All those people who feel sorry for poor, voiceless, ganged-upon mayor Ford should consider that both he and his puppet-master / brother have a weekly radio show on Newstalk 1010 where they regularly cross the line on both taste and legality. They only allow callers who toe their line, and unrepentantly take the opportunity to openly insult and denigrate both fellow councillors and any citizens who disagree with the mayor’s “agenda”.

“This is what happens from a person that has never run a business in their entire lives,” Ford jabbed on-air in typical manner at Stintz after discovering that the contract for the concessions in the TTC (the candy / magazine stands, fast-food outlets, etc.), were sole-sourced. That means that no one else competed (or had a chance to compete), for the bid.

To be fair, sole-sourced contracts are something Ford raged about (along with Asians, gays, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.), and I think it could be successfully argued that they’re generally not a good idea. And perhaps Ford could’ve prevented it, or at least brought it to light before any contract was signed, but of course he couldn’t do that because His Lardness was too fucking busy coaching his high school football team to actually do his job.

Ford had missed countless meetings on numerous topics, including many that Stintz had requested prior to the deal. In fact, the deal was on the mayor’s desk since October 2012, completely ignored and unchallenged because Fordo can’t be bothered to do his job. That’s at least 4 months that he failed to perform his duties. That’s four months where he openly lied to the citizenry, claiming he was saving the city money, running the best administration the city’s ever seen, etc., when in reality he was fucking off early every day (or simply not showing up), to go coach his team.

And this from a man that claims that City Hall should be run like a business. Really, Robbie? If this was a business, your ass would have been fired a long time ago!

But Ford is a rich, entitled, rude career politician who’s built up a reputation of abusing power, deceit, hatred, insults, deflection and blame. This is why so many people are out for his head — Miller never faced this many lawsuits, and I’m going to guess it’s because he actually tried to do his job.

Now that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act has basically been tossed to the curb (after really only one test run — Ford is the only mayor corrupt enough for it so far), the citizens of Toronto have no options. No options to impeach or otherwise remove Ford for his complete and abject failure to both do and be able to do his job (I can’t imagine what job he’d be suitable for, to be honest). Toronto is now set up to see a run of the worst, divisive, ineffective, and just plain stupid administration we’ve ever seen, voted in by a whopping 25% “majority” of Torontonians.

Ford will continue to fail to fulfill his campaign promises, insult the people he demands to lord over (i.e. everyone), skip work to go play, ignore laws and rules, ignore his duties, and just generally stay the deep-down dickhead that he is. After all, what’s to hold him to account on any of it?

City planners rejected the proposed tower at 323-333 King Street West when it was supposed to be 39 storeys, with 201 condo units. So the developer bought an adjacent property and redrew the tower at 47 storeys with 304 condo units.

Now the city planners are in favour of it.

A staff report suggesting that city council approve the tower comes to Toronto and East York Community Council Wednesday morning.

Al Carbone, the founder and longtime owner of Kit Kat, an Italian eatery on the city’s historic “restaurant row,” adjoining the proposed tower, is aghast. He plans to speak out at Wednesday’s meeting, even though he says the city never advised him of its change of plan.

“This gives nothing to the city and more to the developer,” Mr. Carbone says. “The tower got bigger. It didn’t get better — it got worse. I can understand if the building shrunk.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/posted-toronto/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/12/city-planners-now-love-plan-for-47-storey-building-they-rejected-at-39-storeys

I know I’ve written about that hateful little troll, Toronto Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy, before, but now that the one man that could make her forget she’s gay (Rob Ford), has gotten off on a technicality, she is in full-on murder-everyone-who-doesn’t agree-with-you mode.

No, it’s not a “right” or “left” thing, Conservative versus Liberal thing (how did all the “Commies” suddenly become Liberals anyways?!), it’s an asshole versus reasonable human being thing. I mean, if she’s so hot for gambling and prostitutes and all the other crap Ford wants to swaddle the city with, why doesn’t she walk on down to the nearest street corner and spread that musty cavern of hers? Oh, right, it’s because she would have to do what she demands that everyone else do.

Because, you know, there is simply no other way for the government to make money, despite the offensive deposition Ford put everyone through while he was (we can only guess), snorting coke in some back room and completely ignoring everyone’s ideas. I know the coke thing is a rumour, but I’ve had enough experience with drugs to see that this is probably the case — the sweating, the holier-than-thou attitude, the confrontationalism, the ruddy face, etc. Chances of Rob snorting: very high.

Just to be clear, just because he may do drugs wouldn’t necessarily make Rob an awful person (except that he is), but I’m pretty damn sure he should not be holding office under the influence, driving under the influence, etc.

And the “technicality” term being tossed around? People like Levy love to use that word when describing how the mayor snubbed his nose at all the rules and laws of our city multiple times, or how he directly, knowingly, and willfully voted on something directly and monetarily affecting him. Those are “technicalities”, but the fact that Toronto Council wasn’t supposed to have imposed a punishment (hence the loss of the entire case), is not a technicality, that’s JUSTICE!

That’s also precisely how murderers, rapists, and drug dealers get away with it — legal technicalities are a criminal’s best friend.

But, you know, Levy’s just fine with that. People shouldn’t be held to account. Whoring out your daughters is a wonderful future for them. Getting into drinking and gambling, why, that’s practically next to godliness. Shouldn’t be surprising then that this creature passing for a woman would now be chastising Councillor Ana Bailao for her drunken driving charge, right? After all, drinking and gambling is precisely what we want in this town, so anyone who does it should immediately lose their job. (I’m sorry if this is twisting your brain — this is a Ford-lover we’re talking about here)

I happen to agree somewhat, drinking and driving is bad. Somewhat worse than, say, Ford driving while reading, or threatening the lives of passengers on a streetcar by plowing past its open doors, but the Ford-supporter hypocrisy is flying its true, shit-brown colours by defending Ford’s complete lack of regret and remorse (not even a hint of apology or a thought to changing his ways). Bailao drank and drove, potentially endangering many people on the road…the guillotine for her! Ford drove distractedly and dangerously an multiple occasions, unapologetically and directly endangering people on and off the road…oh, he just made a mistake; let’s use tax money and get him a driver!

And this is pretty much the Ford / Harper / etc. camp philosophy in a nutshell. It’s a philosophy that turns on others with the most outrageous slanders, hatred, and vitriol — remember Ford / Cherry’s inaugural speech? Of course, if you call them so much as “silly” they’ll call for your public hanging. They openly and gleefully promote vice, crime, selfishness, greed, money money money, me me me, to the exception of everything else, push on with bullheaded ideas despite any planning or consultation, and are basically oblivious to anything but their own whiny needs. And none of these characteristics are incongruous — these are just simply vile, offensive, pin-headed people. If you want to be nice, “petulant adult-children” works too.

The really sad part is that these people are so blind to basic human concepts like faith, charity, love, and kindness, that they’re willing to forfeit their entire family’s future on a momentary status gain. It’s all about feeding the overly swollen ego — me, me, me! And for some reason, they think that in the groups of selfish, uncaring, self-loving aggressors they move in, that they’re going to achieve some sort of universal love and acceptance from everyone by beating them down, insulting them, and making their lives miserable.

It’s really not that complicated…

Psychopathy: is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle.

Because we decided that the City Council decision to repay wasn’t legal, Ford didn’t contravene the MCIA (though he kinda did).

[46]           However, the matter before Council changed when thereafter a motion was made to rescind Decision CC 52.1.  From that point, Mr. Ford clearly had a pecuniary interest in the matter before Council, as he would be relieved of the reimbursement obligation if the motion passed.  Therefore, the application judge correctly found that Mr. Ford had a direct pecuniary interest when he voted on that motion, and s. 5(1) of the MCIA was engaged.

[47]           Nevertheless, as set out in the following section of these reasons, it is our view that Mr. Ford did not contravene s. 5(1), because the financial sanction imposed by Decision CC 52.1 was not authorized by theCOTA or the Code.  In other words, it was a nullity.

…

[89]           While he [Rob Ford] may have honestly believed his interpretation was correct, it would undermine the purposes of the  MCIA  if a subjective belief about the meaning and application of the law was sufficient to excuse a contravention of s. 5(1).  When an individual seeks to rely on an error of law, good faith requires that he or she make some inquiry about the meaning and application of the law, rather than rely on his or her own interpretation. Wilful blindness to one’s legal obligations cannot be a good faith error in judgment within the meaning of s. 10(2).

…

[96]           In light of our conclusion that Decision CC 52.1 was a nullity because of the nature of the financial sanction it imposed, the appellant has not contravened s. 5(1) of the MCIA.  Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the application judge is set aside and the application under the MCIA is dismissed.

“Can you believe those teachers?! Some of them are making more than one-hundred thousand dollars a year! What criminals!”

Those are the words that a family member blurted out a couple of weeks ago, perhaps in an attempt to bait me, but in any event completely unexpectedly and forcefully.

“What do you mean?”, I asked.

She went on determined to teach me what criminal scum schoolteachers and their unions are, asking me repeatedly if I’d read Bill 115 (her own interpretation coming from a newspaper), and demanding that I answer her on the spot.

“Do they start off making that much?”, I asked incredulously.

“No, they start at forty-thousand, but because of the union they’re guaranteed a pay increase of two percent every two years!”

She was steamrolling over the entire conversation at the time so I didn’t get a chance to do the math, but I did know that historically the rate of inflation was 2% so such a measure would simply keep teachers from slipping into poverty.

My interlocutor wasn’t having such arguments. “No one else gets pay increases, why should they!”

“So you’re complaining that because everyone in the private sector’s getting screwed, people who have the ability to be represented and demand better pay should be fired?”, I retorted, having heard such nonsense many times in the past.

“That’s not true!”, she replied. “These people take tax money, your money and my money, and they’re getting ridiculous salaries. Everyone else is paying for them!”

At this point I wish I’d had the opportunity to do some basic math for her since she clearly hadn’t done it herself, but she was complaining that teachers, having come out of school with thousands in debt, would be paid roughly $19 an hour (increased by an astronomical $0.38 per hour every two years or so).

“How much did dad make?”, I followed up, thinking back to my father who worked for the city and who retired after a couple of decades making considerably more. I wasn’t even going to bring up the fact that teachers are taxpayers too — that old Fordite mentality.

“Well, more, obviously,” she replied,” but he was doing a real job. All these people do is babysit children.”

I’d spent some time teaching kids too. She hadn’t even come near a school for anything more than parents’ night. So of course she demanded that this is exactly what goes on in the classroom, that I’m completely wrong (and ignorant, just for good measure), they’re all completely wrong, and we’re all getting royally ripped off by the teachers and the unions. (She also loves Ford and Harper, if that helps to explain things).

After an hour of back-and-forth, we finally managed to reach the consensus that those responsible are mostly in government, unions can be a good thing (which took many recounting of my own experiences with private industry abuses), and that maybe people could be paid a wage that allows them to both live and pay off their debts (though this took a lot — Conservatives abhor this idea and expend a lot of effort in quashing it).

When I finally hung up I got to thinking whether or not the teachers would even be launching an illegal strike to meet their demands, so deemed by Premiere McGuinty and the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Then I remembered this little gem from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right near the top):

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
• (d) freedom of association.

So according to the highest law of the land, expressing your demands, peacefully assembling, etc. — basically everything a strike is about — are FULLY PROTECTED UNDER LAW.

The really sad thing is that no newspaper anywhere in the province has bothered to bring up the fact that the tyrannical government of Ontario, along with the OLRB, are the ones acting illegally. They are ignoring federal laws and instead simply saying  that they’re going to take these incredibly unlawful actions. And then to impose a contract on the teachers while telling them to get back to work — what the fuck is that?

And if you speak out about something so blatantly obvious, something so simple that a child can see it, you’re branded a conspiracy kook who should be spending time in solitary confinement with a tin foil hat.

Certainly that’s the high horse on which my family member rode in on – summarily dismissing such obvious signs of a tyrannical dictatorship because, clearly, people in positions of power have NEVER abused it, and because a “newspaper” sporting half naked women, ads for hookers, and more advertising and pictures than words, told her that’s how things are.

Perhaps the most bizarre takeaway from the conversation was my family member’s insistence that I need to read Bill 115 because it’s so gloriously correct, but all of the plethora of documents by and from the government, on their website, showing their criminality, malfeasance, and generally nefarious and outright evil plans for the future, are all blatant lies and complete fabrications.

In other words, Bill 115 must be true because it agrees with what she was told, and all of the other documents are a straight up lie because they’re just too unpleasant. You know — if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist — kind of thing.

I remember asking my family member how she thought all of the other evil governments of the past and present managed to take a hold. After all, it’s a safe bet to say that most citizens would not choose to live under such conditions.

I was met with a deafening silence.

“Yeah,” I replied, “that’s exactly how it happens.”

Just when you think you’ve seen every form of stupidity that Rob Ford can muster …

Yesterday, for example, Rob Ford voted against the new city budget. Well, technically, not the whole budget, just the part that he himself had put in there!

Yeah, that’s not a typo — Ford actually voted against a part of the city’s budget that he pushed to get have included. The specific part in question has to do with the 2% property tax increase that, if you recall, he vehemently “guaranteed” year after year would be completely eliminated (just one of the many of Rob’s boldfaced, ignorance-laced, and denigratory lies).

Of course, being Ford, he reneged on that little campaign promise almost as soon as he was done telling pinkos where they can stuff it, but he kept on maintaining that he was doing everything he could to keep it at reasonable levels. Those ended up being exactly what they were prior to when he took office, so in effect Rob Ford has managed to completely fail on this end.

Just like his much-vaunted lies about all of the gravy at City Hall that never materialized, Ford has once again flown his true colours as an unabashed liar, and a bumbling buffoon of an unabashed liar at that. I mean, if this last-minute vote against his own measure is some sort of half-assed attempt to control the “optics” of his awful mayoralty (unsurprisingly, despite what the Toronto Sun says, with the help of useful idiot monkeys like Giorgio Mammoliti), he must be depending on citizen’s abject ignorance of what he’s been up to as late as last week, or he’s depending on them being so thick as to believe the crap he’s pushing.

Then again, this is Ford Nation we’re talking about here, the same small group of knuckle-dragging troglodytes who claim that black is white, up is down, “gravy” is everywhere at City Hall, Ford saves the city money (instead of costing everyone money), Toronto taxpayers is a group that only includes them (hence they are the only ones with the right to an opinion), and so on and so on. No, I wasn’t joking when I called them severely mentally ill — how else could you keep swallowing Ford’s blatant and fetid shit all this time and continue to call it candy?

Ahh, Giorgio.

Remember him?

The Councillor who once said he was willing to break laws to get what he wanted? He had a few interesting ideas, to be sure, but I think this particular one ended up being the truly visionary one, and it didn’t end up being the kind in which he assaults someone on live TV (though there were chances).

For now, it seems, Giorgio’s broken election laws to the tune of $12,000. Toss into this unfortunate bit of news the fact that he’s Ford ally (or was until recently). Ford is still in power, hanging on by his nails, and I think this is where we’re going to start seeing some genuinely interesting developments.

Consider that Mammoliti was, for about a year, part of Ford’s inner circle. He might know stuff.

And Ford will now be asked to choose sides with someone who publicly claimed he was under a great deal of “undue pressure” while working with Ford’s team.

Ford might end up relying on the “we’re both victims of legal technicalities” line, and it’d be a good one except in this case the numbers are a little higher. Four times as much — enough, and for purposes (to win an election), that I think even the most bitter “but it was just a small amount” clingers would be satisfied that the amount is not so small.

So will Ford be expected to criticize his former (current?) ally? And is he willing to say what he thinks an acceptable limit on going over the line is? (Oh, and by the way, what’s the possibility of legally moving the line instead of just telling the current one where to go?)

I mean, what would Ford say about something that ran at about the $12,000 limit? How bad of an infraction is that? And if, in theory, such an infraction was legal but looked bad, what would he think of an infraction that both looked bad but was also illegal?

Perhaps Doug et al. would like to weigh in too?

Should be interesting, I think.

By the way, Happy New Year!

…we’re just…