Shwa

Does it? Well are you saying the the Toronto Sun article says that "You didn't hear about the $75 million that used to gamble on the stock market?" Because, no, the Toronto Sun article doesn't say that at all. Read a little more carefully son, you'll eventually be able to figure it out.

Are you saying that the City does not fund the Argos or Maple Leafs - or better put - the Grey Cup or Stanley Cup in any way?

None because the AG is smarter than your typical Ford Nation cement head.

Speak for yourself. I prefer careful oversight and correction rather than throwing people under the bus to satisfy some out-moded sense of righteousness.

Hey I read Joe Fiorito's columns in the Star. But here's the thing: I agree that some of the expenditures may be lavish according to what I think is inappropriate, but I wouldn't find that a reason to chase people away in the public spotlight, especially when the rules that they operate by may be deemed perfectly appropriate and accountable as legitimate corporate expenses for a corporation of that size. Would you take the provincial or federal government to task for these types of executive and staff expenses? Because I am telling you now they routinely spend this kind of money on staff, especially the executives almost every single day. And they likely spend way more that the TCHC. Eh, the devil is in the details according to Ford Nation, details which they cannot access. And if they did determine whether these expenses are legitimate and within the rules the corporation operates by, then some good can come out of instead of a lot of frothing and baying. It makes no sense to me to hand it over to some management corporation that operates under the same rules you see, because it won't be long before they are doing the exact same thing.

Seriously, you don't get it do you? You don't understand how economic impacts work, how sponsorship and investment work? That's OK, that is all I need to point out to collapse your house of cards. Which refers back to the 'thick' comment made earlier about Ford Nation.

Did you? Because your Toronto Sun citation doesn't say that at all. So you are either ignorant of the facts or are bald-face lying. Read the article carefully son.

Nope, you are trying to spin this and it ain't working. No one is saying the AG is wrong. It is about the spending rules for that organization and whether those rules were broken and fraud was committed. It doesn't do anyone any good by firing those people and not correcting the rules now does it? One would think a prudent council would have carefull considered the issue and whether or not such activities were approvable in the current budgetary framework. Instead we get a lot of baying at the moon.

They "wasted $50 million??" Cite your source please.

You DO understand what an "investment" is don't you and how corporations - like the City of Toronto - invest public money in public activities all the time? Or are you thick too?

I am not proving the Auditor General anything. It is the issue of "appropriateness" that the councillors - some of the Ford supporters - objected too. They made their case pretty plain on several news channels last night. Were those expenses allowable under the budget programs as laid out by the governing rules of the TCHC? Do you know? Because there is a VAST difference between legitimate fraud - in which people should be fired and allowable program spending - in which people should be warned and the rules changed or tightened up. It isn't a moral issue until fraud is proven, which it hasn't, which is why those 16 councillors voted as they did. If it was a procedural matter - and even worse - a common practice over the years, then let's make the punishment fit the crime. Now, if you have some evidence that they committed fraud - even an Auditor's report, please post it and we can discuss.

I agree. And all those tourists it attracts should spend their money in Buffalo instead. Or, since this thing generates tens of millions of dollars to the city, it seems making it difficult to generate that sort of revenue would be somewhat counter-productive. 2009 Pride Economic Impact Study I wonder if the "Ford Nation" has thought of that yet. Or are they that thick?

Really? So you need to calm down and figure something out: were those expenses allowable under the rules for training and employee recognition programs in the TCHC? If they were allowable and people got fired over accessing legitimate spending, then who looks like an over-reacting red-faced idiot? You know, it would have been more useful for the "poor people" had you made such stirring comments about bonuses, retreats and perks being given to large multi-national corporations while the government was bailing them out to the tune of billions. Did you? Did you go on and on about it? Sure, let the TCHC be managed by a corporation because everyone knows they always get it right.

Yeah, unless someone decides to spin it in an associative way for those that hate the McGinty Regime, well, these Conservatives are doing the exact same thing. How bad is that? I don't think the Federal Liberals would have a problem throwing their provincial brethren under the train for the extra points.

I take this all back Shady, it looks like you don't fit the definition of "winner." In fact, it looks like you are getting crushed by "Them and Their Ilk." Maybe you should apologize?

So all that hard work researching the thread, all that cutting and pasting, all that hand-wringing ... all goes to show that the best you can achieve is being a poor winner? If anything, you need to apologize for your display of righteous self-entitlement in this thread.

Yes, I see what you mean. In a similar way, the Mafia has the same sort of interpretations too, so long as you don't look too closely. They are out in the open also, with many people involved. The Star tried to "demonize" Rob Ford? Surely they could not be accused of the same hyperbole you use to ascribe it to them.

Yeah, would you rather the headline read something else?

He is calling for cultural regression, but for what reason? Well for one, that would indicate a sort of anti-enlightenment stance too. So maybe there is an ethic - concious or not - at play with these types? We hear this all the time - regress to a period where it is safe and comforting again. Where the lines between good and evil are not so blurred that they require careful and honesty producing introspection; where the discomfort of self-reflection gives way to happy thoughts of apple pie, bustling main street and 'us and them' dialectics. I mean, you can hear this rhetoric over and over and over in popular media. (often times resembling a child calling for the warm embrace of mommy) But in fact there never WAS a period of safe and comfort, it is pure myth and can be determined with a glance at most history over the past 100 years. So why the stickler for this particular myth even as the culture moves forward into an ever increasing liberal attitude? To me, a stickler for myth is by defintion a romantic. It is interesting that Steyn et al would persist with this notion despite all the evidence that must be available to them otherwise. I don't it's a problem of not wanting to see it, I just don't think they can, at least publically. Like an alcoholic who can't see their drinking is a problem.

Lower our international reputation, madly deflect blame. Raise our international reputation, praise Harper. Isn't the sort of realpolitik that Harris did with the nurses in Ontario? You know, fire a bunch of them, reduce their numbers in hospitals and then, when an election is coming up, extend an olive branch to the nurses and say, "See? See what I did?" It sounds like a revolutionary tactic to me, based on common sense.

Ah, it was a cut and paste. If you quote an article could you use the quote function on the toolbar please? When it is unquoted, it makes it look like you are speaking and that alters the content of the message. Just a suggestion, thanks!

Very cool! But when I moved there in the 70's I knew it as the 'Lucky Okey' for a long time.

<SIDEBAR> Pinko, you say "we" and "our" in your post yet your location says you are from Winnipeg. Are you an American immigrant or something? Just curious. </SIDEBAR>

Seems to me that Steyn is lamenting the fact that over the past 40 years Captain America has become more liberal. Indeed - since America herself has become more liberal over the past 50 years - that he has become a hero that people can identify with. Kind of like the 'darkness' of Batman. He completely misses on his brief comment about '300.' These hero-transformations reflect a general change in the popular societal narratives from romance to tragedy - something a real genius writer like Northrop Frye told us about, well, 40 years ago. In romance, there is usually a clear trancendence of the hero through the hopeful and eventual triumph of good over evil. Tragedies are not as clear-cut and the heroic transcendence is more provisional with the line between good and evil not so simple. 300 was not a romance. The Spartans didn't go out and 'whomp' the bad guys. They were defeated and brutally killed in a hopeless battle. Their battle wasn't without purpose, but the overall tone of the movie was very tragic. In modern comics and illustrated novels - both legitimate literary genres - the trend has been to move away from the self-absorbed motives of the protagonist to self-reflection of the hero upon themselves and their role in the environment. Something that Mark Steyn wouldn't understand for obvious reasons.

No I can't find Canadian data off hand like the US data, but I already explained why their data is more open. However, the data for hospital stay times for patients with heart surgery is relevant to Canada since our medical systems tend to use the same methodologies. No, not really. There will always been tweaks and adjustments for various systemic conditions that arise within our healthcare. What I am saying is that to use your dad's heart surgery experience and equate it with cuts made by the Liberals in the 90's is a spurious argument that can be dismissed outright. The data cited more or less proves that. Our system is far from perfect. But making spurious arguments in order to address the shortcomings is even more 'far from perfect.'