What’s to be done?

I truly believe that if change must be made, it must be extra-systemic. While I like to believe that the system is not irredeemable, much like the other “isms” that bowed to Capitalism, I’m sure that with this entire system as well as the underlying misnomer of democracy, neither of which are either the US (a Constitutional Republic), or Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy), we are finally seeing the flaws in its utopian vision. Just like the other isms, our system is susceptible to infiltration by corruption, and I truly believe we have reached the saturation point.

Again, not sure if Wikipedia is the best source for this but if one looks at the various analyses of the Fall of Rome, we find some startling parallels:

• Loss of civic virtue  — A contentious idea but one that with a lot of modern weight.
• Decline of military might due to influx of mercenaries — A concept that’s not so outrageous.
• Rome was declining from day one — Those watching can probably point to a similar pattern both yesterday and today (with similar results).
• Unsound economic policies — That seems to be self-evident.
• Depletion of local resources — Also another self-evident point.
• Endless wars — Getting there.
• Disease — There are stark correlations between poverty and increasing disease. And there’s plenty of poverty. I’m sure you can do the math.
• Environmental degradation — Many people are convinced that we’re well into this one.
• Lead poisoning — There’s some debate about how much lead pipes contributed to the problem, but few people since the ancient Romans believed that ingesting lead was a good idea.
• Barbarian invasions — We have seen some incursions that would fall into this category. In a similar way, the modern-day “Barbarians” are being made synonymous with evil (I’m pretty sure the Barbarians didn’t see themselves that way).

Did I miss anything? Probably, but this seems sufficient to make my point. And this oft-heard refrain is not uncommon, so it’s not as if I’m alone in this, but the usual adjunct is “yeah, but what can we do?”

Well, for starters, let’s cross violence off the list right away. In fact, let’s also take out extortion, intimidation, threats, abduction, imprisonment, corporal punishment, fraud, destruction, theft, covert manipulation, deception, fear, and hypocrisy. These are the tools of government & friends, and the only logical conclusion must be to reject them wholly (especially with that hypocrisy bit).

Violence used in self-defense is probably the only time I would relent, and then only when applied in quid pro quo fashion. This is not in any way illegal under any current laws, though all levels of the regime have adopted the stance that if it’s defense against them, that’s a crime. And so, defending yourself against open aggression by the state is a de facto crime (they certainly aren’t going to be held responsible!)

Not sure if slapping my tormentors upside the head would qualify under these categories, but at least it’s safe to say that it probably wouldn’t change anything. In fact, maybe that’s how they got that way in the first place. It’d feel good though…

Voting is a bad joke and, in fact, some people argue that participating in it is itself a sort of crime. The argument: by choosing the winning candidate, you are forcing others who did not vote in the same way to support your socio-economic-political views via the unchecked extortion of the state. By voting for a non-winner, you are implicitly condoning this extortion (though this is never explicitly true). And even winning candidates often embark on courses of action that are not part of their stated agenda, thereby directly violating their contract with their supporters.

And how are elections kept “fair”? Oh yeah, the government maintains an exclusive monopoly in dictating the results to you (the same government openly committing fraud to maintain their power). If elections are merely the switching up of one figurehead for another, which appears to be the very case (frauds come from one supposed side as easily as the other, etc.), then it’s reasonable to conclude that sticking your little piece of paper into a flimsy and easily tampered-with cardboard box is a waste of time (even if just to mark the ballot in protest).

Further, this idea can be extended to representative voting systems where leaders like Harper and Obama are, in fact, voted in by a vast minority of voters, if at all. Instead, candidates are party-elected leaders, and these leaders are then the titular heads of government. How many people actually, directly voted for Harper and Obama? Were they even actually on the ballot somewhere? (I think they have their own ridings so probably yes, but still…)

So voted in by a majority they were not. Not in any real sense. Rob Ford’s “majority” was 47% of voters (25% of Toronto). Harper achieved a complete, unchallengeable “majority” of 40%. Obama won by a very slim 51%, but was actually chosen by the Electoral College and not directly by voters, similar to Harper. Really, only Rob was actually directly voted in, but reliably by only 25% of Toronto’s citizens.

And much like Rob Ford, the obvious crimes perpetrated by the excluded class go unpunished because of the systemic collusion I keep pointing out. So politics is also not really a solution — it’s a big part of the problem. As are the courts, cops, and many of the people mindlessly (or otherwise) pushing oppression on the masses. Not all, of course, but it seems that these days there are far too many.

So I have to conclude that working within the system is a losing proposition. Not that I want to dissuade anyone from trying to implement positive systemic changes, I just don’t see much chance for success.

Even under optimistic conditions, the system will barely satisfy the needs of any single group as it seeks to balance conflicting interests. Those interests needn’t be in conflict if they were relegated to individual communities, so it’s accurate to say that government is the source of conflict and inequality. And that’s if you don’t ascribe any nefarious aspects to it.

So what is to be done?

I think the answer can be summed up in one word: individualism

Now let’s be very clear about this because there have been many infamous cases of “individualists”  or “sovereign citizens” in the news — widely discussed and regurgitated to remind you of what happens when individuals take matters into their own hands. And I admit, some bad stuff can happen. But compared to the rare lone gunman (one out of how many tens or hundreds of millions?), the government is far more destructive and murderous, so individualism wins by sheer virtue of the numbers.

Simply put, I don’t buy the government-created line of thinking that has us all turning into murderous, criminal brutes the moment that government stops intervening. I just don’t see it. In fact, I see the state as being the primary instigator of violence in most cases (no wonder that we have no domestic police murder statistics).

Whatever individuals decide on, however, is ultimately their choice. I can even understand the feeling that violence may be the only choice. But just because a bunch of be-suited liars decree that it’s now okay to kill and torture in order to support their corrupt junta doesn’t make it any less murder and torture, whether your name is Stephen Harper, Barack Obama, or Elliot Rogers.

Note that individualism doesn’t mean no government, it means voluntary government. It doesn’t mean no police, it means a direct voluntary contract between an individual and the police. Anarchy, despite the incessant attempts to pollute its original meaning, doesn’t mean chaos, it means individual choice, freedom, and responsibility. Community and individualism need not be mutually exclusive.

Individualism begins right where you are now — with you. It begins with a solemn oath to yourself that you will no longer willingly support the corrupt, murderous regime of the state. Doing so with a clear conscience requires an extended oath rejecting violence, extortion, intimidation, etc. In my view, any action taken on such a basis, with due consideration for the rights of your fellow man, is justified and right. The corrupt courts, bleating politicians, and thuggish police can stuff their disgusting laws and declarations back to the last days of Rome where they below — I know I’m not hurting anyone or doing anything wrong!

Individualism requires you to be brave in the face of the machine. It requires you to know that you are not a criminal, no matter what the system’s laws demand. It requires you to know that you don’t willingly harm or defraud your fellow man because you respect their sovereignty in the same way that you expect yours to be (but are also subject to repercussions when that sovereignty is violated). It requires you to know, above all else, that the corrupt state does not grant you these freedoms — you are born with them and anyone who tries to take them away from you without your consent are criminals. By extension, the fact that the Canadian government ensnared without consent the population of Canada (Did you ever consent to be taxed? Were you assigned your SIN before your age of majority? etc.), absolutely makes them criminals — one and all. Those involved in the periphery are accessories, just as with any standard crime. If that doesn’t sit well, there’s also the War Crimes angle, the massive defrauding angle, etc.

I know for a fact that TCL, and perhaps other outlets, are being monitored. Most likely by government organizations working together with private “reputation management” firms.

That’s okay — it’s a public blog! So why is it so wrong for the government to scour these pages when, really, anyone can openly do so? Because:

1. I know they’re not doing it for good or beneficial reasons (i.e. the only possible purpose to collect this is to use it against me or someone else).
2. They’re using my (and your) tax money to do so, and they’re doing it without our consent.

That’s why government surveillance of public sites is equally as despicable — we all know full well they are not doing it to benefit us (and are lying to us about it). Plus, there’s all the illegal stuff they’re doing for our “benefit” too.

I’m particularly conscious of the technological aspects of this because I’m a longtime developer, now software architect (a title I recently acquired), something that I like to believe stems from reasonable competence and experience (20-ish years, give or take). I also run a meager Google Plus group tracking the implications of technology as progressing or regressing individual freedoms. I don’t comment much, just post links and let the context tell the story — and that story is usually bleak and dark. All that stuff I rant about, like the fact that we’re heading for an Orwellian nightmare, that’s based on years of deeper-than-average research in a field in which I specialize. If my qualifications don’t match up to your liking, there are plenty of voices out there in an ever growing chorus saying the same things; you don’t need to believe just me.

But I do hope that you believe me because in among the darkness of systemic oppression I can see slivers of blinding light. The walls are showing cracks, the armour exhibits chinks, and through these cavities I can see a way through. I’m sure that it’s not the only way (getting bogged down by a dogged ideology is not productive), but there is something  — some things, actually — that can be done.

If you’re religiously inclined, this is probably the part where God steps in. If you’re all scientific-like, ditto.

Shall I explain?

As I mentioned some time ago, I haven’t been sitting idly by and watching things around me unfold. I remain keenly aware of what’s happening each day in the over-the-top system we are subjected to.

Every day I read about more public gouging and fraud by corporations, media “pundits” defending absolute and unquestioning subjugation to the immoral “authority” of state who invoke their flimsy “won’t someone think of the children!” line at the same time as they actively work to undermine and criminalize those seeking to ensure children’s welfare (and everyone else trying to do some good). Every day the government ups the ante in contravening and violating rules, laws, and basic justice, directly suppressing people’s Charter Rights and access to the law. That is, of course, when they’re not busy arbitrarily making up new laws to hold us guilty of “crimes” that they invent on the spot.

And if those laws were ever intended as actual protection of citizens and their rights, it’s painfully obvious that they’re being used specifically to terrorize, extort, and control those same citizens and violate their rights — the exact opposite of their stated purpose. And worse, those laws are being perverted through the breaking and violation of other laws, a situation so repellent that it defies words. And the courts hold this aloft as being in all of our best interests while police go to work making sure we’re all “protected” under their benevolent regime. For this they demand our tax money, to be handed over to banking and corporate acquaintances that show a voracious appetite for control and dominance.

Beyond this I have my own decade-long history with the Canada Revenue Agency in a series of what I feel may fairly be described as omissions, lies, and possibly fraud — all documented in an extensive timeline on the government’s own stationary (i.e. stuff they sent me), often complete with signatures of the CRA agent, the timeline involved, authorizing supervisors, etc. It documents numerous Charter Right violations by them and other other members of the CRA. I can now actually claim to have reams of evidence: papers, transcripts, a long reconstructed timeline.

I can directly prove that the CRA has made, at the very least, an error in deciding that I “owed them” $20,000 for the year 2005, which they said carried over from 2004 where I “owed” $0.

Let that sink in for a moment.

If this was a problem, I was told, it’s on me to straighten out (and I’d better pay what they demand in the meantime!) Initially I thought this was related to the personal business I had started so that I could work as a contractor, but the longer it went on, the sketchier it became. I mean, I only made about $55,000 that year which, according to the math means that the CRA had expected me to remit 36% of my earnings (apparently just for EI alone — see below), a number that jumped far higher after numerous re-assessments (and I better pay that too!)

Ten years in and I still have no assessment, just a bunch of “Notices of Assessment” (tricky wording, huh?) that contradict each other and tell me very little in and of themselves. I’ve continuously demanded to know what the CRA claimed I “owed” them for, and only once did I receive the verbal response that it, the initial $20,000, was marked as “EI — maybe Employment Insurance?” somewhere in the history of the file. I asked for that in writing, as well as the agent’s initials or some other identifying feature to prove that this is the information I was asking for.

Eventually, I received yet another Notice of Assessment that notified me that I “owed” $20,000 from 2005, my 2004 “owing” was $0, and the agent’s initials appeared at the bottom (printed). Well, good, then. Guess that’s that.

So, now I’m sitting on many many copies of Notices of Assessments, many in French (a big indicator to me that someone was messing around with my info at the CRA), many with conflicting information (numerous re-assessments made before I ever submitted returns for any of these years), and still not a single one indicating anything except some sort of weirdness at the Canada Revenue Agency.

I deeply suspect the involvement of a since-acquired IT staffing agency at the outset (2004-2005). They refused to send me my T4 and would only provide me with a photocopy which had what looks like sloppy white-out applied to a conspicuous box. Combined with the fact that they demanded that I was an independent contractor even as they sent me a T4 and a Record of Employment (yes, I have these, plus signed contracts, etc.), suggests that they provided the CRA with some interesting “information” too, which the CRA may have decided was perfectly okay and probably also decided that, yeah, I should be treated as an independent contractor.

I’ve since worked for other large IT staffing firms that have similarly tried to circumvent Ontario’s labour laws, readily co-mingling “employee” with “independent contractor” (one place actually used both in the contract wherever they were expedient), treating ignorant contractors like employees and sticking them with the taxes that they should be paying.

I mean, back in my Henderson Bas nightmare I had to explain to my fellow workers that working 80 hours per week is not expected by law, so it’s not surprising that this kind of thing goes on regularly.

I’m assuming that this is how the situation started . The fact that the Canadian government ripped off Canadian taxpayers through the Employment Insurance system at the same time certainly adds a lot more spice to this whole thing — I suddenly owe twenty grand on what I can best ascertain to be Employment Insurance tax, on the same year as the government guts the system?

That “amount owing” quickly grew to $35,000 and by today I’m sure that it’s ballooned to well over $40,000 what with all the fees and extra bells and whistles they like to throw in. In the meantime, the CRA has frozen my assets in very strategic ways — typically on the last day of the month (when I get paid, pay rent, etc.) — because I didn’t cooperate with their extortion demands (which regularly encompass friends and family — “what assets do they have?” “We can seize whatever we need to!”, etc.) By assets, of course, I mean the gaping debts I have elsewhere in my life.

I’m  told I have the right to challenge this, I have the right to the correct information in a timely manner, etc. etc.

Right.

I would make arrangements to “repay” with agents only to discover that, a month later, those agents were no longer working on my file, and the new agents determined that I owed now and they weren’t going to wait one damn second longer!

Have you ever tried to remove a government-imposed freeze on all your bank/credit accounts? If you’re not experienced with the wonder of a CRA Requirement to Pay, I hope you never have to experience the stress. It could easily push you into abject poverty and a good deal of despair. Illegal? Not if the government does it! And don’t forget, if the government is preventing you from paying your bills, or rent, or buying food, or whetever, that’s on you, legally or otherwise.

You could always declare bankruptcy. The CRA will be happy to assist with that.

Also fun is when they decide that freezing our accounts is insufficient so they’re just going to start taking 55% of your income (I’m staring at last week’s sickly pay stub right now), and you’ll be notified about it two weeks afterward in a letter saying that you’ve had a fair chance to reply to this notice so now it’s our turn!

At least it’s better than the 65% they were seizing earlier!

But then I catch them fucking around with my records, deleting information (people I spoke to, have signed letters from yet who don’t appear anywhere in my CRA records), altering other information (I didn’t request half of my information in French, and yes, I have a record of the request too), etc. and I have to say, I’m not inclined to joke about this too much.

I have never been before a judge on this issue, I’ve never had a chance to plead my case to anyone, in fact wasn’t even aware of the machinations behind the scenes at the CRA, but I’ve been summarily and secretly convicted and have been paying for my “crime” for a decade now with no end in sight. My right to appeal is non-existent because the Canada Revenue Agency is allowed to openly violate this and any other rights we may have (plus whatever laws they feel are irrelevant). That they can use my own tax money (and yours), to extend their defense indefinitely and with resources I could never access in court is a further violation of Charter Rights — that is in no way a fair trial.

So what?

I could complain to the CRA Ombudsman who has the authority to ask the Agency to, pretty please, stop doing this and answer this man’s questions first. If they decide that they don’t want to — all within their legal right — I can take my complaint to the Tax Court.

I’ve been in touch with the Ombudsman and, in fairness, they helped me to get the CRA to release yet another unannounced account freeze, but beyond that I haven’t had any luck; the good times re-started shortly thereafter and have been around since.

In the Tax Court arena I get to go up against the limitless resources of an agency that takes my money without my consent to defend itself and prosecute me. Perhaps Wikipedia isn’t the best source of information about this but based on everything I know it seems accurate in its assessment of the CRA as body that “collaborates” with the Department of Justice to hand down arbitrary judgments against anyone they want money from. Accordingly, “the onus is generally on the taxpayer to prove its case on a balance of probabilities” (i.e. the taxpayer is guilty before proven innocent)

And the best result one can expect from the Tax Court is that they force the CRA to have another look at your case. They may re-determine that there was a mistake. But more than likely, they’ll determine that they were right all along. The Tax Court, in other words, is just another way of grovelling before CRA which has ultimate authority in any event.

This results in direct and disturbing Charter Rights violations, but because it’s the government, they’ll do it anyway. They know that even if the Supreme Court directly rules that they violated the law, they’ll be perfectly free to continue destroying peoples’ lives simply because they can — who will hold them to account? It’s just like when cops decide on a new “policy”; that “policy” is no way a law, not enforceable, and constitutes a direct violation of both law and Charter Rights when carried out by police – or anyone for that matter. Yet the police do it without a care because, obviously, when the cops violate the law it’s because they’re “protecting” us. And, of course, you’re free to point out that the cops are violating the law right there and then, but that’s called resisting arrest and your rights and more laws will be further and more egregiously violated because your only right is to be oppressed by Her Majesty’s representatives. In fact, they’ll be rewarded for cracking some uncooperative skulls, and the courts will back them up every step of the way.

You may call these exaggerations, I call them real and factual.

I have physical, tangible records of being rolled over by the very institutions claiming to be there to help me, from the time my license plates and car were stolen by the Pickering Honda dealership (a forged signature was involved in that one), to the most recent interaction I had with the Enforcement Unit of the Municipal Licensing & Standards Office who claimed (and I have this recorded), that they “aren’t responsible for enforcement” and if I thought that something wasn’t right with the situation I was calling about, I could file a complaint. That situation, being forced to sit in one’s apartment in -18 degree Celcius temperatures because workers have blocked the exits and the elevators aren’t working  (as those workers are ripping out all the windows in your home), apparently doesn’t fall under their purview. Maybe try the police if it’s an emergency, they say, but I might be charged with calling them spuriously, so best just to take it up with the landlord. After all, there are laws to protect me in such cases!

Turns out, there is no agency that ensures that your wealthy landlord, or any other faceless corporation, can’t indirectly kill you in your own home. It makes even less of a difference if you’re paying for the privilege — leases are not intended for your protection. Things like elevators aren’t your right, even if you’re paying for them, I’ve learned. Now, if maybe contractors messed up on the caulking so that the owners complained, that’d be a different story…

Well, maybe.

I say this because the Landlord and Tenant Board, apparently the only place to vent your life-and-death tales, is working diligently to make sure that organisations like the poor, mistunderstood Starlight Investments, have a chance to explain why they’ve been violating municipal law, TSSA orders, etc. for years in our apartment building (and, undoubtedly, others).

During the latest hearing, which has been ongoing for over a year, the judge hushed testimony as “irrelevant” by a witness for the tenants (also a tenant herself), who was recounting experiences in other buildings. Then in the very next sentence (couldn’t have been more than 10 seconds apart), the judge decided to allow exactly the same thing when one of Starlight’s pinstripe-suited lawyers asked the same witness about it.

In this instance, Starlight is being sued by many of the tenants of the building for the elevators — they don’t run much of the time, and when they do they can best be described as deathtraps — not stopping on some floors, stopping on others that weren’t requested, doors not closing, doors not opening, misalignment with the landings (sometimes as much as a foot or more), wobbling up and down of the car when it should be stopped, both floor indicator and ceiling lights going off (total darkness- fun!), exposed wiring (more than one person confirmed the wires were live), inability to go up from the ground floor (their solution was to post up a hand-written sign explaining that we just have to got to the basement first), etc.

The TSSA issued numerous warnings and finally a stop order because of the danger posed by the cars. Starlight’s response was to shut down the elevator (leaving the whole 17-floor building to one half-working death cage). In response to the no-work that Starlight did, the TSSA decided to lift the order, I guess, based on some promise that, no, really, they work great this time. Of course, within a month the same problems were noted again.

It apparently struck no one as odd that exactly the same problems were found after three individual inspections (in this specific case, each a month apart), problems severe enough to force the TSSA to shut down the elevators, and problems that miraculously re-appeared once again after the ban had been lifted. Is it likely that everything was fixed and broke down again in exactly the same way, or is it more likely that Starlight “befriended” the inspector and continued to ignore the problem in exactly the same way they had for years? The judge isn’t sure, so she decided she needed to hear from what I can only assume was a “character witness” for the faceless mega-corporation. And another 6 months’ worth of waiting for the next hearing is tossed out the window.

All of this is well-documented, and has been going on for literally years. And those involved in the lawsuit quickly realized that there are no laws to protect us from such obvious abuses, and even if there were, they wouldn’t be enforced. And even if they were enforced, the obvious glad-handing between Starlight and the court means that even that last resort would be futile. Of course it’s an absolute violation of the law. Of course it’s an abdication of the judge’s responsibility. Of course it’s all wrong. So what? The government is constantly green-lighted to violate laws and people’s rights, something that they can extend to characters like the team defending Starlight’s slimy abuse of their own tenants (I hate to judge a book by its cover but the corporation’s people even look like characters out of some greezy gangster movie).

On top of this, in another hearing before the LTB the tenants of the building are fighting an above-rate rent increase that Starlight is trying to foist on them to cover the cost of all of the renovations they did (I’m already paying the larger rent since I moved in later, but they’re trying to squeeze more money out of me in other ways); renovations like a new roof which leaked profusely into our top-floor unit the first major rain we had, blistering the ceiling and walls with giant water bubbles, and renovations like the window replacements I mentioned above that they decided to do in the middle of winter with absolutely no regard for the residents (I heard that other buildings where this branding make-over took place [it had nothing to do with energy efficiency, etc.] had the luxury of warming areas!) Oh, and the non-functional elevators, you know they want us to pay for “upgrading” those too…

And just to make sure we were all starkly reminded of how biased the judge is in our case, she pronounced that anyone who did not attend a hearing to testify about problems in our class action, problems like those with the elevators, would probably be disqualified because she can’t decide how much to award if she doesn’t know how people were affected as a result of Starlight violating everyone’s contract terms (we’re asking for abatement — rent reduction or refund — for those months where we can prove that the elevators were broken). Tough shit if you have a job in order to pay rent — the onus is on you. Of course, if you refuse to pay the rent and stand up in even this meager protest for your rights, the rental contract, the law, common sense, basic human decency, etc., it is you who will be hauled off by the cops. If the corporation endangers your life by exposing you to the elements (or asbestos, or black mold, or whatever), and furthermore violates contractual terms that they set out, it’d likely be you that’s hauled off by the cops for filing a complaint — at least that’s what the unhelpful lady in the “Property Standards Enforcement” (the people who don’t enforce stuff), unit said.

This assumes that there ever would be a ruling, which is realistically expected never so long as the judge continues to allow Starlight to produce “surprise witnesses” in post-post-post-postponed hearings. I’m not aware of any limitations or regulations surrounding “timely” cases (and that assumes that anyone would bother to enforce them).

Sure, those witnesses may not know anything about the situation, but, you know, the big-money people need their fair day in court. Those tenants who can’t be there, even though they’re being represented by a lawyer (well, a paralegal — it’s the best we could afford), and have all produced signed letters in their absence, are irrelevant. They court sure as hell isn’t going to postpone hearings for one more day to wait for those lazy assholes (or as the Starlight team put it, people who “can’t be bothered to show up”).

Besides all of this, I can’t even count how many times I’ve personally witnessed fraud and law-breaking at some of the companies I’ve worked for in the past. And every day I see cops openly violating the exact  laws that they’re “enforcing”. Then I listen to the media quacks drone on about the wonders of our illustrious and increasingly hard-line leaders, corporate saviours with “visionary” products and services, and wondrous celebrities at whom we should all gaze with adoration, and I can’ help but wonder…

What’s to be done?

So I gave it some thought…

If you read about the shit that Rob Ford’s buddy Gene Jones did, and allowed to happen, it’s no wonder Rob Ford is up his ass with every inch of his taxpayer-respecting love — they’re both cut from the same cloth:

An executive assistant for one of the City Councillors was looking for a
new job and approached a recruitment firm for assistance. The firm
contacted the CEO and informed him that the EA was looking for new
opportunities. She had previously met the CEO during the course of her
work.

With no job competition or posting of the job opportunity, the CEO
created and gave her a new manager position.

While he acknowledged that TCH “absolutely” required that all open
positions had to be advertised, the CEO stated he did not advertise for
this position because, “[I]t’s my prerogative when I want to give that
position to the best person with experience, internally or externally …”

The CEO promoted the manager less than six months later and
appointed her to be a senior director with a raise of $30,000.

Ford thinks this guy’s a straight shooter and we should all be sucking on his dick. No doubt, Ford conducts himself the same way — and what’s wrong with that?

Now consider that in 2014 Toronto, Jones walks away with whatever “executive pay” he’s dolled out to himself and his friends, and of course a healthy and well-deserved severance payment of $200,000, on top of $1.6 million in severance for all of the people he fired without cause; and then there’s Rob Ford (personally responsible for getting Jones his job), who’s openly admitted to buying and doing hard drugs, is connected to gangs and murders, has broken every rule and many laws out there, yet still hasn’t even been given even a lousy traffic ticket, and is in fact running for mayor again.

Oh, and Crean, the woman who detailed the latest Ford-linked shitpile in one-hundred and eleven pages is the actual waste according to Ford, who’s practically choked up by the fact that corrupt assholes like Jones and Lisi aren’t being thrown honorific parades.

My issue isn’t so much that people like this exist — I think that that must reasonably be expected in any society. What concerns me deeply is the fact that this is now systemic: we have a system that welcomes corruption and criminality (as far as I know, Ford & co. still have full access to City Hall, etc.), and has been shown to attack only those who expose it.

Take, for example, the fact that no one has been able to show very much harm done by Edward Snowden’s revelations (do you suppose most governments already knew?) yet he’s public enemy #1 at the moment in the US. The most obvious harm done was to the government’s claim of “authority”, honesty, trustworthiness, etc., and its image wasn’t great to begin with.

That politics are tied to money is no revelation. And law+enforcement collude with politics to make for a perfect trifecta of “do as we say … or else”. It’s good old-fashioned gangsterism.

How else do you explain the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the government to defraud all Canadians to the tune of $57 billion over a period of three years? (strange how there seems to be no web history dating back to 2008 for this story — almost like they didn’t want people to know)

Oh, okay, they didn’t use the “defraud” word, they said (did I mention that it was unanimous?) that the government “illegally” seized $57 billion in Employment Insurance from Canadians in 2002, 2003, 2005.

You call it “illegal”, I call it “fraud”.

But the Supreme Court didn’t order a refund or an apology. Instead they simply said that the EI system had to be changed to make sure this never happened again.

It took ’em a few years but they finally did something.

The government completely gutted the system and “appropriated” the money elsewhere (part of the original complaint), steeply hiked up the amount that all Canadians would have to pay into the suddenly poor EI system, and have profited from it and made their own lives cushy and comfortable while trying real hard to ensure no one else benefits – especially not the people paying into the thing.

If you’re working “legally” in Canada, you are literally paying (and more now than ever) for the “illegally” seized funds that the government took from you under false authority years ago. And this is all based on the unanimous assessment and continuing consent of Canada’s Supreme Court.

Rob Ford, as much of an asshole as he is, is merely the symptom of a very sick system.

We weren’t affected by the ice storm that swept over Toronto this past weekend. A couple of branches fell off the tree outside our building, and the sidewalks were frozen over, but unlike hundreds of thousands of people around the city we continued to have electricity throughout.

By hundreds of thousands, I mean around 300,000, or 12% of Toronto. As of today, that number is 50,000, about a 83% resumption but that’s still a sizable chunk left out in the cold and dark. That number fluctuates (and because it refers to “customers”,  i.e. billing addresses, that number is probably a lot higher), as additional repairs cause some people to lose power again shortly after they’ve finally gotten it back.

In any event, a number of 50,000 customers according to the specific Power Disruption (Electricity) Emergency Plan of the City of Toronto, is considered a “significant” power disruption emergency (according to all identifying characteristics).

A couple of people have somewhat carelessly died as a result of having to wait out the ice storm, but even being cognizant of the dangers wouldn’t have made this an ideal Christmas for anyone without power.

The fact that warming centers are currently used by about a thousand people per day (according to Robbie), would indicate that the vast majority of the remaining 50,000, or whatever the real number is, are making due otherwise. Many are staying in their homes (often those without the means to go anywhere else), but some will have moved in with relatives or are in hotels / motels. This is nearly five days after the storm, described as “catastrophic” by Toronto Hydro CEO Anthony Haines, declared “one of the worst storms in Toronto’s history” by Rob (what would classify as an emergency, I wonder … a worstest storm?), and we’ve had some snow fall since then.

Rob didn’t think it necessary to hand Norm Kelly emergency powers (or maybe it’s because he didn’t want to?), which would have allowed Kelly to ask for the province and feds for extra cash, which could have been used to hire private contractors to get the city back in order as quickly as possible. Instead, Ford has placated embattled citizens with the knowledge that some extra trucks had been asked to come in from out of the city.

Of course, despite the ongoing financial hostage-holding of the public by the Hydro monopoly under supporters’ public lines of old equipment not being able to withstand Toronto weather, among other things, for constantly increasing rates, and in addition to the outrageous sums being paid to unelected and apparently unaccountable Toronto Hydro execs, citizens are expected to shell out thousands for contractors to connect the final length of electrical lines to homes (assuming they can even find a contractor at this time) … and then await more government benevolence in the form of safety inspectors before even thinking about the welfare of themselves, their families, and their property (that kind of craziness is liable to get you in trouble with the law).

The fact that this is winter and it’s freezing outside makes this a vital matter — one of literal life and death. It’s why power companies can’t shut off your power in the winter — heat is considered vital and essential. Until everything is cleared, damage from the storm will continue to occur. Additionally, all those darkened neighbourhoods are good targets for vandals and burglars.

Tired, cold, frustrated people are getting pissed — at Ford — who maintains he can’t do more than he’s doing. But he says he understands the frustrations of everyone stuck in their homes; it’s not like he was able to take his family to a hotel or that, despite being hit equally hard,  his part of town already has its power mostly restored while others are still waiting.

According to Robbie, this is not an emergency because a “State of emergency is basically when the whole city is paralyzed, business can’t open, people can’t get out of their houses”.  Business not being able to operate, that’s an issue; people freezing in their homes, or having them vandalized / robbed / damaged, not so much (as long as they can leave).

In his path to cheapdom, Rob Ford seems to have abandoned his Scarborough constituency (subways! subways! subways!) most of all, but really all of Toronto; and it’s not like it’s his first time at bat either, and it’s not like people haven’t been warning him.

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.

From the stills below, you’d hardly think that Robbie was being as belligerent as he was being in his presser defense of his statements made in Conrad Black’s interview on Monday night. There’s a part in the interview in which Ford not so subtly claims that Star reporter Daniel Dale is a pedophile who was skulking around behind the Ford house roughly a year and a half ago to snap pictures of his kids in their home.

I’ve taken the liberty of adding some captions for posterity.

“…motherfucker…”

“Look, I already told you, dickweed…”

“…kiss my ass.”

“And if all y’all don’t like it…”

“…y’all can go fuck yourselves.”

“Uh.”

“Holy shit…”

“…is it getting hot in here?”

It’s not surprising that Kathryn Jones, the alleged winner of a recent $50 million lottery prize, wouldn’t be pressing for an investigation into her highly “unusual” winnings. I wouldn’t either, but given the circumstances, I also wouldn’t be surprised.

If you’re familiar with the story, you’ll recall that the Ontario Lottery Gaming corporation, instead of rolling an unclaimed $50 million from 2012 into future prizes, decided to track down and declare the winner, a woman who had no idea she’d won. In fact, she had no ticket and no tangible evidence that she had bought the ticket — one of two that the OLG had reminded Ontarians was about to expire. According to the OLG’s own rules, here’s what should’ve happened:

MANDATORY: To claim a prize of $1,000 or more, you must complete a Lottery Prize Claim Declaration Form. This applies to both single and group play wins.

…

OLG requires that you write or print your name on your lottery ticket before a retailer can check it. This is for your own protection. Signing the ticket is an easy way to identify it as yours. And that makes it difficult for someone else to claim your prize if your ticket is a winner. It also helps protect you if you were ever to lose it. Retailers cannot validate tickets that are not signed.

To claim a larger prize, the OLG demands that you put your name on a ticket before handing it over to a retailer for verification, which makes sense. However, in the case of this bizarre $50 million win, not only was a signature not needed, the ticket itself wasn’t even required, neither was a claim or even the knowledge of prize winner herself.

To counter this, the OLG has claimed that it was able to go through video security footage, credit card details, and other information to prove that Kathryn had indeed won the ticket, after which they contacted her to let her know she’d won. While I don’t doubt that these were solid identifiers, the rest of the details are beyond disconcerting.

First of all, it’s incredibly suspicious that the OLG would decide of their own volition to arbitrarily choose solely this one woman to track down while leaving literally all other lottery winners to their own devices. Keep in mind that Kathryn’s $50 million prize was one of two unclaimed ones for the same period, and nothing was done about the other prize. Any claim that this was done in the name of fairness is verifiable nonsense.

Second, and perhaps worse, is the fact that the OLG — again without any prior prodding — decided to seize security camera footage and credit / debit card records from the lottery retailer under the false pretense (see above) that they were trying to maintain fairness in the gaming system.

Gathering video security footage from gaming locations is iffy enough — most are corner stores where many people don’t even approach the lottery kiosk let alone play — but the Ontario Lottery and Gaming corporation should have absolutely NO access to citizen’s private data — unless of course that citizen approaches them claiming to have won something. Yet in this case, without a warrant, court order, judicial oversight, etc., the OLG has managed to gather the personal data of unknown numbers’ of customers, security footage of private premises, etc.

While the organization takes up to a decade to use the very same technology to investigate issues of fraud and have never awarded a prize like this (even while many are concurrently unclaimed), we are led to believe that this breach of Canadians’ privacy is fantastic news because one of us might just have won (doesn’t matter if you don’t pay the fool’s tax). You may remember that similar arguments were made by Vic Toews, then Harper’s “Public Safety Minister”, spy-state architect, and top apologist; according to Vic, the government needs to spy on everyone at all times in order to protect the children (and if you don’t agree, it’s obviously because you side with the pedophiles).

There’s a section on the OLG’s site where they describe when, where, how, and what types of personal data they gather:

We may collect personal information from you in person, over the telephone, by mail, fax or through the internet.

In general, we collect customer personal information to provide service, to promote our products and services and to operate a responsible gaming business in accordance with legal requirements.

We regularly inform you of the specific principal purpose or purposes for which we collect personal information at the time of collection. We often collect personal information:

• To identify you
• To deliver service and improve how we communicate with you
• To administer program and product benefits
• To promote our products and services
• To engage in market research
• To maintain lottery security
• To comply with legal requirements
• To promote responsible gaming
• To receive and respond to inquiries

Examples of the common types of personal information we ask customers to provide are as follows:

• Name
• Address
• Telephone Number
• Date of Birth
• Gender
• E-mail address
• Language preference,
• Transactional data,
• Credit card information
• Video images and photographs
• Signatures
• Customer inquiries Information

Note that nowhere does it state: “we may preemptorily and without your knowledge or consent gather personally identifying information such as your credit or debit card purchases, as well as private video surveillance footage, among other pieces of information, to identify you and track you down (at our random discretion) should you happen to have forgotten you won. We may also gather this information incidentally should we believe you may be associated with a winning, or if you just happen to be in the area of a lottery retailer.”

There’s nothing implied or stated that the OLG can and will do this whenever you play a lottery game, and yet they’re now doing it to both players and bystanders alike. I’m entirely certain that, despite claiming that it’s their policy, all of the other people that entered the same lottery retailer as Kathryn Jones have not been contacted by the OLG in order to be informed that their personal data has been seized for analysis.

Even the cops, at least under current laws (which Stephen Harper is constantly itching to change), must inform the targets of their wiretaps after 90 days that they’re being spied on. But supporters — no doubt the same voraciously ignorant clique that continues to believe that repeat public liar, druggie, criminal, and all-around asshole Rob Ford is a bastion of honesty and virtue — won’t be satisfied until we’re all toiling under absolute subjugation (which is, of course, the height of evil unless it’s being imposed on us by their beloved leader). And all of it, from those exemplifying the very worst in humanity to those who demand that we all bow down to such depravity, all do so under the twisted, deranged, ignorant, sociopathic banner of vast corporate profits and unchecked greed (or as Rob Ford so fondly and lovingly put it, “I don’t care if you’re 2 years old, 20 years old or 200 years old, you’re not going to live for free.”)

In other words, it’s just fine for the OLG to operate like this (and we definitely needn’t be in any way critical), because history has clearly shown that deception and corruption, especially when there are tens of millions of dollars at stake, are never a problem — you and I are the real criminals for having the audacity to claim that we’re human beings with rights to privacy and fairness and believing that we’re entitled to live off the avails of our labours.

Harper’s latest foray into his proud Canadian vision is the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership which, although it will affect all Canadians, is being kept secret  until it’s signed and imposed on us. Proponents of the TPP state that it’s customary to engage in secrecy, which means they don’t want people budding into what is by all rights all of our business — Harper clearly agrees with this proposition.

It’s bad enough that Canadian citizens are being purposefully kept from even knowing about these major, global negotiations, but it seems to court treason when it’s revealed that Harper is signing away Canadian constitutional authority and sovereignty to foreign global interests. He is, quite literally, negotiating a handover of Canada’s legal authority, all while excluding Canadians from the entire process.

Does that seem like a bit of a problem to anyone?

Under Stephen Harper, organizations like WikiLeaks are considered terrorist organizations because they regularly reveal the unsavoury actions and intentions of our corrupt “leaders”, like the recent TPP Intellectual Property provisions leak. While the hard-of-thinking are lulled by increasingly stupid rhetoric, Harper and his cadre continue on their way to creating a fully-fledged corporate dictatorship in Canada.

Examplars of “elite” privilege and law-breaking such as Rob Ford are a startling wake-up call to anyone who believed that the rule of law, or even common sense,  would keep such obvious criminality and immorality in check. To the contrary, we see that the organizations tasked to protect the rule of law and Canadians in general, are engaged in protecting a well-connected and well-protected cabal which often acts against Canadians and the interests of Canada.

To those wondering why, unlike any other citizen, Rob Ford hasn’t been arrested after all the shit he’s done, admitted to and even insisted that he be arrested for, there’s a simple answer: it might set a precedent. Politicians would prefer to keep their dealings behind closed doors than have them spill out into public, but when they do they’re left to their own devices. Kind of like brawls in sports. When big money’s involved, the law is often just suspended and doesn’t apply. Rest assured, however, that the law applies to the rest of us 24/7.

Both Rob and Doug have been going all out in putting the blame primarily on the media for all of their current woes. While the stories become more and more outrageous, it would certainly seem that they’re being exaggerated were it not for the piles of corroborating evidence and the personal testimony of the mayor’s former staff.

True, I wasn’t there and I don’t know any of the people mentioned in the police reports. My closest personal interaction with off-the-cuff statements and public officials involved newly-appointed mayor Norm Kelly in a brief conversation he had with Sarah and me at a doctor’s office about six months ago — his wife was there to treat a recurring medical condition. It seemed like an odd thing to blurt out to what to Norm must have been just two random strangers; but not exactly scandal material.

For the most part, I can only depend on inference and corroborating documents in reaching my conclusions. But increasingly, and perhaps as a result of ramped-up public pressure, one or the other of the Ford brothers makes a public statement that makes inference entirely unnecessary.

The latest such statement came courtesy of Rob himself, the “I wanted to eat her pussy” admonition — the “her” being former Ford staffer Olivia Gondek to whom, it is claimed, Rob made the proclamation during one of his infamous drunken stupors. Despite mentioning this in a closing aside during a press conference  (“oh, and one more thing”), this will probably be traced by future historians as the statement that pushed Rob Ford over the edge.

Problem is, no one actually said this. The real alleged statements included:

“I’m going to eat you out”
“I banged your pussy”
“I’m going to eat your box”

Apparently Ford said this to not only Gondek but also a female security guard (the final quote), and if the reports are to be believed, this isn’t completely out of character:

xxx) Mayor FORD tried to hit-on a woman that was at the [subway] station which was unusual behaviour for him. He asked her out to dinner.

…

eeee) Mayor FORD wanted to go to the Esplanade that night.

ffff) RANSOM described Alana as:

i)a female
ii) white,
iii) blonde hair,
iv) younger than RANSOM,
v) blue eyes,
vi) thin,
vii) petite and
viii) attractive.

gggg) RANSOM has a photo at home that he can provide to the police.

hhhh) Alana may have been an escort or prostitute. There have been rumors that Mayor FORD has used escorts or prostitutes. Alana has also been seen with Mayor FORD at a stag party. Alana approached PROVOST that night. This upset Mayor FORD because Alana recognized PROVOST. RANSOM thinks that Mayor FORD was upset because PROVOST was not being discreet about Alana. Alana didn’t seem intoxicated that night.

…

hhhh) Alana may have been an escort or prostitute. There have been rumors that Mayor FORD has used escorts or prostitutes. Alana has also been seen with Mayor FORD at a stag party. Alana approached PROVOST that night. This upset Mayor FORD because Alana recognized PROVOST. RANSOM thinks that Mayor FORD was upset because PROVOST was not being discreet about Alana. Alana didn’t seem intoxicated that night.

…

nn) CHRISTOPOULOS had enough of dealing with the personal life of the Mayor. That was not his job.

oo) In the past women have come to the office and told staffers that they have smoked a joint with the Mayor on the street outside of the bar. These women were told by the Mayor that they could have a job. CHRISTOPOULOS would have to interview these women and try and talk them out of a job. These women would state that the Mayor provided the marihuana. One women’s names was “Blair”. They would be contacted by email. Apparently this woman had put a picture of her and the Mayor on Twitter and she was contacted by the Toronto Star asking questions. That is when she contacted the office of the Mayor. The emails may have come into the Mayor’s account in June to August of 2012.

What’s genuinely interesting to me is how Rob managed to conflate certain statements made to the police (while ignoring other and, to me, considerably more serious allegations), to create something that was ultimately much worse.

Had he used an actual quote, his on-camera statement probably wouldn’t have been as bad. Yeah, making public statements about eating out boxes (first thing on a Monday morning to boot), probably also would’ve gotten some cockeyed looks, but I think we all agree that the way that Rob Ford decided to phrase it was probably the worst possible way.

The fact that these allegations were made is secondary to Rob’s almost mythical ability to take bad situations and make them just that much worse. To date, neither Rob, his brother, or anyone else has thought to correct this error, but regardless of whether there was a “pussy” or a “box”, or some sort of combination of the two, this latest incident just further proves what Ford critics have been saying all along: the man doesn’t have the judgement to correctly string together a sentence let alone run a city.

In my mind, that alone is an excellent reason for cutting Ford off at the knees. Sound judgement is probably the top attribute required of Toronto’s mayor, and neither Rob nor Doug have shown that they have any.