Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

[The_Falcon]

;D

Leave it to the SUN to come up with something 'interesting':
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/home.html

It's a fair question.  Both should be held to the same standard, but we all know that isn't going to happen.  People will make excuses for the Dauphin, he only smoked weed, he admitted it.....We are left to just take his word that is the extent of it.  No media is going to follow him day and night, or start digging around to see if he tried something a little harder, no one is going to demand he do a piss test to make sure he isn't still smoking on the job (or dabbling in harder stuff).  Ford at least (for him anyways) has the mitigating defense that he was probably so drunk, he didn't know what it was at the time, (still not acceptable IMO, but I can at least get into his head about why he wouldn't want to admit that).  Dauphin acted deliberately, he knew what he was doing was illegal, but choose to do it anyways.

 

[Scott]

Was Ford ever caught in a rub and tug?

 

[pbi]

The dug-in supporters for both of them will make all sorts of excuses (just check any news website and look at the posted comments: Ford has lots of defenders...).

For the record, I am not a Justin Trudeau supporter and I have serious doubts about his actual suitability to be PM.

That said, I think it's hard to discount the differing circumstances under which each "admission" has happened. To me, there is a big difference between a casual admission  to something that you have never openly opposed, and doesn't really detract from your agenda, and blurting out an admission after not ony dodging, dissembling and denying, but of loudly beating a big drum about "law and order" and "support for the police" and proclaiming that the law doesn't punish drug dealers hard enough.

Context is everything, I guess. But saying "he did it too!" is a defence that only makes sense for a five year old.

Ford at least (for him anyways) has the mitigating defense that he was probably so drunk, he didn't know what it was at the time,

And this is one of the sadder parts of the whole mess. Look at what he offers as "mitigation". I can't help asking about this man's judgement. It certainly explains comments that were made by some councillors, months ago, that the Mayor had problems that he needed to deal with. AFAIK the usual definition of a substance abuse problem is that the abuse starts to have a significant negative effect on your daily life.

Well, here we are. My advice would be to stop this silly grandstanding, go away, and get clean, from booze, drugs, and anything else. Then, sit down and actually listen to some good advice about developing a mature style of leadership.

And then, who knows? Marion Barry came back, right?

 

[Journeyman]

And then, who knows? Marion Barry came back, right?

So did OJ Simpson......for a while. 

 

[The_Falcon]

The dug-in supporters for both of them will make all sorts of excuses (just check any news website and look at the posted comments: Ford has lots of defenders...).

For the record, I am not a Justin Trudeau supporter and I have serious doubts about his actual suitability to be PM.

That said, I think it's hard to discount the differing circumstances under which each "admission" has happened. To me, there is a big difference between a casual admission  to something that you have never openly opposed, and doesn't really detract from your agenda, and blurting out an admission after not ony dodging, dissembling and denying, but of loudly beating a big drum about "law and order" and "support for the police" and proclaiming that the law doesn't punish drug dealers hard enough.

Context is everything, I guess. But saying "he did it too!" is a defence that only makes sense for a five year old.

And this is one of the sadder parts of the whole mess. Look at what he offers as "mitigation". I can't help asking about this man's judgement. It certainly explains comments that were made by some councillors, months ago, that the Mayor had problems that he needed to deal with. AFAIK the usual definition of a substance abuse problem is that the abuse starts to have a significant negative effect on your daily life.

Well, here we are. My advice would be to stop this silly grandstanding, go away, and get clean, from booze, drugs, and anything else. Then, sit down and actually listen to some good advice about developing a mature style of leadership.

And then, who knows? Marion Barry came back, right?

Perhaps Ford has a streak of self loathing, and that his ardent support of law order, and being overly critical of others in their own indiscretions, is mere a reflection that he can not curb that behaviour in himself.  He wouldn't be the first person (politician or otherwise), to act in such a manner.

 

[Remius]

It's a fair question.  Both should be held to the same standard, but we all know that isn't going to happen.  People will make excuses for the Dauphin, he only smoked weed, he admitted it.....We are left to just take his word that is the extent of it.  No media is going to follow him day and night, or start digging around to see if he tried something a little harder, no one is going to demand he do a piss test to make sure he isn't still smoking on the job (or dabbling in harder stuff).  Ford at least (for him anyways) has the mitigating defense that he was probably so drunk, he didn't know what it was at the time, (still not acceptable IMO, but I can at least get into his head about why he wouldn't want to admit that).  Dauphin acted deliberately, he knew what he was doing was illegal, but choose to do it anyways.

I think the difference is the mainstream view of marijuana is becoming more and more accepting of it.  Many people have tried it or use it.  You were in recruiting.  When I was in recruiting everyone snickered when someone said they never tried it.  Doesn't mean they did do it, it just shows how common it has become that we find it hard to belive that someone hasn't encountered it.  Yes both are criminal acts but so is illegally downloading music or videos but plenty of people do it.  Many politicians have come forward with the admission, and while 30 years ago it might have elicited gasps of hypocritical shock it doesn't really do that now.  I doubt if it was just marijuana that this story would be making world headlines.

I'm not condoning either, but public perception is "weed, so what?"

Crack cocaine is a whole different ball of wax.  There is a clear link to organised crime here with less than desirable characters, one of whom was killed, another stabbed in prison and another up on extortion charges.  They all are in a position that could (and might indeed have) compromised the Mayor.

His problems (and they are problems) are now affecting his job. 

 

[mariomike]

My advice would be to stop this silly grandstanding, go away, and get clean, from booze, drugs, and anything else.

Of the nine Toronto Mayors and four Metro Chairmen I served under, I don't recall the sobriety of any of them ever called into question. 

The City of Toronto Emergency Plan is clear on the 24/7 responsibilities of the Mayor:
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/pdf/emergency_plan.pdf

One-third of Canada's population is located within a 160 km radius of Toronto. So, politics aside, confidence in the sobriety of the Mayor is a matter of public safety.

It's strange (but instructive and quite consistent...) to see that the same Mayor who a little while ago was howling for the sacking of a lowly City employee (allegedly) caught sleeping on the job, doesn't want the same standards of strictness  and vengeance applied to him.

They could have filled a photo album of me sleeping resting on the job. Pillow and blanket included. 

 

[pbi]

Perhaps Ford has a streak of self loathing, and that his ardent support of law order, and being overly critical of overs in their own indiscretions, is mere a reflection that he can not curb that behaviour in himself.  He wouldn't be the first person (politician or otherwise), to act in such a manner.

Funny you mention this.... It was exactly what I was wondering, if perhaps deep down inside he knows that his behaviour has been disastrous and wrong, and that this knowledge has actually driven him to make the admission.

Taking a step back, and looking down from outer space, if I saw a man who has misbehaved in all the ways that he seems to have done, in so many different situations, I might wonder if he wasn't deeply upset about something, or struggling with some demon.

Maybe there will be more admissions....?

 

[pbi]

sleeping[/s] resting on the job. Pillow and blanket included. 

Ahhhh..that's why there are blankets on a gurney.... >

 

[The_Falcon]

I think the difference is the mainstream view of marijuana is becoming more and more accepting of it.  Many people have tried it or use it.  You were in recruiting.  When I was in recruiting everyone snickered when someone said they never tried it.  Doesn't mean they did do it, it just shows how common it has become that we find it hard to belive that someone hasn't encountered it.  Yes both are criminal acts but so is illegally downloading music or videos but plenty of people do it.  Many politicians have come forward with the admission, and while 30 years ago it might have elicited gasps of hypocritical shock it doesn't really do that now.  I doubt if it was just marijuana that this story would be making world headlines.

I'm not condoning either, but public perception is "weed, so what?"

Crack cocaine is a whole different ball of wax.  There is a clear link to organised crime here with less than desirable characters, one of whom was killed, another stabbed in prison and another up on extortion charges.  They all are in a position that could (and might indeed have) compromised the Mayor.

His problems (and they are problems) are now affecting his job.

Regardless of what society thinks, or what his own personal views are on the subject the law is the law.  We don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose which ones we follow and which ones we don't, not in a civil society at any rate.  If we don't like a particular law, there are several mechanisms in place to effect a change, however long it may take. JT by his own admission, broke the law deliberately numerous times as an elected official.  And while the leap to what most people in polite society consider criminals can be a bigger one, WRT to marijuanna use (particularly how one acquires it), and it can be like 6 degrees of separation, the link to criminals and criminality is still there since marijuanna is still illegal.  Politicians who break the law, should not hold office, period. 

 

[dapaterson]

Politicians who break the law, should not hold office, period. 

Jaywalking is a disqualification from public office?  Doing 125 in a 100 zone?  Appointing a Supreme Court Justice who does not meet the requirements should get one turfed from office? (To be confirmed by the Supreme Court)

A very slippery slope if we apply that standard.

 

[Nemo888]

Now that he has finally come clean and apologized it is hard to be mad at him. Time to stick him in rehab and put the story behind us. His attempt to rezone public lands beside his house and influencing  infrastructure projects adjacent to his family business are the more important issues as they are misuses of his office. He certainly has made Toronto famous. I expect another jump in the polls for Mr. Ford.

 

[The_Falcon]

Jaywalking is a disqualification from public office?  Doing 125 in a 100 zone?  Appointing a Supreme Court Justice who does not meet the requirements should get one turfed from office? (To be confirmed by the Supreme Court)

A very slippery slope if we apply that standard.

Not really those aren't criminal offences, so let me rephrase for clarity, politicians who commit criminal offences should not hold office.  It's a standard that is applied to many jobs (including the CAF ).

 

[Remius]

Not really those aren't criminal offences, so let me rephrase for clarity, politicians who commit criminal offences should not hold office.  It's a standard that is applied to many jobs (including the CAF ).

Yet many of those jobs still allow plenty to stay on or join up regardless.  Many people admit to using drugs and we still sign them on.  Some serving members break the law and we still keep them.  In fact many cops won't even charge someone for simple use or possession anymore.

I know of a few people that get their pot from friends who grow it or grow it themselves.  Six degrees of seperation can apply to just about anything really.

Politicians who's indiscretions directly affects the way they do their jobs and the effectiveness of their office should step down yes.  And it doesn't even have to be criminal behaviour either. But the people will decide if they want them in office or not.  As far as I know having a criminal record is not grounds for not being able to run for office but it will raise questions.

It's a little difficult to prescribe one standard to all cases when all cases are not equal.

When I cross the QC border with booze, I am breaking the law and it is a criminal offence.  But no one cares and I'll likely never get charged for it either.  But by your standard, I am disqualified from holding office.

 

[pbi]

Not really those aren't criminal offences, so let me rephrase for clarity, politicians who commit criminal offences should not hold office.  It's a standard that is applied to many jobs (including the CAF ).

I agree, although I still like the US recall idea that doesn't strictly require criminality for grounds.

...His attempt to rezone public lands beside his house and influencing  infrastructure projects adjacent to his family business are the more important issues as they are misuses of his office...

To me it was always things like these, along with the whole host of other misbehaviours and questionable activities, that existed long before the crack video was even heard of, that made me wonder about his suitability. Everybody has fixated on the "Pipe and the Police Chief" (hmmmm...,possible book title there...), but as messy and loud as that has been, I see it as just another symptom.

I think there may be a lesson for conservatives here (big and small "c"), that one should be careful which horse you hook your wagon to. It seems to me that some folks on the Right end of things almost make a fetish of ignorant, boorish and ultimately embarrassing populist demagogues, which of course just plays into the finely-manicured hands of those blow-dried, gym-toned, latte-sipping metrosexuals on the Left.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Within the report

....

So basically some of the biggest reason's why people say these facilities are necessary, haven't borne any hard evidence to support their claim(s).  The research is full of gaping holes, and based on assumptions.

Quite a few media outlets and people that are looking to publicly lynch the guy because of his now admitted drug use (and the resultant criminality that it is connected to), are quite ardent supporters of SI's, which is basically akin to sucking and blowing at the same time.  Drug use is bad is situation A, but not bad in situation B?  It is hypocrisy at it's finest.  And as I have brought up repeatedly as an addendum to this SI thing/tacit support of drug use(rs) is again, many supported George Smitherman in becoming mayor and decided his past drug use and less the honest admission of said use, was not an impediment to him holding office, now want Ford to go because of his less than honest admission of drug use.  The star, g&m were ready to crown Simtherman mayor despite an admission to being ADDICTED to something for at least 5 YEARS (and providing no further details himself, and they didn't bother to get any).  How can they and others with a straight face now demand Ford step aside (and I am not condoning his use, merely pointing out the ridiculousness of their position), because he hit the pipe one time?

This hairsplitting on when it is acceptable and when it is not is ludicrous.

These are two completely different issues.  The INSITE centre specifically was in place to address the downtown eastside of Vancouver shooting gallery issues.  While they weren't able to draw any specific conclusions, it's repeated numerous times that it's because of the small scope of the project and the lack of data.  Also, the average client was a heroine user for over 15 years, homeless or nearly so, and living in poverty (due to their addictions).  None of these folks are in positions of responsibility.

Additionally, you might have missed the final para;

The annual operating cost of the INSITE service is $3,000,000 or $14.00 per visit in the year ending August 2007. The cost per individual who used INSITE for injections was approximately $1,380. The 500 most frequent users went over 400 times at an average cost per person of $13,100.

Mathematical models (see caution about validity below) showed cost to benefit ratios for the INSITE service of one dollar spent on INSITE providing 0.97 to 2.90 in benefits. That is, the total cost of preventing each HIV infection is between $52,000 and $155,000. When these mathematical models included estimates of the number of overdose deaths prevented (1.08/year), they showed cost-benefits ratios that ranged from 1.5 to 4.02. While these cost-benefit ratios are not as high as the ratios found in other studies exploring the cost-benefits of needle exchange or treatment programs, these studies are not directly comparable given that they did not involve the drug using population in the DTE.

So estimates are that the program is cost neutral or even results in significant cost savings to the health care system.

I don't think that shooting heroine is fine, but jailing these folks obviously is having no impact, so this is a different approach at addressing a serious and widespread addiction issue.

Regardless, the SI issue is a red herring and has no real bearing on Mayor Ford. 

The issue to me is that the mayor of the biggest city in Canada is getting drunk and smoking crack with with gang members.  That is no where even remotely in the same league as smoking a joint at a dinner party with some friends.  How can you trust someone to run your city that repeatedly ends up in these situations, any of which could be used to blackmail him?

 

[nn1988]

<a href="http://youtu.be/hcPD7tzcU60">Notorious Ford and his rant</a>

 

[Journeyman]

<a href="http://youtu.be/y2hN8y9vD2k">Notorious Ford and his rant</a>

It was playing on a TV during lunch today.  I was with a Brit, an American, and two other Canadians.  It may have been embarrassing, except I was facing a TV that had women's beach volleyball on.

Once I pointed out the different channel, they may have gotten strained necks, but all talk of political embarrassment ended.  :nod:

 

[krustyrl]

Is this buffoon not gone yet.??  What for an embarrassment of epic proportions on the worlds networks.
As a sidenote, his antics are great fodder for the late-nite talk show circuit.!!

 

[marinemech]

i heard something weird on the radio today, i had to do a double take, i guess being a crack smoker increased his popularity with voters aged 19-34 from 11% up to 23%