News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I was prepared for such a ruling potentially happening--sort of like, the Hackland decision came so out of nobody-expected-anything-that-harsh left field, I was prepared for a counter-"nobody expected" circumstance.

But, y'know, the last few pages of bwahaha-ing "hey, get over it" from your usual hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery suspects is a good reminder of how "trollism" a la message boards and newspaper/blog comment threads has had a coarsening effect on everything out there--like, web democracy giving the malformed a chance to reframe and ridicule, from the figurative loutish back of the classroom, everything mainstream media into "lamestream pinko media". Which actually makes sense--in the pre-Internets days, they didn't have a "public voice"; or if they sought to send letters to the editor (which was a more "overwrought and psychological demanding" task in the days before instant electronic messaging), they didn't pass newsprint muster. But now--blam, post a message, and you're a STAR, baby. "Take that, lamestream media, for disenfranchising us all those years! You thought you could indoctrinate us--no way!"

A quarter decade ago when the scale of the Ford phenomenon rose its, uh, ugly head, I framed it in UT-understandable terms as the "design-builds" vs the "architects". And it was a novelty: Ford as the first "design-build" Mayor. All other serious mayoral aspirants to date were "architects"--even Lastman, in his cheesy-Lapidus way. The public grew accustomed to the "architect" status quo--but here, lo and behold, was a "design-build", who designed the places "we" live in rather than what's illustrated in pretentious glossy publications. Never mind that the fare was gauche, inept hackwork; it was "of us", aka Ford Nation.

It's the same dynamic in newspaper comment threads--Chris Hume may write about architecture, but you get the feeling from the comment threads that it's once-mute design-build "silent majority" out to get him.

It's as if the, uh, lamestream media "consensus" was like some officially sanctioned Jimmy Savile type that was silently, uh, molesting the hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery crowd's minds for all these years; and now, oh lordy, sweet revenge.

sir_jimmy_savile_553501.jpg
 
Electrify said:
What are the two? I know there is his election finances, what is the other?
Click to expand...

I knew I had just read it today but couldn't remember where so had to go back and find out where I read that he had two upcoming legal challenges. I found it in NOW, they wrote "at least two more legal challenges" including the campaign finance loan/overage, so that's where I got it from. I don't know what the other one is so strike that comment if you wish or take it with a grain of salt.
 
adma said:
But, y'know, the last few pages of bwahaha-ing "hey, get over it" from your usual hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery suspects is a good reminder of how "trollism" a la message boards and newspaper/blog comment threads has had a coarsening effect on everything out there--like, web democracy giving the malformed a chance to reframe and ridicule, from the figurative loutish back of the classroom, everything mainstream media into "lamestream pinko media".
Click to expand...

But the anti-Ford members could be labelled as trolls for their comments on how Ford is a racist or wife beater or poking fun at his weight. I think both sides need to smarten up :)
 
Last edited:
Conservatives (of left or right-wing backgrounds) have always managed to get significant support by preaching politics of fear, hatred, and greed.

"You shouldn't have to share your hard earned-money", tells the millionaire to the plumber - implying neither should millionaires.

"If we don't stop this mad spending your grandchildren will be in debt!", they said about social programs during the Great Depression, or about building Toronto's Old City Hall.

"They want us to subsidise their lifestyle", suburban crowds are told with regards to government unions or urban dwellers. In reality N. American suburban populations are possibly the most intensely subsidised people in the history of humanity.

"If we allow free-market reforms you will lose your freedom forever", conservative communists warned the populace of soviet republics.

The likes of Rob Ford, Hudak, and Andrea Horwath let their narrow visions of the world - full of fear, full of emotion - cloud their judgement to scary extents. There's a reason why you will struggle to find university professors of any discipline who have time for these three.

At least in Toronto our weak mayor system protects us somewhat from the consequences of voting in these types.
 
Juan_Lennon416 said:
But the anti-Ford members could be labelled as trolls for their comments on how Ford is a racist or wife beater or poking fun at his weight. I think both sides need to smarten up :)
Click to expand...

And of course, in our post-Amanda Todd age, if you're not a "troll", you're a "bully". Or if you attack one, you're labelled as the other, etc.

But in the middle of all of this coarseness, something's been lost. Like, once upon a time, in what's now labelled the lamestream pinko media, someone like the recently-deceased Ada Louise Huxtable was respected, feared, etc for her architectural criticism--but fundamentally, uh, "trollproof", because it was a pre-troll age.

dezeen_Ada-Louise-Huxtable_photo-by-Garth-Huxtable.jpg


She'd make silent mincemeat out of the hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery types. Just saying.
 
nfitz said:
I can't recall anyone calling him a racist - in the last 500 pages or so ...
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure somebody has, because that's the nature of the beast (oh! beast! calling him names again) we're dealing with.

If anything, I'm prone to flipping the "race card" on its head and viewing Ford in terms of a Coleman Young or Marion Barry vulgarly representing the "homies" siccing it to "whitey". (Which, in a "Stuff White People Like" age, makes perfect sense. Fordlandia vs Portlandia, y'know.)
 
Adma,

I think you made your point about the "hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery types" way back. That's enough.
 
My Ruby contact tells me that one or more of the 3 other cases against Ford will be brought out in addition to the Supreme Court appeal. I've really had enough of this. I think we can all live with the very much neutered Rob Ford for the next 11 months when an election will begin. Let's focus on finding a consent candidate that speaks for the Left/Centre or better yet, one like John Tory who sits mostly in the middle.
 
MetroMan said:
My Ruby contact tells me that one or more of the 3 other cases against Ford will be brought out in addition to the Supreme Court appeal. I've really had enough of this. I think we can all live with the very much neutered Rob Ford for the next 11 months when an election will begin. Let's focus on finding a consent candidate that speaks for the Left/Centre or better yet, one like John Tory who sits mostly in the middle.
Click to expand...

At this point, the only reason I can see wanting any level of appeal is in regards to the legal fees. Seeing how close the ruling was, and how it was essentially a technicality which saved his butt, I don't think the plaintiff should be responsible for Ford's legal fees. At least in full.
 
I don't know what the other cases are about but given Ford's laissez faire attitude of being a politician, I'm sure there could be a phone book size list of illegal actions. With regards to paying Ford's legal fees, he is still guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest laws but was let off by a technicality which in essence eliminated the ability to prosecute him because in the opinion of the Divisional Court, the city acted beyond its jurisdiction. He won't dare to attempt to re-open this case and give Ruby a reason to take it farther than it has to.
 
MetroMan said:
I don't know what the other cases are about but given Ford's laissez faire With regards to paying Ford's legal fees, he is still guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest laws but was let off by a technicality which in essence eliminated the ability to prosecute him because in the opinion of the Divisional Court, the city acted beyond its jurisdiction. He won't dare to attempt to re-open this case and give Ruby a reason to take it farther than it has to.
Click to expand...

The fact is Ford is not guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest laws. The 3-judge panel ruled that Ford did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter which he voted on therefore he cannot be found to have broken the Conflict of Interest laws.

I notice a lot of people unhappy with the decision like to think Ford got off on a "technicality" but this isn't true either. An example of someone getting acquitted on a technicality would be a drug dealer who was found in possession of cocaine in his home but the charges are thrown out because police did not have a search warrant when they discovered the drug. To make an analogy with the Ford case, Ford got acquitted when it was proven that the bags of cocaine were actually bags of flour.

I am sure that when it comes to court costs Fords lawyers will go after the full amount which is rumored to be around $300,000 so far (just as they said they will do in the Foulidis case). They don't have to worry that aggressively going after Magder for court costs will somehow cause the case to be re-opened and re-tried. That can't happen. This case is closed.
 
Peepers said:
An example of someone getting acquitted on a technicality would be a drug dealer who was found in possession of cocaine in his home but the charges are thrown out because police did not have a search warrant when they discovered the drug. To make an analogy with the Ford case, Ford got acquitted when it was proven that the bags of cocaine were actually bags of flour.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if the drug dealer thought that they were bags of cocaine then I wouldn't expect him to go around saying that he had been "completely vindicated" when it was later found out to be flour. He still owned what he thought were drugs, much like Ford still voted on a matter that he thought would benefit him financially. They both got off through dumb luck. There's nothing for Ford to be proud of in this situation. There was no vindication here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top