Rob Ford's Toronto

[nfitz]

It's unfair to Ford's supporters to paint them all as bigots or racist or whatever just because of something Ford has said or a view he might hold, unless you talk to them and they say "Yeah, I love Ford 'cause he hates queers!" - then, you've got a point.

I disagree.

If someone holds extreme views that are at odds with both the law and society, then continuing to support them, once you understand that what their views are, is just as anti-social in my mind. It demonstrates that one has a lack of ethics and morality, and places a low value on such things.

 

[Eug]

What use are skilled public servants like planners, business managers, policy analysts and engineers if we ignore their recommendations

Indeed, like the whole elephant sanctuary and shark fin soup fiascos.

I don't support ford but... I think you're going way out of line here. You're allowed to support the Mayor for different reasons, and just because you support, say, subways it doesn't mean you condone any bigotry that he might demonstrate. It's not black or white, all or nothing, etc... it's a whole variety of shades of grey, and no one is beholden to agree with every single position of a person they vote for or support when it comes to politicians. Hell, if I was required to take on or support every viewpoint of whoever I vote for - or if I had to agree with everything they've said in order to vote for them - I'd probably never cast a vote. It's unfair to Ford's supporters to paint them all as bigots or racist or whatever just because of something Ford has said or a view he might hold, unless you talk to them and they say "Yeah, I love Ford 'cause he hates queers!" - then, you've got a point.

Well said. I don't support Ford either, but the world isn't all black vs. white. Sometimes you just need to weigh the good vs. the bad, comparing all options.

 

[guitarchitect]

I disagree.

If someone holds extreme views that are at odds with both the law and society, then continuing to support them, once you understand that what their views are, is just as anti-social in my mind. It demonstrates that one has a lack of ethics and morality, and places a low value on such things.

It's one thing to support the bigoted views - but it's entirely another to support their political agenda and economic policies independent of their views.

What I'm saying is that you're allowed to support the politician without supporting the person. It's the same reason you can support, say, Bill Clinton but be fully and totally against extramarital affairs. Just because you think he's a good president it doesn't mean you condone and support cheating on one's wife.

And yes, to some degree their politics can be influenced by their views. However, few politicians in Canada have the ability to craft legislation that has entirely to do with their views and their views alone - we're governed by majority consensus at almost every level of government, so the odd extreme view of the elected often come out in the wash. Rob Ford could be the biggest homophobe in the world, but he still doesn't have the power to stop or cancel the pride parade, for example.

 

[ttk77]

I think the hypocrisy of this is what's pissing me off most about yesterdays vote. Most of Ford's supporters are pretty anti-Liberal and decry at almost every opportunity the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars that was wasted in cancelling the gas plants to buy votes and satisfy populist mentality in those ridings (completely justified anger), but between the cancelling of transit city and now the changing of gears on the LRT vs. Subway debate Ford has wasted nearly $200 million. Will we hear those same Ford supporters complaining about that wasted money and calling for him to step down? I think not.

 

[k10ery]

So it's okay for John Parker to make a joke about Adam Vaughan's credibility suffering due to his wardrobe (orange pants, egads!), but nobody should dare note that Rob Ford's morbid obesity has implications re: judgement, lifestyle and mental health?

You're saying Vaughan can't help his (red-)orange pants, he was just born that way?

 

[Gavin]

Keep in mind: at the same time as Ford made these views apparent, these were also the same as Obama's views. And yet...you don't here him being derided as a homophobic bigot.

This is the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I."

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

You're saying Vaughan can't help his (red-)orange pants, he was just born that way?

Not what I'm saying at all. The point is, why is it okay to mock someone for an inconsequential choice (i.e. what colour pants they put on that morning), but to forbid mocking someone for a consequential choice (i.e. an unhealthy lifestyle)? The point is, why are the rules different for some municipal politicians than others?

(Don't worry, I know the answer; I'm just pointing out the inconsistency)

Or are you saying that Ford was born morbidly obese and this is an immutable physical characteristic? If so, please cite some evidence (or even a rationale) to support that assertion.

 

[Eug]

Not justifying anything either way, but I'd hazard to guess there is more of a genetic predisposition to obesity than there is to wearing orange pants.

 

[James_D]

So the province has committed 1.4 billion to subways. However, didn't robbie say quite emphatically and with his standard bluster and hyperbole:

"$1.8 billion - and not a dime less or the deal is dead. I'm not here to play games."

 

[guitarchitect]

Not what I'm saying at all. The point is, why is it okay to mock someone for an inconsequential choice (i.e. what colour pants they put on that morning), but to forbid mocking someone for a consequential choice (i.e. an unhealthy lifestyle)? The point is, why are the rules different for some municipal politicians than others?

(Don't worry, I know the answer; I'm just pointing out the inconsistency)

Or are you saying that Ford was born morbidly obese and this is an immutable physical characteristic? If so, please cite some evidence (or even a rationale) to support that assertion.

Not to derail into a physioliogy discussion but, Rob's metabolism works very different than a "slim" person's. There's a classic look to someone whose metabolism is insulin dominant, in that everything is "chubby" or round, or looks like it's puffed up, right down to the fingers, because people with insulin dominant metabolisms will basically store everything as fat. This is a very different look than someone whose metabolism is thyroid dominant, where if they put on a hundred pounds they still won't have fat fingers... and they generally have a faster metabolism and find it hard to put on weight anyway. If Adam Vaughan weighed the same as the Mayor, I guarantee you he'd look very different.

There's a third class, people who are hormone-dominant, and they just tend to put on muscle. The three can be mixed to various degrees, but they can also be very prominent... in Rob's case I'd say it's very prominent insulin dominance.

That's not to say it can't be controlled - Doug looks like he has the same set of genes, but he's got it under a lot better control. But to your point about immutable physical characteristics, yes, he was dealt a shittier hand than many. Doesn't excuse him from not exercising or over-eating, though.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Not to derail into a physioliogy discussion but, Rob's metabolism works very different than a "slim" person's. There's a classic look to someone whose metabolism is insulin dominant, in that everything is "chubby" or round, or looks like it's puffed up, right down to the fingers, because people with insulin dominant metabolisms will basically store everything as fat. This is a very different look than someone whose metabolism is thyroid dominant, where if they put on a hundred pounds they still won't have fat fingers... and they generally have a faster metabolism and find it hard to put on weight anyway. If Adam Vaughan weighed the same as the Mayor, I guarantee you he'd look very different.

There's a third class, people who are hormone-dominant, and they just tend to put on muscle. The three can be mixed to various degrees, but they can also be very prominent... in Rob's case I'd say it's very prominent insulin dominance.

That's not to say it can't be controlled - Doug looks like he has the same set of genes, but he's got it under a lot better control. But to your point about immutable physical characteristics, yes, he was dealt a shittier hand than many. Doesn't excuse him from not exercising or over-eating, though.

^That's all very enlightening, thank you. Based on your explanation, it seems that my assertion was partially unfounded, and to that extent I retract it.

 

[PinkLucy]

Gawker has announced which charities are getting the money: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...e_getting_crackstarter_fundraising_money.html

Interesting choices -- a number of better-known charities had indicated that they wouldn't accept a donation, so I wonder how they chose these particular ones and if they actually had any "thanks but no thanks" to the offer of the donation.

 

[lovarkitec]

Does anyone think the Feds will actually show up with the money by September 30th?

I mean, if anything, the Ford Mayoralty has shown me that practically the unthinkable is possible, so I wouldn't rule out even that at this point. However, in the more likely event they don't, it looks to be a multiple layer-cake of nasty on all levels. From the provincial liberals waving cash to get votes ("we want some too!, yeah, some over here too, why not?") and public loss of face, through Metrolinx's sidelining, to the passing by of citizens' wishes, to the sudden naked show that votes count more than planning, to the bizarre kowtowing to a Mayor so stupid he can't even identify the project being debated at the time, to the overturning of contracts and previously hard-won political decisions, the infeffectuality and chaos of a rudderless council, etc., etc.

Lots and lots of ugly in one lousy heap. I can't believe what a circus this is.

I, for one, doubt that Scarborough will ever see that subway (out of this decision, anyway), and the resultant miring of other, scheduled LRT projects looks to be near. With attendant rising costs.

AGREED! This vote is all political posturing so that people can say in the next election ..."I voted for subways'. No one is going to fund this - this will put the Feds into an awkward position - they never put money into Toronto - especially Liberal ridings. Wynne and Murry will simply say that we have already given money for the LRT line and we support the evidence-based Metrolinx plan. By the time the election comes around, Scarboroughites won't care about it...

 

[Tulse]

By the time the election comes around, Scarboroughites won't care about it...

I'm not convinced they really care about it now, except as a way of expressing political grievance. Has there really been a grass-roots campaign for better mass transit in Scarborough, or is this just about a perception of the "elites" not respecting the suburbs, and keeping trolleys off of the streets?

 

[Peepers]

Gawker has announced which charities are getting the money: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...e_getting_crackstarter_fundraising_money.html

Interesting choices -- a number of better-known charities had indicated that they wouldn't accept a donation, so I wonder how they chose these particular ones and if they actually had any "thanks but no thanks" to the offer of the donation.

I think Gawker should be forced to give the money back since they are not fulfilling their original pledge to give the money to charities related to the cause of fighting drug addiction. I doubt that the many people who contributed to this fund realized that their money could wind up going to an organization such as the Somali Canadian Association of Etobicoke. I did not donate anything to the crackstarter fund but if I had I would be pretty pissed off to see what is happening with the money.