Spiderfish

I don't know if this video exists or if it doesn't, i don't who or what is on it if it does. I'm not sure if it shows Ford smoking crack with Somali drug dealers, but it had better not or he's done. I think the truth is going to come out, and it is going to be very interesting when it does. I believe the credibility and reputation of the Toronto Star is every bit as much on the line as Ford's carreer. Bringing forth an unsubstantiated allegation like this is a very risky thing to do, and the repercussions will be just as significant for the Star if the allegations turn out to be false as they will be for Ford if they turn out to be true.

Well, you can be pretty sure that person won't be Nigel Wright. Looks like he's sporting a size 10 boot print of his own.

You obviously do... I'm not sure what the connection is between Duffy's alleged improprieties and your dissatifaction with the current government.

The headlines are certainly getting more sensational and the unsupported accusations more extreme. With the Star's own journalistic integrity in question, a six figure price tag may be worth it to accomplish their determined, unwavering goal of politically killing Ford and showing that they actually do operate on a different level than the Enquirer. Running a headline like this without any evidence or support just reinforces their tabloid reporting style.

Speculation that Harper knew something about this has nothing to do with Duffy's poor decision to accept it. Accusations of bribery and breach of conflict of interest standards are more than political, and carries far more than just political consequences. These are serious allegations and if formally brought forth, better have something to back them up. Duffy hs successfully nuked his own reputation. At this point, it doesn't seem likely that the individuals bringing these allegations forward are just doing so to dance on the ashes of his remaining ethical credibility. If they are, it really doesn't say much for their own credibility and behaviour.

I agree that the optics are not good, but I will leave the doubting, what-if's, likely's and other broad speculation up to you.

Where is the contradiction? Legally, he may be within his right to accept this money to repay his debt, I don't know. But this whole thing has come about from a lack of sound judgement. Just because something is legal, does not mean it's implication will not be damaging to his reputation. I don't agree with his decision to accept this money to repay his debt because he is trying to salvage his reputation by correcting a wrong, in the process he has put his ethical reputation into question even further. This shows a fundamental lack of good judgement. It will take evidence, however to make an allegation of bribery stick to him.

Duffy better start finding some better sense and judgement, this whole thing has been created from bad judgement on his part. It seems the more he tries to put it to rest, the more he ends up stepping in it. I'm not sure what the legal implications of taking this money from Nigel is, but optically it just looks bad. He would have been better off to agree to pay the money back over time if he could not clear it up on his own all at once. It seems that one of the questions is that's the cause of some speculation is whether this was a "gift" or a "loan". It seems to be an important part of the equation to determine if there was a conflict ot interest or breach of ethical behaviour. If it was determined by Duffy and his legal council that recieveing this money would be a viable option, there should have been very clear terms written out as to agreement to repay, just to cover his butt.

As with any accusation of illegal or unethical activity, it's not what you know or what you think you know, it's what you can prove. If Duffy is found to be in violation of conflict of interest rules, or bribery, there will have to be firm evidence to back it up, whether it's an internal investigation or a legal action. Bringing forth such allegations with no evidence only exposes the accuser to risk of defamation and libel charges.

Productivity does not necessarily mean lower wages. Productivity comes from efficiency, which is achived by hiring skilled labour, which comes at a premium. Not all private sector companies are trying to compete on a global scale. There are thousands of private sector companies who are looking for talent to compete in the local market.

I've given this some thought and on reflection, I think I basically agree with your position, with one exception. Understanding how and why they did what they did is an important part of preventing further events, it's the "why" I'm getting stuck on. We can break down and understand why they felt this act was justified. We can try to understand their position from an objective perspective, but I don't think we can really get a full understanding and comprehension of the "why" unless we are able to look at it from their perspective, which would involve an emotional investment in their position to gain understanding. I'm not sure this is something you could do objectively. If by empathy, you are referring to objective analysis of their position, I agree with you.

You're talking about root causes, the rest of us are discussing empathy. My initial response was to MG. Since you don't have a clue what is even being discussed, I don't think you get much. Emotional inputs are not helpful in objectively analyzing a crime...yes I believe I do get that.

If you are trying to quantify their logic or perspective, I'm with you. If you are trying to qualify it, that's where you lose me.

I've been called worse.

I don't believe I am, empathy is identifying and recognizing a person's feelings or perspective to gain understanding, and is typically a precursor to compassion. Sympathy is agreeing with or sharing that feeling. Maybe I'm taking the definition too literally, I don't disagree that their perspective needs to be identified and recognized. I just don't see how you can really understand it if you can't relate to it. If a terrorist feels that it is acceptable in his view to kill innocent people for the sake of his cause, I understand that he has that perspective and that he has justification in his mind to act on it. But I don't understand how he got there, and I'm not sure all the reflection I can muster can give it more sense.

Investigating and understanding motive, intent, and possible accomplices is important, but it's not achieved by feeling empathy for the terrorist killers.

Fair enough...I'll leave the empathizing with terrorist murderers up to you and JT. Good luck with that. Did you not read my reply to Cyber? I said "Trying to understand them would require reflecting on what they perceive is justification. There is no justification as far as I'm concerned, therefore understanding them is impossible. The very definition of empathy is to try and understand the emotions or feelings of the person you're expressing empathy towards. I cannot feel empathy towards a person who decides to express their feelings of being "marginalized" by blowing innocent people to bits.

Trying to understand them would require reflecting on what they perceive is justification. There is no justification as far as I'm concerned, therefore understanding them is impossible.

I have no interest in trying to understand the emotions or feelings of a terrorist killer and rationalize why they would pursue the destruction of innocent human life to express their emotional sensitivity. I don't believe I could put myself in such a place, even if I thought it would help end evil. Murder is murder, plain and simple, and there is no circumstance in my mind that would justify such action.

I already stated what he said in the video, take whatever meaning you want from it. To me, when Justin said " ...it is important not to marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future..." implies to me that he thinks that terrorists feel marginalized and that's why they do evil things like blow up innocent people.

THERE WILL BE SOLDIERS WITH GUNS....IN OUR CITIES.... Classic stuff! Oh the memories.

Do you think that calm rationalization and exploration of the feelings of terrorists and how society makes them feel "marginalized" is the best way to deal with murderous terrorists who blow people up?

I caught that interview yesterday. I paid particular attention when he said " there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society. it is important not to marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future." Somehow I think trying to rationalize and reason with evil, psychotic behavior will not help much in preventing future terrorist attacks. At least he said something, so it's a start.

I was thinking the same thing about the Liberals.

As I said earlier, after researching, I opted for Android over Win8RT for my recent tablet purchase. I guess i won't be experiencing the highlights of the premium product, but at least I'll have access to a decent selection of apps. If i can't run legacy software, this is pretty important, and something MS seems to have overlooked.