the Toronto Star.

It is unfortunate that the word I did not say has been ascribed to me by the media, but I wish to sincerely apologize again to Mister Dale if my actual words have caused him any harm or personal offense. And if Mister Daniel Dale is here today, I want to personally apologize to him.”

See, when I make headlines like the one above, I always get the feeling that new readers are going to immediately dismiss the accompanying posts simply because the headlines sound made-up. At the very least, they sound like hyperbole or some sort of truth-bending. The other option is that I’m just pulling the readers’ legs.

And yet, not only is the one-liner accurate, as is usually the case with the Fords, it actually doesn’t go nearly far enough.

The ethics thing comes straight from the mouth and hand of reprobascious Doug Ford who marched into a social housing project in his ward with a wad of cash and started peeling off $20 bills to hand out to residents. Such actions obviously prove, as they have since day one, that Rob and Doug are just two average guys like the rest of us — not the rich, privileged, “elite”, corrupt, greezee-haired, gold-chained mobster politicians that their “enemies” are (which basically encompasses everyone at this point). Obviously.

This obvious vote-buying isn’t a problem, apparently, since an election has not yet been called. But even if we were in an election period and something could be done (which it wouldn’t), it’s clear that there would be no consequences to the belligerent Ford reign. And, of course, it wouldn’t be Ford (either one, really), if he didn’t defend his vileness while simultaneously letting the world know what he thinks of morals and ethics:

It’s my choice [to grease palms]. He [Councillor Gord Perks] can think all the ethics he wants. It doesn’t even faze me.

The very same can be said of brother Rob who, as you may recall, is facing a libel suit for alleging that Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale is a pedophile, a claim made for no apparent reason in a now-missing Vision TV interview with fellow loquacious loser Conrad Black (Vision, part of rich media barron Moses Znaimer’s ZoomerMedia, is also being sued for the same reason). There’s absolutely no proof that I know of to back Ford’s claim — in fact, plenty to the contrary showing that Rob Ford is, as he always was, a lying, immoral, violent, crack-smoking jerkhole.

But, you know, he wouldn’t be Robbie if he didn’t stand by his bizarre off-the-cuff slander time and time again; and, of course, it wouldn’t be Doug if he didn’t defend his brother’s unconscionable bullshit the whole way.

At this point in time I’ve pretty much used up almost my entire vocabulary of expletives and colourful adjectives for Rob Ford so I’m not gonna go down that road.

Nope.

Let me just say that I find Ford latest behaviour extremely disappointing.

I’m referring to the latest news that has Robbie calling a special rush-rush meeting to decide what to do about his unfilled Deputy Mayor seat.

The meeting, in and of itself, is sensible considering the recent departure of Doug Holyday for provincial pastures. Hard to find fault with that. But, as usual, that’s only about five percent of the story.

The fact that Holyday would be running, and that the Deputy Mayor seat could be vacated was hardly a secret, so this meeting that Rob is calling probably didn’t have to be so last minute.

But so what? Aren’t meetings part and parcel of Council’s job?

Yes, but it sucks hard to be told that you need to cut short your vacation time because Fordo couldn’t see past his limited imagination a few weeks into the future and instead waited until the ball was already in the net.

This is especially egregious considering how Rob Ford skipped out of a Council meeting not more than a month ago, so that he could take off early for … guess what? … a vacation!

And let’s not forget how Rob Ford famously skirted his responsibilities as ambassador to this city (more than once), for the Pride event that draws millions of people from all over the world, in order to go for … guess what? … a vacation!

In between vacations, Robbie seemingly has an overabundance of free time, which makes the whole thing extra slap-in-the-face-y. Yet Ford seems to be so disconnected from reality that apparently this doesn’t bother him in the least. This is evidenced by the additional facts that he’s seriously considering getting back into coaching football, despite all the trouble that his obsession has led to, and despite the fact that his last coaching gig ended up with a lot of pissed-off people.

I mean, that’s Robbie right? The same man who’s administration is internally so unstable that it continues to bleed staff (another “personal assistant” this time), like it’s going out of style.

My adjectives dwindle with every passing day.

The tradition of the so-called “right” to be offended by nothing in particular is being continued by the unqualified air-heads of the Toronto Taxpayers Coalition who decided they just couldn’t stand the commentary coming from Councillors Adam Vaughan and Mike Layton.

The TTC were so infuriated, in fact, that they filed official complaints with the office of the Integrity Commissioner which subsequently requested that the two members of Council apologize. Which they did.

So what foul sentiments did these two ne’er-do-wells express?

[City manager] Pennachetti had estimated that the city would get an annual “hosting fee” payment of $111 million to $148 million per year, tens of millions more than others anticipated, in exchange for hosting for a casino downtown. He also said the casino should be far smaller than the province wanted.

Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina) said Pennachetti’s figures were “fictitious.” Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina) said they were “fantasy numbers” and “ridiculous.”

“The casino is cut in half and the hosting fee is higher. There is nothing real in this report,” Vaughan told CBC.

Leiper said Vaughan was entitled to express his views. But she wrote that “the repeated use of the phrase ‘nothing real’ when applied to the report is an unfair portrayal of the report. So was the use of the word ‘fantasy.’

There are numerous other examples of the Fords’ benevolence and high regard for fellow human beings, which makes the awful, treacherous, evil words that the Councillors chose so much worse. Next they’ll just flaunt breaking the law like it’s going out of style while mockingly claiming that they know nothing about any rules or regulations (or anything about their jobs, for that matter) — can you imagine?!

The trusty Star reports today that Toronto has sunk deeper into debt under Ford:

Over the past two years, the city borrowed $1.5 billion to pay for capital costs — including transit equipment ordered by Ford’s predecessor — and repaid $700 million, thus increasing the debt burden by $800 million.

This doesn’t come as a shock, but it’s important to point out that the brunt of the burden comes from a couple of administrations ago, so it’s entirely fair to say that Ford inherited the problem.

But then he made it worse:

Ford has championed cutting the cost of government, scrapping the $60 vehicle tax shortly after taking office, and holding down increases in property taxes which are traditionally put toward capital costs, along with borrowed funds.

…

In 2011, on Ford’s insistence, the city froze property taxes. The next year he limited the increase to 2.5 per cent, in line with inflation.

About half of the borrowing was to pay for transit infrastructure, such as replacing worn-out vehicles. Other big-ticket infrastructure spending went to areas such as roads, parks and housing.

The title of this post takes some liberties with Councillor Jaye Robinson’s comments on being fired from Rob Ford’s Executive Committee, but it’s not far off the mark:

“…it’s unfortunate that the mayor didn’t have the fortitude to tell me to my face that I’ve been removed from executive. I’ve been given no reasons. This is not a mid-term shuffle, this is not a normal time to shift and make adjustments to your cabinet.”

Convicted criminal and known public liar Ford responded with his typical “everything’s fine!”-style comment while taking the opportunity to imply that Robinson is the one lying, this despite the fact that this is the 19th person to abandon Ford Nation. That is, if you don’t include the now-demoted Paul Ainslie, the vitriol the Fords hurl at Karen Stintz, or the ignominiously fired Gary Webster.

Ford’s Club for Sycophants, now that Robinson is gone, is now a proper old boys’ club: