ReeferMadness

And how do you define bad parenting? I'd like to know if I'm doing it wrong.

yes, Harper is the world's biggest hypocrite. He came in promising to clean up Ottawa and now the self-righteous crowd who voted him in are mirroring his hypocrisy.

What makes this possible is how ignorant and unengaged the public is. What a bunch of sheep.

So, all violence stems from bad parenting?

Exactly. So far, we've just taken out other species; but hacking away at the biosphere is like hacking away at our own roots. Eventually, we will find that the most fragile population left is the billions of homo sapiens who have undermined their own existence.

I've never understood the media's self-censorship when it comes to Israel. I don't know how many times I've heard some western right-wing politician huffing and puffing about how Iran can never get a nuclear weapon but I've never heard a journalist question why it's OK for Israel to have hundreds.

Harper won't go anywhere near Ford right now (probably not in the future either) but he needs Ford Nation. Count on the Cons to try to find someone else who can rebuild the looney right in Toronto.

How can this clown still have supporters? Is suburban Toronto the new redneck capital of Canada?

Really. Ever heard of intelligent design?

I think the point is that there are so many trolls wedded to the oil industry that are afraid to even try. They're worried that it may be a lot more feasible than they want it to be.

I played a year in high school but I'm not sure I would do it, knowing what I know now. The body was never designed for that kind of punishment. But there are lots of other contact sports that could fall into this category. - boxing - hockey - rugby And most sports played a high level will eventually result in stress or strain injuries. I think it's less about the sport and more about how it's played.

What are the odds? Is there anyone that Ford will listen to other than his mother. She thinks he just has a weight problem.

That's an admittedly disturbing possibility but I've never been to Toronto. So I don't know. I will say that it's inconceivable that none of these people know what kind of man they were getting when they voted. But hey, they got their tax cuts. Not at all. Are you telling me that you can't have racists in a multicultural part of the city? BTW, you seem to be ignoring that I haven't called him a racist - I was quoting one of his fellow councillors. He also didn't threaten to sue Gord Perks for saying he is racist and homophobic. Perks' story was printed November 8. Are you contending that he only became litigious between November 8 and the 14th when he started threatening to sue his former employees? Or is it perhaps a bit more likely that he's only going to threaten to sue people he thinks he can intimidate because he knows they lack the resources to go to court? So, again, why hasn't he threatened to sue Perks for libel? My guess is that he knows that Perks could assemble a Rose Bowl-sized parade of people who would line up to testify about things he's said. But that's just a theory - I'm open to other suggestions.

Hmm... this is what happened when I hit the "Quote" button - it's almost like it's implying you had nothing to say.... Wow. Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that the media, the same ones that we're constantly told have a left wing bias are at fault for failing to tell you that your candidate was a piece of shit? Are you telling me that you, as a self-described political junky couldn't find any negative information on Rob Ford? Maybe Toronto didn't have the internet in 2010? Maybe what you're really saying is that you and your cohort (like most Canadians) followed the election like the NHL playoffs, cheering on your team. Although you claim to have weighed the pros and cons, it sounds like what you really did was look for the pros and discount any cons you may have tripped over as partisan slurs. At least, I hope that's what happened. Because the alternative is far less appealing. The alternative is that Gord Perks is dead on. The alternative is that a lot of people who voted for Rob Ford knew exactly what they were getting. They just didn't care whether it was true or not. There were stories he beat his wife but they didn't want to know. They didn't care if he abused drugs. They didn't care if he drove drunk. They didn't care if he had a violent streak or a history of association with street gangs. They didn't care if he made racist comments or was a homophobe or sneered at homeless people. And they especially didn't care that he lied about it all because it just made it easier to ignore. The alternative is that your friends and neighbors were so wrapped up in their greed for tax cuts and their desire to strike at the "Toronto elite" and their vindictiveness at perceived union excess that they voted for this caricature of a politician. And they got exactly what they deserved. Too bad about everyone who didn't vote for him but got him anyway. If I can sit in British Columbia and dig up dirt in 20 seconds, I'm sure there are lots of things that his neighbors know that I'll never hear. Rob Ford was elected in 2000. Much of what I've listed above was in the news. If you didn't know, you probably didn't want to know.

"You read everything and followed everything" So, were these pro's or cons: - His arrest in 1999 for driving while impaired and possessing marijuana - Lying about this incident (the marijuana part "slipped his mind" - In 2002, 4 councillors heard Ford use the term "Gino" boy to describe one of the 4. Ford denied it - In 2002, he said about the homeless, instead of a public meeting, how about a public lynching - Getting kicked out of a hockey game in 2006 for being drunk and abusive - Lying about even being at the game - In 2006, he voted against city funding to prevent AIDS because "if you're not doing needles and you're not gay, you won't get AIDS" - In 2007, he spoke out again bike lanes and said about cyclists "My heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day." - In 2008, he was charged with assaulting his wife - In 2008, he made the comment about Orientals working like dogs and taking over these are all things I easily found on the web. I know there is lots more to be found if I dig. Are you, a self-described politically junkie, telling me that there are no indications here that the guy you voted in as mayor, the guy whose name beside you marked a check, was a substance abusing, people abusing flake?

You know, you're probably right. Here's a way we can test it. Why don't you stand up in front of a racially mixed crowd and say "You Orientals work like dogs". "I think you're trying to take over". I'm sure they will recognize that you are only trying to be "complementary" and give you a standing ovation. When you report back on how it went, it would be helpful if you could include some video. We can all be educated. And yet Rob Ford is threatening to sue almost everyone around him. But not Gord Perks. Interesting, isn't it? I don't recall Paul Martin ever threatening to sue anyone. Maybe it wasn't his style. Good point, though - comparing the CPC's tactics to Rob Ford. That was Coyne's essential theme, that the right is dragging politics into the gutter. Thanks for illustrating the point. So, your contention is people who enjoy football aren't racist? So, this leaves us with a bunch of possibilities: 1. Rob Ford is a nice guy but not too bright. He thinks that racial stereotypes are actually compliments. Ford Nation is comprised of enlightened individuals like you who are willing to overlook the fact that Rob is an idiot because he has other fine qualities. 2. Rob Ford is a racist homophobe. His handlers mostly manage to keep his sentiments inside his head but occasionally, they leak out in the heat of the moment. Ford Nation is (like most voters) comprised of people who are not racist homophobes but aren't really interested in Rob's darker side, so long as he delivers tax cuts and a subway. 3. Rob Ford is a racist homophobe. His handlers mostly manage to keep his sentiments inside his head but occasionally, they leak out in the heat of the moment. Ford Nation contains a large contingent of people (mainly suburbanites) who are similarly racist homophobes who mostly internalize those feelings. They silently cheer when Ford spouts things like "Orientals work like dogs" and wish he would say it more often. I would say that #1 is possible but not very plausible. Option 2 is plausible. I'm afraid that there there is more truth in #3 than Gord Perks and I would like to think.

Ironically, Coyne shares many of the same low-tax, small-government sentiments as Ford Nation. However, unlike Ford Nation, he has the intellectual capacity and intellectual honesty to see clearly how the people who built Ford Nation (and their big brother, the Canadian Conservative Coalition) have done so in a way that has corrupted the political process. I have deep philosophical differences with much of what Coyne stands for but I also have deep admiration for a guy who can think independently from his political "team".

In fairness, it isn't me calling him a racist. I'm quoting Councillor Gord Perks who is describing him as racist (in adjective form - it's slightly different that calling him a racist - noun form). Now, here's a question for you. The mayor can be described in many ways but "shy" isn't one of them. Perks has publicly and undeniably described Ford as racist. Why hasn't Ford threatened to sue? Ford has liberally threatened to sue staffers over allegations made to police (it's easy to threaten people without the means to hire lawyers to defend themselves, isn't it?). Why has Ford not sued Perks??? My guess is that he knows he'd likely lose and be embarrassed. Really, though, how much more embarrassed could this guy get? Finally, there are examples on the record of Ford engaging in racial stereotypes and racial slurs. He has, for example said Doesn't that sound racist to you?

Really, Tim? Are you really comparing Rob Ford to Barrack Obama?? Please proceed and develop your thesis for us. Explain and elaborate how these guys are really the same. This should be good.

I appreciate the comment, bh, but all I've done is point to some of the cogent analysis that is out there. It would be tragic if this analysis is lost in the inane swirl of late night comedy. Anyone else feel that Ford's behaviour is so outrageous that the punch lines delivered by the late night hosts are a tragic letdown in comparison? Speaking of tragedy, it will be a terrible loss if Coyne's brilliant, genius, crystalline insight is lost amongst the detritus of sensationalism. I don't normally say things like this but I wish I could force people to confront it. It applies across a broad front of North American politics - from the tea party to our Federal Conservatives to elements within provinces across this country.

Peeves: I can't debate your premise directly because I've never been to Toronto and my perceptions of Ford only arose as his increasingly bizarre statements and behaviour became known. However, a number of commentators who are much closer than me have made excellent cases to refute your central premise. We knew who Rob Ford was before he was elected. I think it would be fairer to say that your cohort is so desperate for a return to a 19th century tax regime that you're willing to overlook almost any character flaws. The famous photograph where Ford is shown cuddling with 3 gang-bangers outside a crack house is so damning in itself that it alone would have caused most politicians to resign. People who have supported Ford previously have been wilfully blind and now you stand before us and proclaim that you now see the light. Good for you. Too late but good for you. Andrew Coyne put it best: Rob Ford mess a monster born of divisive and condescending populism

Andrew Coyne summed the situation nicely. Link If only the citizens in general could see things as clearly as Mr. Coyne.

I watched the Jon Stewart skit 3 times and couldn't stop laughing. Honestly, Ford is just too stupid to be mayor. The 8 second delay between when he was asked whether he had bought illegal drugs in the last 2 years and his answer was bizarre. I think he was mentally trying to add up the total amount he'd paid for illegal drugs and gave up.

I see all of the deniers are now back-pedaling. They're abandoning denial for the last line of defence - adaptation.

Ridiculous pie-in-the-sky plans to cut back on emissions aren't going to accomplish anything. What a self-evident statement. Would you also like to tell us that the sun rises in the east and water is wet?