Ford Desecration Pt IV - the march to Detroit continues

861 posts / 0 new
Last post
edmundoconnor

Ford acting not exactly sober at Taste of the Danforth: Here and here. A person's private life is a person's private life, but he chose to do this in public. On turf that he must have known was not exactly Ford Nation, and must have known these people who saw him would be able to make multiple recordings of it. Right now, I am feeling sorry for him. He is apparently unaware that he has a problem, but he does. Reason went out of the window a long time ago. If he has been enabled by people who have said nothing because of his power and wealth, he would not be the first.

From what I've found online, the media hasn't picked up on it yet (I myself was only made aware of it via my wife's Facebook feed). I would hope they cover it (or hotly deny it, as the Sun might well do).

For one time only, I am in agreement with the Sun and Mark Towhey: Get help. He clearly needs it.

Junkyard Dog

So, what's Slob been up to recently? Well, yet another staffer parted company with our beloved Mayor this week. (In point of fact, she was actually removed from her position and escorted off the premises by security.) Sounds like this one didn't elect to leave voluntarily:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/another-staffer-leaves-rob-fords-office/article13685290/

And here we find Boss Hogg, operating at his habitual level of quiet dignity, drunkenly stumbling around the Taste of Danforth festival, with crowds of people following and laughing at him:

http://gawker.com/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-wandered-the-streets-of-his-city-1087213594

The first of the 2 Youtube viddies included at the above link is really something. Rofo's clearly plastered out of his tits, and is mumbling incoherently throughout...though he can be heard insisting several times that "I'm not driving!" A good thing, too.

Just for laughs, here's a site I discovered recently that has a few less-than flattering pics of ol' Pigface...Though in fairness, I should acknowledge the frank impossibility of taking a flattering photograph of our hideously ugly lumpenfuhrer of a Mayor. "Skin that looks like it's made of bubble gum and ham," indeed.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/rob-ford-has-a-terrible-photographer

Here's another story about Drunky bumbling and stumbling and fumbling around the Taste of Danforth. He's a happy drunk! Tee hee!

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=193911

And here's Enzo Di Matteo's summation of the recent by-elections for Now Magazine:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=193885

I'm not sure how much I agree with Di Matteo's analysis at the above link. While it's obvious the Ford brothers are trying to snatch as much credit as they can for Holyday's win at Etobicoke-Lakeshore, it's a debatable claim to say the least. As other posters here pointed out in a thread devoted to the by-elections, Holyday was already pretty well regarded in Etobicoke, and would likely have done ok without all this supposed "help" from the Fords. Indeed, one can't help wondering just how appreciative he is of them trying to grab all the credit for themselves, as if he had nothing to do with it. With 'friends' like these...

janfromthebruce

edmundoconnor wrote:

Ford acting not exactly sober at Taste of the Danforth: Here and here. A person's private life is a person's private life, but he chose to do this in public. On turf that he must have known was not exactly Ford Nation, and must have known these people who saw him would be able to make multiple recordings of it. Right now, I am feeling sorry for him. He is apparently unaware that he has a problem, but he does. Reason went out of the window a long time ago. If he has been enabled by people who have said nothing because of his power and wealth, he would not be the first.

From what I've found online, the media hasn't picked up on it yet (I myself was only made aware of it via my wife's Facebook feed). I would hope they cover it (or hotly deny it, as the Sun might well do).

For one time only, I am in agreement with the Sun and Mark Towhey: Get help. He clearly needs it.

 

However EC, for all appearances Ford was not there as a private person and in his role as mayor of the city. His staff and about 10 cops showed up in short time and trying to contain the spectacle.

nicky

Unionist I just read your post from Aug.1

I don't think Ford can be re-elected for a number of reasons.

Here is a story about the most recent polling:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/08/03/ttc_chair_karen_stintz_could_beat_ford_poll_says.html

You will see that both Chow and Tory hold wide leads on him. Even Adam Giambrone would be competitive (with Ford's margin no doubt supplied by certain Babblers)

I suspect that Ford has a ceiling of perhaps 40% and that the opposition is so disgusted with him that it will turn out in droves and coalesce around whoever emerges as his main competitor.

Ford's supposed subway "win" is starting to turn to dust. It may never get funded and even if it does will be a much more costly and much less efficient alternative to the LRT proposal he has saboutaged. People are starting to realize this.

There is also much more that will come out about the scandals of the Ford family. I know a number of reporters working on these stories as well as criminal lawyers who are starting to receive disclosure in the Project Traveler case. This will not die down. It will escalate.

You will see from the posts immediately above that there are new videos showing Ford apparently enebriated.

Even Conservatives are starting to keep the Fords at a distance. Hence the trial balloons for Karen Stintz and John Tory. 

The Sun is also retreating from its cheerleader role for the Fords. Read this story which is on the Sun's front page today:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/09/why-a-convicted-drug-dealer-burst-into-rob-fords-home-demanding-money

 

 

 

 

Unionist

Thanks for the info, nicky. Best of luck in unseating him. Here in Québec, mayors leave office either in handcuffs, or resigning just before the cops turn up.

 

Unionist

Ok, I'm officially joining the Fordwatch club.

[url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=170_1376117584#1IL0IsI3WkT8qtJU.01]"You want some blow, I'll get you some blow! I have it, seriously!"[/url]

Sineed

I've had to go on a diet - I've been getting fat off all the popcorn I've been munching while watching Ford antics the past few years. 

Junkyard Dog makes (yet another) cogent point: it isn't that the mayor is teflon; it's the fact that he lacks the shame to quit despite scandal after scandal.

Junkyard Dog wrote:
While it's obvious the Ford brothers are trying to snatch as much credit as they can for Holyday's win at Etobicoke-Lakeshore, it's a debatable claim to say the least.

Yes. I live close to Etobicoke, and in this area, Doug Holyday has been well-regarded by both the left and the right for years: back when Holyday was first elected as an alderman in 1982, Doug Ford was still selling hash at strip malls in Etobicoke, and Rob was 14 years old. If anything, it's the Fords who have benefited from Holyday and not the other way around. Now that Holyday is off to Queen's Park, Ford has lost his stauchest and most distinguished defender at City Hall. I'm thinking Holyday's departure from his office will mean that Ford won't be able to weather scandals with the same wilful insouciance.

CanadaOrangeCat

The left has to run one candidate to defeat Ford. If there is a spoiler, he wins.

nicky

There may be a fresh revelation in the Globe tomorrow.

Unionist

nicky wrote:

There may be a fresh revelation in the Globe tomorrow.

Meh, how come nobody commented on my revelation??

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/amy-macpherson/mayor-rob-ford-danforth-disa... Rob Ford Talking About Drugs on the Danforth?[/url]

 

lagatta

Well, obviously alcohol is a drug too - as is the coffee I'm drinking right now, and I confess the desire for a caffeine hit got me out of bed - but the difference is that the other substances he was allegedly discussing are illegal, and directly contrary to his mandate.

He could also die. Pretty lethal upper-downer combination. Not that this jerk's life and health are among my primary concerns, but aren't his family members concerned about him? He is also morbidly obese - I'm not saying that out of any "fat-shaming" (I'm no fashion model myself) but because it is a terrible strain on his heart. He also seems to eat crap, which is not good for the heart even among the naturally slim.

Worse, he could kill someone while driving his SUV in a dubious state.

nicky

Unfortunately Rob is so stoned on the video you can't make out precisely what he is saying. I alternately hear "blow" and "cologne" each time I listen.

Meanwhile, here is the Globe story, another link to the drug world:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/rob-ford-sought-meeting-with-inmate-in-after-hours-jail-visit/article13707729/?cmpid=rss1#dashboard/follows/

There is much more to come.

As the ancient Greeks said, "Character is destiny."

 

Mr.Tea

I no longer find the whole Ford spectacle to be funny. When he was merely an oaf falling down while trying to throw a football and bumping into cameras and saying stupid things, I laughed at the guy. But it now seems undeniable that he has some very serious problems and needs to get help. The guy has a family. I like to watch political opponents get defeated but I take no joy in seeing someone's personal life unravel like this.

Junkyard Dog

Yeah, Mayor Lumpenfuhrer is slurring his words so badly in that recording that it's a little difficult to make them out, but I'm pretty sure it's "cologne" he's jabbering about, not "blow." More's the pity, but honestly, the truly remarkable thing here is that someone with the image problems that Ford has apparently managed to slip off his handlers' leash at a high profile public event and make a complete drunken spectacle out of himself. Again. (Of course, we all knew it was just a matter of time until the next "incident," the only question being the level of embarrassment it was going to cause.) And again, the simpletons of Ford Nayshun are leaping to his defense as if this were normal, when it quite clearly is not.

The Globe story Nicky links to above is more of the same in its sheer bizarre quality, to say nothing of the borderline criminality it implies. This shit is not normal. Most politicians, as bad as many of them are, do not pull these kind of stunts. At Torontoist, a poster named Scrimbo made a comment about this latest that I found so spot-on I'm going to repeat it here:

And of course that after-hours visit to the jail by Ford -- who probably assumed his title was all he needed to gain entrance at a time of his liking (rules? We don't play by no stinkin' rules) -- will be written off by his faithful flock as just another good-guy thing Ford loves to do, spreading hope and love to anyone who hasn't had his extraordinary luck in life.

Never mind, of course, the apparent subterfuge of requesting a tour of a facility before revealing the real reason he was there after hours... or the question of why he would want to talk to a convicted drug offender and "childhood friend" at a time when he should be distancing himself from anything remotely related to drugs... or the sheer stupidity of not thinking his presence and unusual behaviour wouldn't lead to questions and coverage about his attempts to talk to the guy to talk about, you know, stuff.

At the Grid last week, Ed Keenan commented on the infamous photo Mayor Cracky posed for - you know, the one with him cuddling up to drug dealers and gang members, all of whom are now either dead or in jail - and made the case for the patently obvious, i.e. that something is very, very wrong here.

http://www.thegridto.com/blog-post/the-photo-that-gets-more-incriminating-all-the-time/

This is what really gets me about El Cracko-Drunko's rabid base of fanboy defenders: Their attempts to normalize the over-the-top antics of their hero, dismissing all the shady & potentially criminal weirdness as if it's nothing more damning than youthful highjinks. I realize it's hardly unusual for political reactionaries to excuse behavior in their own people that they'd be calling for the harshest punishments imaginable were said behavior coming from political enemies. We see that kind of blatant double standard all the time, especially across the border, with creeps like Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Dave Vitter, et al (God knows there's an exhaustive list of these creatures), but it's surreal to see it here, and in such an undiluted form.

My real worry is that if Ford is allowed to leave office under his own terms, then apart from all the other damage he's going to cause in the meantime (which will be quite bad enough all by itself, natch), the floodgates will be opened for every grifter, con artist, nutcase or political extremist with an axe to grind to enter the fray and take advantage of the road already paved by Mayor Lumpenfuhrer. And why wouldn't that happen? As we can see, our system clearly has no idea how to handle somebody like Ford. He's being left alone to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, no matter how outrageous, and that's an uncomfortable precedent to say the least. I look at the snake pit the American political system has become, and I can't say I want that replicated here. But if Ford gets away with this shit, he may well be just the beginning.

Stockholm

CanadaOrangeCat wrote:

The left has to run one candidate to defeat Ford. If there is a spoiler, he wins.

I can almost guarantee that there will only be one "left" candidate against Ford and that will be Olivia Chow. Any other candidate will be a centre right type like John Tory or Karen Stintz who is there for the "too smart to vote for Ford, too rich to vote for Chow" crowd from North Toronto

Unionist

nicky wrote:

Unfortunately Rob is so stoned on the video you can't make out precisely what he is saying. I alternately hear "blow" and "cologne" each time I listen.

Yeah, that allegation smelled funny. I'll find another scandal.

 

Junkyard Dog

Taiwanese animators sure do love Rob Ford!

http://torontoist.com/2013/08/extra-extra-another-taiwanese-animation-a-skydome-and-a-durian/

And over at the Grid, Ed Keenan once again hits the nail on the head by doing nothing more than stating the obvious:

http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/drinking-break-ins-jail-visits-rob-ford-and-the-matter-of-context/

nicky

This story dominates the front page of the Star this morning:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/08/16/police_probe_mayor_rob_ford_friends_who_sought_crack_video.html

 

Ford is now facing not just allegations of stupidity and substance abuse. This raises things to a new level - possible obstruction of justice through destruction of evidence.

arielc

nicky wrote:

This story dominates the front page of the Star this morning:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/08/16/police_probe_mayor_rob_ford_friends_who_sought_crack_video.html

 

Ford is now facing not just allegations of stupidity and substance abuse. This raises things to a new level - possible obstruction of justice through destruction of evidence.

Ford has a drinking problem, probably an impaired driving tendency, and possibly a crack problem when he's drinking, but I'm not clear on what crime the police are investigating by looking for the video . It can't be proven from a video that there's crack in the pipe and there wasn't evidence of drug sales on the video. All I can think of is extortion - using the crack video to blackmail Ford?

Anybody have any insight into the possible reasons for police investigation of the video?

lagatta

Incredible. Ford has no business hiring a serial stalker as a bodyguard - is this on "taxpayers' money"?

quote: One target of the investigation is Alexander “Sandro” Lisi, 35, a Range Rover-driving Etobicoke man with a criminal history of threatening and assaulting women, who has been acting as an occasional driver and security guard for the mayor.

By the way, the Star's paywall has taken effect, so we'll have to keep that in mind.

nicky

To answer arielc there are several ways in which the video can be evidence and its supression obstruction of justice.

First, just because the video may not be conclusive evidence does not mean it is not evidence. Most offences are proven in court by a combination of bits of evidence that take sterength from one another. For example:

If Ford were smoking an instrument that an expert witness could say was usually used to smoke crack

If he makes some comment like"this sure is good crack"

If he gets quickly inebriated after injection. 

If he mixes the crack with baking soda in order to freebase it.

If it can be proven he has gone to great lengths to suppress the video giving rise to an inference he had something to hide...

All of these things can add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford possessed cocaine.

Alternatively, it is not necessary for the Crown to actually allege the substance is cocaine. The gravaman of the offence is possession of a narcotic. Identifying exactly which narcotic is not strictly necessary.

As well, Said, the man who trie dto sell the video, was quoted in the Star a couple weeks back as saying Ford was sold cocaine. He could be called as a witness to substantiate this comment.

Therefore obtaining and destroying the vodeo may constitute obstruction WRT a possession charge against Ford.

But it can also constitute evidence of trafficking against Said and others who are presently charged with trafficking. Trafficking includes not just selling but also giving. Ford can therefore be seen as obstructing a trafficking charge against the person(s) from whom he obtained the cocaine.

nicky

This is in the Toronto Sun this morning:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/17/sun-questions-mayor-rob-ford-on-alleged-police-probe

Although not quite as negative as the Star story, this is still highly critical of Ford. I know I have said this before, but it is increasingly apparent that the Sun is significantly distancing itself from Ford. It knows there is more out there, much more. I know that some of its reporters are trying to track this down. The paper has ceased to be an uncritical cheerleader for the Fords.

The Sun knows that the Fords are stinking up the Conservative brand and that worse is to come. I think they may want to ease him out of contesting the next election in order to give a more respectable Conservative a clear run.

The comments following the story are also largely critical of Ford, which is significant because the last bastion of "Ford Nayshun" is the Sun readership.

Here are a couple for example:

Gilmour592   Charley33 • 9 hours ago

Well, of course The Sun has abandoned Ford cheerleading. Despite what people might want others to believe, The Sun is a newspaper doing it's best to investigate newsworthy stories like any other paper. They recognize this as newsworthy and are rightfully reporting on it. People have a lot invested in the Fords and it's hard to stop defending someone who you have spent so long defending. It's understandable.

  •  4 
  • Reply
  • Share ›
    • Avatarwilliamblake1  Gilmour592 • 7 hours ago

      the SUN is not nor ever has been a NEWSpaper... it may pass as a gossip column or as political propaganda... however it's editorial staff can sometimes be wise enough to see when someone (like FORD) is hell-bent on destroying themselves and decide that maybe just maybe it might be time to cut ties and cut our losses...

    • 20  3 
    • Reply
    • Share ›

     

    nicky

    Another damaging article about the Fords in this morning's SUN

     

    http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/19/councillor-doug-ford-urged-to-get-his-brother-help

     

    Just as significant are the comments from readers. They are 90% critical of the Fords. Many are scathing, even mocking.

    The Fords have become figures of ridicule, even with their former base.

    Unionist

    [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/08/20/toronto-rob-ford-... Ford crack stories subject of press council complaints[/url]

    Quote:

    A complaint against a Toronto Star story that alleged Mayor Rob Ford was videotaped smoking crack cocaine will be the subject of a public hearing next month, the Ontario Press Council announced Monday.

    In addition, the council will also look at a separate complaint against the Globe and Mail related to an article it wrote about the alleged drug dealings of Ford's brother, Coun. Doug Ford.

    The decision to hold the public hearings follows a deluge of complaints against the newspapers over their coverage of the Fords.

     

    Sineed

    Quote:
    Darylle Donley is the complainant against the Star.

    Could this be "Dave from Scarborough?"

    nicky

    I don't think that the Fords relish the Press Council hearing. It is being held in response not to complaints from them but from individual Ford fans.

    The Council will be examining whether the stories were properly sourced, whether there was a public interst in running them, and whether the Fords were given proper opportunity to respond.

    I know a couple of the reporters involved and am confident that they have multiple credible sources. They also repeatedly invited responses from the Fords who declined to respond in any detail and who tried to have at least one of the stories killed. The papers sought legal advice at every turn and would not have run these stories unless they thought they were on firm ground.

    This will all come out at the hearing. The complainants will likely be individual citizens without legal representation, unlike the papers. The Fords once again will give no explanations nor answer questions.

    This time their silence will be even more deafening.

    Unionist

    I'm curious to see how the Globe will explain [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford... voyeuristic little tale - including Doug Ford selling hash during the 1980s ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU]BURN HIM!!![/url]).

    The MSM is generally incapable of distinguishing between the public interest and the pubic interest.

    nicky

    Unionist, apart from the salacious details the public has an interest in the Ford drug connections for any number of reasons:

    1. The possible addiction of our mayor which affects his performance of his duties and the dignity of his office.

    2. The Fords' credibility in denying any improprieties

    3. Hypocricy in promoting a law-n-order agenda.

    4. Long -standing connections with the drug world which extend from High School to the present day. A number of their alleged drug-dealing friends from the past have ongoing relationships with the Fords and even positions on staff.

    5. A possible of obstruction of justice allegation (which the police are in fact investigting) linked to the supprssion of the video....

    6. etc., etc., etc......

    You were asking a rhetorical question, weren't you?

    Unionist

    Nicky, I think a story about the Mayor's brother dealing hash 30 years ago is dirty, reactionary, salacious, gutter journalism, which has nothing to do with anything except trying to regain some lost market share. And for progressive people to legitimize such crap merely indicates a level of all-out desperate frustration at being unable to get rid of distasteful anti-worker anti-people right-wing mayor through legitimate means. Let me know if you're not sure what I mean by "legitimate means".

     

    nicky

    Unionist, I agree that it would be preferable to debate Ford on the issues, defeat him at the polls and repudiate his sorry program, such as it is.

    But that was the approach Adrian Dix recently took, ignoring questions of character and scandal.

    I also think that character and scandal are relevant, particularly when it comes to the Fords. There is a very broad battlefield here but I will try to distill it down to what I think is its essence.

    Ever since High School the Fords have consorted with a variety of drug dealers, petty criminals and addicts. They may well have crossed the line into these activities themselves. This association has been ongoing and continues even today. These questionable associates are social friends, political fixers and can even be found in the inner circle of Ford's mayoral staff. Some of them may well have engaged in obstruction of justice in attempting to destroy eveidence.

    Surely it is relevant to the electorate's assessment of Ford that these allegations be aired and either substantiated or repudiated. 

    You may remember that Adam Giambrone was crucified on Babble for much lesser sins. Remind me whether you came to his defence.

    Unionist

    nicky wrote:

    You may remember that Adam Giambrone was crucified on Babble for much lesser sins. Remind me whether you came to his defence.

    [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/giambrone-election-imbroglio?page=3#comm...

    Unionist wrote:
    The attacks on Giambrone for his private sex life remind me of the campaign against Rob Ford for smoking crack. Progressive people (IMHO) should not get sucked into these dangerous diversions. [...] Sounds to me as if what Giambrone did to Chhabra was also far worse than his private philandering. That's a political act, and the kind of betrayal the public has a right to be concerned about.

    [I thought I made that distinction rather well! Gotta praise myself when no one else will...]

    Back in 2010, I tried to ridicule all the babblers that were doing a Tiger Woods oh-I'm-so-shocked over Adam Giambrone. When that didn't work, I had to get serious:

    Unionist, February 11, 2010 wrote:

    Much of this discussion sounds like a bunch of voyeurs salivating over some people's private sex lives, which are none of our business. Or, getting worked up over a celebrity mag or soap opera plot.

    None of what Giambrone or Lucas or whoever did is of any public interest whatsoever.

    [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/miller-mayor?page=2#comment-11112...

    Unionist wrote:
    Doug wrote:
    Someone who's a scumbag privately might not treat the public with the respect it deserves either.

    I know of no evidence of a link between private and public virtue.

    And [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/miller-mayor?page=2#comment-11114...

    Unionist wrote:

    Good statement by David Miller:

    Miller says he won't ask Giambrone to resign

    David Miller wrote:

    “The test I have for whether someone should be in a leadership role is whether they're succeeding. … The TTC's story is one of tremendous success under his leadership.” [...]

    “Pierre Trudeau once said that government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,” Mr. Miller said. “I think, frankly, there are areas where the media have no business as well. Adam Giambrone has stood before the people of Toronto, he has accepted responsibility on their actions and he's working with his partner on their private life. And that's his private life. … He's acknowledged he's done something wrong, and he's paid the consequences in front of all the people of Toronto, and probably of Canada.”

     

    I try to be consistent.

     

    nicky

    Yes you have been consistent over Giambrone. Just not between him and Ford.

    Bacchus

    Unionist wrote:

    Nicky, I think a story about the Mayor's brother dealing hash 30 years ago is dirty, reactionary, salacious, gutter journalism, which has nothing to do with anything except trying to regain some lost market share. And for progressive people to legitimize such crap merely indicates a level of all-out desperate frustration at being unable to get rid of distasteful anti-worker anti-people right-wing mayor through legitimate means. Let me know if you're not sure what I mean by "legitimate means".

     

     

    Right up with there with Jack Layton visited a rub and tug

    Unionist

    nicky wrote:

    Yes you have been consistent over Giambrone. Just not between him and Ford.

    Ok, I'll bite. What do you mean by that? I actually have no clue what you're saying. Let me tell you what I'm saying. Leave both their private lives alone - sex, crack, whatever. Shut down the scandal sheets. Stop with the shock doctrine. Examine their political acts, not their personal ones. Ford, Giambrone, Layton, Mulcair, all of them.

     

    Junkyard Dog

    I had a good laugh glancing at the CBC story about the complaints the Ontario Press Council received about the negative media coverage of our own, homegrown Benito Mussolini and Al Capone. Why, land sakes, the Council's gotten a grand and glorious total of 41 - count 'em!! 41!!!!! - complaints about the press not being properly deferential towards the twin Kings of Toronto. (41! If that isn't a veritable tidal wave of grassroots support, I don't know what is.) Undecided

    Yeah, that was sarcasm, y'all. In case you couldn't tell.

    Meanwhile, I see the usual apologists here for the Brothers Ford are busy sobbing and blubbering and boo hooing and carrying on to a Fare-Thee-Well over the cruel treatment that poor, presecuted, helpless, defenseless, inoffensive, innocent widdle Slob and Thug have been getting from that bad ol' lie-beral media. Gasp! How dare the libtards and the far left Globe & Mail (and the far left Sun Media as well now, evidently) and the Communist Broadcasting Corporation even think to hold Pigface and his thug brother accountable for their actions?!?!? No fair!

    Unionist, I'm a gay male. Over the years, I've sometimes participated in disscussions concerning the issue of outing well-known personalities whose public (and usually quite opportunistic) homophobia masks their own secret sexual lives. I'd long since come to the conclusion that there are no easy answers when it comes to outing famous people who'd prefer to remain in the closet; it's a complicated subject to say the least...with one exception: If the person in question is willfully promoting anti-gay bigotry purely in order to promote his/her own selfish interests - and this happens a lot in the world of politics, obviously - then said person forfeits any legitimate right to privacy when it comes to his or her own life. That's simple common sense. But what does that have to do with Mayor Lumpenfuhrer, you ask? Well, allow me to quote from Nicky's eminently sensible list above:

    3. Hypocricy in promoting a law-n-order agenda.

    This alone justifies all the stories about Ford's (and his brother's) own less than saintly conduct over the years. You cannot wrap yourself in the flag of hyper Law 'N' Order publicly and privately behave as if laws and rules have nothing to do with you, let alone keep up a consistent pattern of rampant low level criminality your entire life...especially if you're a politician! Again, that's just simple, painfully obvious common sense. The dullest, stupidest rube out there can grasp such a distinction. Why you keep pretending you can't understand it is beyond me.

    And for progressive people to legitimize such crap merely indicates a level of all-out desperate frustration at being unable to get rid of distasteful anti-worker anti-people right-wing mayor through legitimate means.

    Right you are, Unionist. It's far, far better to lose a million elections "honorably" than win even once by resorting to such dirty, filthy gutter tactics as, oh, say, using our opponents' history and demonstrable actions against them. You know, the same tactics that actually work for the right and have enabled them coast to victory after victory after victory. That would be unseemly.

    Rob and Doug Ford thank you for your selfless devotion to their cause.

    Right up with there with Jack Layton visited a rub and tug

    Oh, for fuck's sakes! Uh, no, it Goddamed well isn't. For a start, Layton did nothing wrong or illegal in that smear of a "story," something the Fords can't exactly claim in all the unflattering media coverage about them. But I'm getting sick and tired of pointing out the obvious to incompetent, half-wit "progressives" so addicted to losing that they insist on spewing the Fords' propaganda for them.

    voice of the damned

    For a start, Layton did nothing wrong or illegal in that smear of a "story,"

    Well, by his own account, he didn't. By his account, he had managed to spend his entire life in a major city without acquiring the street-smarts to figure out what sort of services would be on offer at a massage parlour called The Velvet Touch.

    And you're free to believe that, if it sounds plausible to you. Just ss others are free to believe that two Toronto Star reporters and an American blogger they'd never even met all decided to start making up stories about a non-existent video, if that sounds plausible to them. 

    Junkyard Dog

    It seems this thread has fallen into a pattern of sorts: The comments fly fast and furious whenever additional Ford scandals pop up (for as we all know, it's usually just a matter of time until the next one), but in between these bouts of major league unpleasantries, the dialogue here tends to be a bit on the slow side. Even when it comes to the more typically embarrassing, run-of-the-mill, day-to-day antics of our so-called Mayor...such as, oh, idiotic, substance-free p.r. stunts like arm wresting Hulk Hogan. (And just one comment on that, if I may: I imagine Hogan isn't exactly a deep personality, but I'm honestly surprised he was willing to indulge Boss Hogg to the extent that he'd pretend to lose a contest of physical strength to the rancid sack of shit; 61 years old or not, I doubt the Hulkster could lose to someone so grotesquely out of shape.)

    Anyway, here's a recent item I wanted to highlight: As some of you may already know, Torontoist posts a weekly recap/commentary of Slob and Thug's radio show after it's aired, which usually amounts to - what else? - a check list of lies, ignorant know-nothingisms, dim witted yokel "humor" and shameless self promotions. here's an example, covering their broadcast from the Exhibition last week, which was quite the performance from the sounds of it:

    http://torontoist.com/2013/08/the-rob-ford-radio-recap-live-from-the-cne/

    I know that most politicians have less-than spotless reputations when it comes to telling the truth, but you know, even by those debased standards, it's possible to stand out from the pack. It goes without saying that a radio address from a pair of bullshit artists like the Fords couldn't possibly add up to anything better than a laundry list of distortions, smears, fabrications, half truths, pig-ignorance, propaganda and out-and-out lies. That's a given. But even compared to their usual efforts, the two slimebags really outdid themselves at the Ex. Here's Edward Keenan reporting on it at the Grid:

    http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/sometimes-a-ford-notion/

    It's a remarkable performance; Without a hint of shame or the least smidgen of self-awareness, the two pigs just spew out lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie. And that's nothing new, or unusual, or out of place for them. As Keenan says in the above story, it's genuinely disturbing to note that this is just standard operating procedure for them, so much so that nobody takes note of it, or even bothers to comment on it anymore. These two liars may well be the most instinctively dishonest bastards the Toronto political scene has ever dealt with. Which is saying something, when you stop to think about it. After all, it's not like that's a catagory that's had any shortage of competition over the years.

    Tommy_Paine

    Gott im Himmel I agree with Unionist. Makes me wonder that I have to be wrong, somewhere.

    But anyway, if this was our ox being gored, we'd be screaming media vendetta, and we'd be right to.  This sleazy media machine that's now geared up to save Toronto is the same machine that landed Toronto with Rob Ford.

    It's the same machine that, at the behest of Navigator P.R., dragged Darcy Sheppard through the mud.  This isn't a spectator sport where it's only notables that get this kind of treatment.  It can happen to you, or me, or our kids. 

    I don't care that for once it may be geared up for a very good reason-- or a reason that warms the cockles of my politically partizan heart.  Because 99% of the time, it's this power structure that works against our interests.

    Let's recap. 

    The Toronto Star broke the story about Adam Giambrone's infedlity.  Which sank his candidacy, and any hope for anything that resembled a leftish of center candidacy. 

    This fit neatly into having the Star's choice, George Smitherman, a right of center candidate carry the flag for "Progressives" in the Mayor's race.  How cynical was that candidacy?  Slitherman chose P.R. specialists from each political party-- the Tories, the Liberals and the NDP.  And they argued amoung themselves about which spectrum of politics they had the best chance of winning on. 

    If I lived in Toronto, the temptation to vote Ford out of spite would have had my hands trembling at the ballot box.

    This idiot mayor is very much the product of the stupidity and cynicism of the media, and the Toronto Star in particular. 

    MegB

    Junkyard Dog, criticize Ford to your heart's content, but leave off on the references to his obesity and calling him a "rancid piece of shit". Apart from showing disgust and contempt for all people who struggle with their weight, you're ignoring most of the substance of what is deeply wrong with Mayor Ford, and by spewing venom about superficial items you are dragging the tone of the discussion down.

    Thank you.

    Junkyard Dog

    My goodness, Tommy. I do hope you didn't lose too much sleep the past couple of nights, weeping into your pillow over the cruel treatment poor victimized widdle Wob Fowd has received from the eve-ull liberal media. And you know something, you're right: No other politician in the history of the world has ever been held accountable in the press for falsehoods or habitual dishonesty. And certainly no other politico, anywhere, has ever suffered actual criticism (gasp! swoon!) for the near pathological levels of dissembling and self-aggrandizement that Rofo and his thug of a brother regularly engage in as a matter of course. Oh, my gracious me, heavens to betsy, no! The Fords are entirely unique in the 'persecution' they've faced. Boss Hogg is indeed as innocent as a lamb, practically a modern day Candide. Perhaps he should start showing up at public events dressed as Shirley Temple in order to facilitate that child-like sense of wide-eyed wonder and innocence that seems to affect people like yourself so profoundly. Maybe he should even do a tap dance and sing a few rounds of "Good Ship Lollypop" whenever he's in public, just to hammer home what an adorable l'il cutie pie he is! (God knows it wouldn't be any less dignified than the usual behavior we actually see from the oaf.)

    Or to put it another way: Are you fucking kidding me?

    Hey, gang, get a load of this: I place a couple of links to articles that point out in merciless detail how the Fords seem incapable of opening their mouths without lying, and the first - and so far, only - response is exactly the sort of self-defeating, empty headed posturing that I've come to expect from certain types on our side who are supposedly against the Fords and what they stand for but who can't wait to start rolling around in puddles of their own piss at the very thought of seeing the Fords politically damaged in any significant way. Never mind that the Fords themselves would never be suicidal enough to indulge in such cheap, masturbatory self-sabotage if the shoe were on the other foot (hell, no; they'd move in for the kill immediately), and never mind that the rotten fuckers just plain don't deserve such consideration. Need it be pointed out yet again that these two assholes are not normal politicians? Doug, espcially, is an extremely nasty piece of work, not that the pair of them wouldn't be more than bad enough even if they were what passes for "normal" Tory politicos these days.

    No, let's set all that aside, because I've got bigger fish to fry. What really gets me about the dribbling horseshit Tommy spouts above is its real life consequences. In the real world, whenever non-political types get fed up with the status quo, and start to think about voting for, say, the NDP, they witness people on our side deliberately shooting themselves in the foot in just such a manner, and it scares them straight into the arms of whatever lesser reactionaries happen to be available, as long as they're advertising themselves as being in opposition to the official right wing and they at least appear to be minimally competent. When people who don't follow politics closely get a good look at the kind of stupid shit just above, it horrifies them. It doesn't look principled or ethical or fair or even-handed or even remotely moral. No, it looks like nothing other than rank, straight-up incompetence, and a preening, narcissistic brand of incompetence at that: "Lookit me while I help out a fascist troglodyte who'd never return the favor if our positions were reversed! Lookit! Lookit! Lookit! Me! Me! Meeeeeee!" No, if they're actually hoping you'll protect them from the Rob Fords of the world, then it doesn't look good - to say the least - if you do nothing but make excuses for the bastards you're supposed to be opposing, particularly if you do it in the most cringing, bootlicking manner possible: "Wah! Wah! Wah! The Toronto Star said mean things about Ford! That means everything he claims is true! It proves it! And I have credibility when I say that, 'cause I'm an accredited lefty who's unneccesarily defending a brutish, lying, far right nut! Now, vote for me, even though I've just shown I'm never going to try and inconvenience my opponents in any real way!"

    Uh, no, this doesn't work. It pisses off and demoralizes the people on your side, and it doesn't impress the genuine true believers on the opposite side of the fence who'd sooner cut their own throats than vote for commie-pinko-fhaggit types. (Ford Nayshun, in this particular case.) But the non-ideological folks who voted for a Rob Ford the first time around and might be pursuaded to vote against him next time because they've been alarmed at his conduct since then? Well, their reactions to such displays can usually be summed up thusly: "This is who we're going to trust to stand up to the likes of Stephen Harper or Mike Harris or Rob Ford? Really?" It drives them straight into the arms of the Liberals. Or back to the Conservatives, since they culturally identify with them anyway, and if they're not going to get any significant change that benefits them by voting for the party of the left, then they may as well go with what they know. At least that way, they get their egos stroked and their cultural prejudices catered to...and if nothing else is on the menu, they're generally willing to settle for that. (It may not get them anything tangible, but it's better than nothing. Fuck, it's usually more than we on the left get.) Or they just don't vote at all. And the poor fools who are at least partly responsible for this outcome by their completely unnecessary aid-and-comfort to the enemy invariably scratch their heads and wonder how in the hell did that happen?

    But anyway, if this was our ox being gored, we'd be screaming media vendetta, and we'd be right to.

    No, actually, we wouldn't. The fatal flaw in your little analysis is the automatic - one might even say magical - removal of Ford's own conduct from the entire equation, as if his behavior had nothing to do with anything. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that this really was the vendetta you claim it to be. If so, then Ford's done plenty of damage to himself, with no prodding whatsoever, by giving the media loads of grist for the mill, wouldn't you say? For Christ's sakes, nobody put a gun to Ford's greasey head and forced him to consistently act like a wild-eyed lunatic or repeatedly break every rule or law that happened to get in his way. That's entirely his own fault. He has nobody but himself to thank for that. And that would be the case, even if you were correct here. Which you're not.

    Why? Because none of the reports on the shit surrounding Mayor Lumpenfuhrer is made up. None of it. You do understand that, right? Then again, maybe you don't, seeing as the two links I posted above that had you clutching your pearls were entirely accurate summaries of Ford's (and his scumbag brother's) habitual, near-pathological, self-promoting tendency to often and repeatedly - and demonstrably - lie through their teeth every time the opportunity presents itself. "Oh, but how cruel to actually report on that!" Give me a break. Most of what we could term genuine vendettas in the media are at least partially built on bullshit; they have to be, since the facts need to be twisted to fit pre-conceived outcomes in actual media hit pieces. Not this time. With the Fords, we have a practical tsunami of sleaze, unethical behavior, law breaking and extremist politics. Add in the clownish personal antics, and you have the makings of a carnival sideshow. It's not much of a vendetta that merely points a camera and accurately records what the freakshow does, now, is it?

    I could go on. And I will. Point #3: For all the suppposed "the media have it in for the Fords" crap that keeps getting shovelled by his apologists (as well as self-involved leftist lackwits who really should know better), the fact remains that Ford has gotten plenty of support from the local media, and continues to get it every time they promote one of his idiotic p.r. stunts (like, say, wrasslin' with Hulk Hogan) as if it's actual news. Even the Sun, which has supposedly turned against Ford to some small extent in recent weeks, continues to hedge their bets with additional puff pieces about what a great guy he is published alongside the more critical reports about what the man actually, y'know, does. CITY TV, CFTO, the usual talk radio suspects, they all love Ford. Oh, but Little Orphan Fordie doesn't have a friend in the world! Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!

    This idiot mayor is very much the product of the stupidity and cynicism of the media, and the Toronto Star in particular.

    I happen to agree with that - not that Ford or his imbecile fanboys in Ford Nayshun are capable of understanding the point, nor would they care if they did - but what of it? Yes, the Star is a neoliberal rag that bears a good portion of the blame for Ford being in power to begin with. I don't disagree in the least. Does it matter? Now that's he's in an actual position of power, I prefer to focus on getting him out of City Hall, and if the Star is willing to do its part in eliminating this particular Frankenstien Monster that they're partially responsible for creating, I say let them. It may even be the Star is trying to make up for their part in propelling Ford into the Mayor's office to begin with. I'm cynical enough to doubt that myself, but I think the case could be made. Not that it matters, in any event. In this particular instance, I'm perfectly willing to capatalize on whatever assitance happens to come my way. We're not exactly in a position to be picky, here. This is an imperfect world, and sometimes you just have to take what you can get.

    Look, I don't mean to come off as an asshole here. I freely admit my anger at Ford may come off as harsh (though I've spoken to people whose hatred of Ford makes me look like the Sweet Voice of Reason by comparison), but it honestly drives me nuts having to explain kindergarten levels of shit to otherwise intelligent people who shouldn't need to have such things explained to them. I hardly think I'm the Amazing Kreskin by assuming Ford's theme for the next Mayoral campaign is going to be along the lines of "I'm History's Greatest Victim!" At the very bare minimum, I don't think we should give him credibility by doing his propaganda work for him.

    Junkyard Dog

    Whoops, my last post was so long-winded (and took so long to compose) that I missed Rebecca's comment just above until now. Let me just say that I've been trying to avoid any mocking of Ford's physical appearence in my comments here, not because he especially deserves any consideration (he doesn't), but because I recognize that is a preferred standard of this forum, and I try not to be an asshole where I can. That said, I didn't intend "rancid piece of shit" as a commentary on his weight, and if some people took it as such, I regret the confusion.

    Also, just for fun, here's a comment a poster calling himself "Tennessee Delight" contributed to a thread at Torontoist that concerns Ford's recent mano-a-mano with Hulk Hogan:

    Just came back from Fan Expo and Hogan told me that Ford paid him $25,000 to lose to him. Not sure if I believe it as Hogan is known to not be the most honest guy, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

    Now, assuming this guy's even telling the truth himself (anonymous internet poster and all that), it doesn't mean that Hogan wasn't fibbing when he made that little claim. But I, for one, can certainly believe it. Fits Ford's, er, "character," and the otherwise puzzling outcome of that idiotic spectacle is explained rather nicely, no? I wouldn't have thought someone like Hogan would need to rake in any spare pocket change in such a manner, but what the hell. 25 grand for one vapid publicity stunt that takes 10 seconds to stage isn't bad money.

    nicky

    Hard to believe that Rob beat Hulk.

    Could it have been the performance enhancing medicine?

    nicky

    Hard to believe that Rob beat Hulk.

    Could it have been the performance enhancing medicine?

    mark_alfred

    Apparently the city's debt has grown under Ford.  link

    Paul Moloney wrote:

    The City of Toronto has gone deeper into debt under Mayor Rob Ford.

    The city’s net long-term debt grew by about $800 million in Ford’s first two years of office, 2011 and 2012.

    As of the end of 2012, it stood at $3.7 billion, compared with $2.9 billion at the end of 2010, former mayor David Miller’s last year in office.

    mark_alfred

    CBC reports that Ford lost his bid to have an election to replace Holyday.  In spite of his continued popularity in the suburbs, he is becoming a lame duck mayor within City Council.  But, he still does have some influence.  IE, he's successfully demonized LRT as an option (though equal blame goes to the Ontario Liberals for not being more supportive of Miller's Transit City).  In essence, he's doing what he and all other neo-Libs and Cons wish to do, which is to cripple and minimize government and give more power to big business.  His message is that it's not important for the chief magistrate to be competent, because he feels the job itself (along with all public service jobs) is not important.

    Regarding whether it's correct or not to report on his bizarre behaviour, allow me to reflect on some of what was reported.  There were many incidents reported, of which some were alleged and some were seen.  Here's a small list: .... drunkenness including potential DUI, smoking crack with constituents during business hours, spending large amounts of work time coaching football, hiring staff who then spend much of their time coaching football, making attendance claims at work which don't match with parking records obtained via freedom of information requests, making dubious claims of monetary savings for the city, sexually assaulting a past mayoral candidate, menacingly chasing and threatening a reporter who's investigating a possible improper property claim of the mayor's, etc.

    I think if the media, and those who feel the chief magistrate should be competent and that the job is important, ignore this buffoonery, then the battle is lost.  The message that the public service (up to and including the chief magistrate) are not important jobs becomes the norm.  Most jobs/professions carry certain standards for behaviour.  For instance, lawyers, paralegals, doctors, social workers, nurses, etc., are expected to not engage in behaviour that will cast their profession in disrepute.  One would think that not casting the profession of mayor in disrepute would be an expectation.

    So, as I said before, I feel that Rob Ford's (and other neo-Libs/Cons) mission is to denigrate the public service for the benefit of big business.  So, the act of ignoring Ford's denigration of the Mayor's office simply serves to perpetuate it.

    However, I will say that I don't think Ford himself would be quick to point out other's denigration of the integrity of the job (IE, "if the shoe were on the other foot"), regardless of what political stripe they come from.  For instance, he was pretty casual about the whole Giambrone news item (Adam's affair).  He's not the same as Harper is on that front.  Ford'll attack those who strive for higher integrity and better services in public office, but otherwise he doesn't focus too much time on attacks, I feel.

    voice of the damned

    "For instance, he was pretty casual about the whole Giambrone news item (Adam's affair)."

    Yeah, I recall the radio interview he gave on that. Even after the reporter argued that there were issues besides sex involved in the case, eg. possible leaking of information, Ford still refused to criticize Giambrone, and even pointed out that it was unproven whether he was the source of whatever leaks were under discussion.

     

    MegB

    Dog, you may have been "trying to avoid " the fat jokes and "don't mean " to be an asshole, but frankly, no one is that inept.

    You've earned a 24 hour vacation.

    Unionist

    [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-says... Ford says he has smoked a lot of pot[/url]

    That's it. He's gotta go. No video needed here. We have a confession!!!

    Same with Kathleen Wynne.

     

    mark_alfred

    Interesting.  A while back the thing for people of influence to do was go up north and eat seal with the Inuit.  Now, politicians are falling all over themselves to declare that they've smoked pot.  Well, I guess that's an improvement....  I'm in debt up to my eyeballs.

    nicky

    Pages