Sue ann is a kapo corporate prostitute. She never gets the story straight, always her spin on it.
 
Remember that this sort of media--Fox, Sun, talk radio, etc--likes to frame what it's doing as "entertainment". Otherwise, the only realms where I encounter the word "entertainment" used in this way is gambling and prostitution...
 
Otherwise, the only realms where I encounter the word "entertainment" used in this way is gambling and prostitution...
So from the nfitz school of twisting words... did you just tell us that gambling and prostitution are realms you're intimate with?
 
So from the nfitz school of twisting words... did you just tell us that gambling and prostitution are realms you're intimate with?

For a guy who goes to Vegas 3 or 4 times a year - not that I partake - I better not have a problem with that. They're both legal (within limits) here, as well.

I don't think he did claim to be intimate with those things, but the type of entertainment that the Fords are pandering is akin to prostitution and gambling. There are no limits to how low the Fords would go to sell out this city.

You go to Vegas 3-4 times a year? Eeew.
 
I don't think he did claim to be intimate with those things
That was exactly my point, adma never said that. It was directed more at nfitz, so don't worry about not getting it.

You go to Vegas 3-4 times a year? Eeew.
I'm in the LED lighting business and much of our product goes into sign and display use, and combined with the trade shows I need to attend or be a part of, I don't have a lot of choice. Fortunately I go to a lot of other great cities to counter the kitsch, but it is what it is. Have you ever been?
 
Last edited:
I don't think he did claim to be intimate with those things, but the type of entertainment that the Fords are pandering is akin to prostitution and gambling. There are no limits to how low the Fords would go to sell out this city.

You go to Vegas 3-4 times a year? Eeew.

I just want to point out that many trade shows and conferences are hosted in Las Vegas...for the obvious reasons. Some people don't have a choice but to go to Las Vegas, 3 or 4 times a year.
 
Last edited:
That was exactly my point, adma never said that. It was directed more at nfitz, so don't worry about not getting it.


I'm in the LED lighting business and much of our product goes into sign and display use, and combined with the trade shows I need to attend or be a part of, I don't have a lot of choice. Fortunately I go to a lot of other great cities to counter the kitsch, but it is what it is. Have you ever been?

I've been but it was in the early nineties and it only happened to be en route so we had a quick look. Call me closed minded, but I find places like Las Vegas depressing. I find slums in developing countries far more interesting that what goes on in Las Vegas.
 
So from the nfitz school of twisting words... did you just tell us that gambling and prostitution are realms you're intimate with?

Actually, my remark is more about something a lot of us are *least* consciously "intimate with", because it operates at such a low level--"entertainment" sans "culture", so to speak. Which is rather baldly, starkly different from when the word's used in relation to mainstream music, television, theatre, cinema, etc.

So, let's just say I was more "intimate with" the use of the word as a self-aggrandizing alibi from your usual Rush Limbaugh types. And I was puzzled by it--like, that's it? "Entertainment"? What kind of word is that? And where's the substance? What's entertainment without substance? Seems like an awful thin, flippant, slimy way to alibi oneself.

Then, I figured it out--it's "entertainment" much like how "adult entertainment" is "entertainment". Or like how the gaming industry frames itself as "entertainment". Those are the strongest parallels for this kind of culture-free, cheap-or-not-so-cheap "entertainment". And you don't even have to partake in it to be aware, even at second hand, of it...
 
And because there's not quite enough shifty cruelty coming out of the Ford office. Pretty awful: From the Globe today:


Mayor Ford's office slams 'deliberate attack' by Waterfront CEO

"The hostility between Rob Ford and Waterfront Toronto is real and escalating, judging by the frank language contained in a letter from the mayor’s office to the agency that was obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Penned by the mayor’s chief of staff, Amir Remtulla, the missive accuses Waterfront Toronto chief executive officer John Campbell of “a very serious breach” of responsibility for comments that appeared in The Globe last week. It also states that the issue has been taken up with federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, suggesting the mayor’s office may be building consensus to remove Mr. Campbell from his post.

The Globe story came out on Sept. 9, three days after Mr. Ford endorsed a vast overhaul of Waterfront Toronto’s plan for 180 hectares of land at the mouth of the Don River – a vision that was more than a decade in the making. Highlighted by a Ferris wheel and megamall, the Ford-backed plan was largely seen as a public flogging of Waterfront Toronto, the three-government agency charged with cleaning up and developing the area – also known as the Port Lands – and much of the rest of Toronto’s largely dormant lakeshore.

The mayor’s brother, Councillor Doug Ford, championed the plan after meeting with the Westfield Group, an Australian mall developer.

In the Globe Story, Mr. Campbell said that he often turns away such advances from international developers because, “We cannot do deals behind closed doors.” The story also pegged infrastructure costs for the Ford plan at $270-million.

The mayor’s office took it as both a personal and political affront that has weakened their already strained confidence in Mr. Campbell’s leadership.

“Your comments are a deliberate attack on the integrity and reputations of the Mayor and Councillor Ford,” wrote Mr. Remtulla in a letter to Mr. Campbell obtained by The Globe. “Your comments are a very serious breach of your duties and responsibilities as the CEO of an agency of which the City of Toronto is a one-third shareholder.”

Mr. Campbell’s comments were “particularly disappointing,” Mr. Remtulla continued, given that the two men had met at City Hall one day prior and struck a rapprochement, agreeing to co-operate so that “public rhetoric would be toned down on both sides.”

“Your comments in this article cannot be construed as anything other than a complete repudiation of that understanding and commitment to work together on the Portlands project.”

The letter concludes saying that the mayor’s office is “extremely disappointed and disturbed” by Mr. Campbell’s actions and that a copy of the memo would be sent to the office of Mr. Flaherty, Ottawa’s lead on Waterfront Toronto.

Mr. Flaherty’s press secretary said he had received the letter, but declined to get involved. “This is a matter for Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto to work out, and should be resolved through discussion,” Mary Ann Dewey-Plante said in an e-mail.

Reached by telephone on Tuesday, Mr. Campbell said he felt his comments had been misconstrued and that he remained committed to collaborating with the mayor.

“We never meant to comment on anyone else’s plans for the waterfront,” he said. “What we’ve been trying to do in recent weeks is tread the fine line of defending [Waterfront Toronto’s] plan without creating undo adversaries. We’re defending our work. We’re proud of what we’ve done. And we’re open to new ideas about how to get it done faster.”

Doug Ford said that he and the mayor want to work with Mr. Campbell rather than take him down. “They have some good ideas and we have some good ideas and we want to work together,” he said of Waterfront Toronto.

At the same time, he didn’t hide his irritation with some of Mr. Campbell’s actions. “Rob and I have never made deals behind closed doors and I take that as a personal insult,” Mr. Ford said. “I agree 100 per cent with Amir’s letter, it’s not up to the CEO of an agency to get into the political weeds and make those kind of comments.”


"Your comments are a deliberate attack on the integrity and reputations of the Mayor and Councillor Ford".
"Rob and I have never made deals behind closed doors and I take that as a personal insult"
What a load of outright crap. Mr. Campbell's answers regarding the Portlands were professional, level, and well-reasoned - and publicly candid. I guess the truth hurts. As for 'deals behind closed doors', I guess Doug might want to retract his "backroom vision" boast, along with his canoodling with the Australian developers and hiring of an architect to draw up the concepts for his Portland scheme. For starters.
This is the operative face of the Fords: touchy, nasty, selfish, vindictive. I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of it.
 
Last edited:
I think Ford is trying to make the environment toxic enough that Campbell resigns, so that he doesn't get the bad press from firing him. Campbell doesn't seem to be taking the bait.
 
What a load of outright crap. Mr. Campbell's answers regarding the Portlands were professional, level, and well-reasoned - and publicly candid. I guess the truth hurts. As for 'deals behind closed doors', I guess Doug might want to retract his "backroom vision" boast, along with his canoodling with the Australian developers and hiring of an architect to draw up the concepts for his Portland scheme. For starters.
First off - simply meeting and discussing ideas is not the same as making backroom deals. I agree with you that Mr. Campbell's answers were largely professional and well reasoned, but the following quote concerns me:

In the Globe Story, Mr. Campbell said that he often turns away such advances from international developers because, “We cannot do deals behind closed doors.” The story also pegged infrastructure costs for the Ford plan at $270-million.
Again - having discussions with developers is not doing deals behind closed doors. It's the responsibility of WT to have these discussions and if something viable becomes possible, you bring the discussion to the other stakeholders and put the actual deal together in an open, inclusive manner. That they have been spurning developers while at the same time saying they have no means to get things done means that they have been at least someone disingenuous in their responsibilities to the stakeholders. It's not unlike the Fords rejecting the Olympic bid without first gaining consensus from council, which also should not have happened the way it did.


I've been but it was in the early nineties and it only happened to be en route so we had a quick look. Call me closed minded, but I find places like Las Vegas depressing. I find slums in developing countries far more interesting that what goes on in Las Vegas.
Las Vegas today is a vastly different place than the Las Vegas of the 90s. The tacky is still there if you want it, but it's become far more about dining, shopping and shows - all of which range from bargain basement to very high calibre. You're entitled to be closed minded, but I would say that if you haven't been to a place in almost 20 years then perhaps it might be time too give it another shot, even if just passing through. If you're into architecture there's a lot more to take in also, though it has to be taken within context.


Anyways - back to the thread at hand...
 
Last edited:
First off - simply meeting and discussing ideas is not the same as making backroom deals.

I'd argue that it's not nearly as simplistic as you suggest here, and that it actually depends on the context. Meeting with unregistered lobbyists without the local councillor present and coming to some sort of agreement in principle that's then advanced through the media -- that, at least colloquially if not legally, seems to me to be a backroom deal.

Also, whether or not this was actually a backroom deal appears to be a legitimate question that's still under investigation.

It's not unlike the Fords rejecting the Olympic bid without first gaining consensus from council, which also should not have happened the way it did.

Let's call a spade a spade: the Fords are trying to run Toronto like it's their own family business. What's truly remarkable is that this "business" is operating in an industry that neither is particularly well-versed in, and yet they're absolutely determined to reject and disregard the views of anyone who is.

Nonetheless, it's kinda funny to see that Mayor Chris Farley threw a hissy fit and went crying to Uncle Jimbo, who quite rightly declined to get involved.

Way to keep it classy.

Indeed. But then again, no-one falls off their high horse either harder or more consistently than that guy.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top