Web Toolbar by Wibiya
If there has ever been a more obvious personification in the Canadian context of the reality that rich white men can get away with actions and behaviour that absolutely no one else would be able to, I am not aware of it. And, not just get away with the behaviour, but get elected to office and defended by otherwise self-described “law-and-order” right wing types despite it!

Dangerous addictions: Toronto, right wing hypocrisies and Rob Ford | rabble.ca

Good argument from Michael Laxer.

Source: rabble.ca

Sun News will shut down if it doesn’t get what it wants from CRTC: net | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

Ah, what the hey. Let’s pile on.

Sun News faces ‘death sentence’ without CRTC help, network says - The Globe and Mail

That coffin-lid thing again. Because, you know, @sladurantaye.

Sun News To CRTC: No Guaranteed Spot On Cable Means 'Death Sentence'

Don’t let the coffin lid hit you in the face on the way down.

Crew Magazine | Let The Backlash Begin

Really? Sun readers racist, homophobic, sexist and stupid?

Read closely, Hudak. These are your peeps.

Municipal governance, the appeal court, and Rob Ford’s moral compass | #TOpoli

An entertaining day at the Ontario Court of Justice yesterday, listening to the legal arguments at the Ford appeal. Those of you following on the Tweeter know all about it already.

Reflecting on the proceedings today, Ed Keenan argues, not unreasonably, that both Alan Lenczner and Clayton Ruby are right in their characterization of our Chief Magistrate. Other observers weigh in, perceptively, on his simplistic approach, his stubbornness, his evident sense of entitlement, and what Mr. Ruby described as his wilful ignorance. Nothing new there, really.

As the ensuing discussion on Twitter suggests, though, we’re left with a thorny ethical question.

From a moral standpoint, which is worse: lying and prevaricating deliberately? Deluding yourself into the belief that your false statements are actually true? Being so out of touch that you genuinely don’t recognize the difference between true and false? 

I have to emphasize, for the purposes of this discussion, that I’m not ascribing any of these courses to Rob Ford, or to anyone else. I don’t understand his motives, I don’t know what goes on in his head, I don’t know what his handlers tell him, and I’m not privy to any of those conversations. Only Rob Ford knows what makes Rob Ford say the things he says. 

But it’s hard not to see the moral minefield. I’ve never really worked out a comprehensive evaluation of the good and the bad (and in truth, these questions, while they may be sharply crystallized by the Ford ascendancy, are independent of him), but however we shake things out, we’re left with some uncomfortable residue. It’s relatively easy, for example, to condemn deliberate falsehoods. Lying is a bad thing. We’re all taught that from the moment we learn how to walk and talk. 

But what is lying? The intent to mislead, to deceive, to withhold information, to knowingly state that which we know to be false? In isolation, it’s easy to condemn that on moral grounds.

But what if it’s not in isolation? What if the lie is intended in the service of a greater good? No, I didn’t tell my friend his cooking sucked. No, I didn’t tell my friend her singing was tuneless and at odds with the rhythm. I value their friendship and I didn’t want to insult them. 

And what if the falsehood isn’t considered, but spur-of-the-moment bullshit to which our man subsequently commits himself ever more firmly in the genuine belief that he’s acting in the public interest?

You can see where it goes from there. A whole range of sliding justifications, many of which point, inexorably, to End-Justifies-the-Meansville. 

And what if it’s a whole different ballgame, one in which our man genuinely doesn’t know the difference between true and false? If that’s the case (and I’m not saying it is, I’m just spitballing for the purposes of argument), then how can there be any intent to mislead? There’s no basis for moral condemnation any more.

Or is there? Isn’t it just as bad — arguably worse — to be so disconnected that you’re essentially without any moral basis for your actions? As Ed recalls, Jesus urged forgiveness of his tormentors because they knew not what they did, but we’re not apostles, and this isn’t a crucifixion.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Rob Ford does or doesn’t go through these calculations in how he governs himself or approaches his responsibilities. And I’m not getting religion here. I don’t think it’s a prerequisite to the establishment of a moral framework, and I’d also note that Rob Ford’s also shown that he’s capable of decency and generosity of spirit. For the purposes of good governance, we needn’t arrive at a conclusive moral resolution here (and I’m deliberately sidestepping the uncomfortable implications of that), but we can’t pretend the questions aren’t there either.

Related posts:

Have I mentioned just how sick I am of this idiotic “fiscal cliff” meme? As usual, this cartoonist captures its ridiculousness better than I can. H/t Tom Tomorrow.
Pop-upView Separately

Have I mentioned just how sick I am of this idiotic “fiscal cliff” meme? As usual, this cartoonist captures its ridiculousness better than I can.

H/t Tom Tomorrow.

In the late days of the campaign, there has been a chorus arising in the elite political media about what a grubby, wretched campaign this has been. It has not been a battle of big ideas, they say. It has not been a clash of grand visions. (They’re wrong about that last part, as we will demonstrate shortly.) It has not transported them to lofty heights of democratic ecstasy. Yeah, and it hath harshed all their mellows unto the many generations. I’m not exactly sure what these people expected. American politics has degenerated into a grubby, wretched business. American elections have become a staggering money-drunk mess reeling from one catastrophe to another, culminating in the Panamanian clusterfuck that has been unspooling down here over the last four days, and which will come to a cacophonous crescendo on Election Day, when, I guarantee you, something you absolutely did not think ever was possible here in the World’s Greatest Democracy will come blundering out of the swamps and scrub pine to fascinate and horrify us all.
Election Day 2012 - Charles P. Pierce on Election Day 2012 - Esquire

Source: esquire.com

So, to sum up #TeamFord’s assault on civic life this week … | #TOpoli

First they lie about interfering in the civic appointments process.

Then they demand proof beyond “hearsay.” 

Then when the proof is revealed in the form of a list of preferred candidates, they huff and puff and shout insults and try to dismiss the revelation as politically motivated.

All the while, pursuing a petty and vindictive campaign for revenge against the city ombudsman.

Rules? What rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.

And it’s only Wednesday.

Related posts:

Instead of the decent thing, Mr. Ford is doing what he always does when under attack: shoot the messenger. “It’s all political. It’s just nonsense,” the mayor told reporters on Thursday. He wants to get rid of the integrity commissioner, the ombudsman and, for good measure, the lobbyist registrar.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford ramps up war on public servants - The Globe and Mail

@marcusbgee on the latest embarrassment at City Hall.

Once again, the Ford boys show their contempt for the rules.

What’s the point of winning an election if we don’t get to do whatever the fuck we want?

They’re special, you see. They don’t need no stinkin’ rules.

It seems that a lot of former Ford voters are feeling a bit of buyers’ remorse. One wonders how this will affect it.

Related posts:

Source: The Globe and Mail