Andrea Howarth: Delusional, hothead moron. Enough is enough

"Most Ontarians know, that the NDP hasn't formed government in Ontario in some time. But we're looking forward to doing so."

-Andrea Howarth

This delusional, hothead moron gives you evidence of why that is never going to happen. Pigs will fly before they get power with her in charge, and probably anybody in charge that thinks you can just force GM to keep the plant open.

Its dead. Deal with it.

The fact is, Howarth was handed the election when Wynne was a lame duck, and Ford was the easiest goof to take apart. But, he won a large majority, because, Howarth is not anybody's leader.

I'm not a big fan of Doug Ford, but at least he doesn't lie down when someone like Howarth wont let up and starts to make it personal. He went right after her and gave her the facts. She had every chance to stop this from happening when she supported the Liberals for about 5 years, but she never did. Nobody in their right mind would sleep well at night with her as their leader. She thinks, like all NDP's, that spending your way out of the problem is the answer, and that workers are entitled to high paying jobs even if that means the taxpayers have to pay out of their own pocket to support that.

We all lose jobs and our livelihoods at points in our lives. We deal with it. We find a way. We use the things that government already does for us....EI, job retraining, student loans and grants, lots of things. In this case, 3000 to 5000 people are going to lose their jobs, but with one years warning and pay, and then another year of EI and other benefits. I wish I had that kind of net when it happened to me. I didn't see anyone standing up in Parliament and crying tears for me. Because they didn't.

I think 2 years is plenty enough time to find a way to get back on your feet. And if the NDP thinks the plant is viable, and profitable, and the union does as well, then buy it, get a car maker like Tesla to make cars there, and then operate it.

I'm not making excuses for GM, they have their issues and are as greedy as fuck, just like every corporate company that has to answer to shareholders and customers first, then workers and nations last.

But, as a third party here, I expect these displaced workers to do what the rest of the 13 million Ontarians would have to do. Find another job and get new skills, or move where the jobs are. Take less money, alter your lifestyle. The time for handouts and special considerations are over. At least with Doug Ford, he seems to get that. Nobody, this time, is bailing out GM or the workers. Those days are over, thankfully. As is Howarth's career. When she loses the next election, she will just crawl away, with, of course, a huge government pension package for life. No need for anyone to stand up in Parliament for her when she is jobless.

USA: Time to get a divorce.

Last night, on the Rachel Maddow Show, she had a 20 minute long piece showing the history of how abortion doctors and their families have been gunned down, mostly at long range by sniper type gunmen. Most of those are not actual snipers, and they miss. Injuring the doctors and their families, but not killing them. Some have actually been killed. Now, last Friday in Colorado Springs, the gunman didn't bother with the long range shootings. He entered the building and killed as many as he could before the security kicked in and didn't give him access to more potential victims. Candidates like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have almost justified these actions as justifiable. I am not making that up. Go online and search. You will see their logic behind why they think it happens. They blame the victims. 
Today in San Bernardino, 3 heavily armed gunmen with AK-47s shot and killed 14 people and injured at least as many. They did it with long range weapons, and were so efficient they actually got away and there are no apparent leads to capture them. They could conceivably never be caught.
Here are my thoughts on what just happened in San Bernardino.

There comes a time in every relationship where divorce is the only answer. You can get marriage counseling but that might lead to the suggestion to just go your separate ways.

I feel the States are at that point.

On one side, you have the anti abortion, pro guns, less civil rights for innocent people who refuse to see there is any other way. When they don't get their way, they take their guns and start shooting people who don't agree with them. Or, they justify those who would, even though they wont actually do it themselves. Then you have the other side who simply will not come to their side of thinking, which makes perfect sense because most of those arguments are embedded in backwards logic.

Like say the NRA contention after Sandy Hook that the best way to protect from a hostile shooter/bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun to shoot him or her and protect you.

That's all well and good, but many abortion doctors have been shot in their houses, from long range, say through a window. How does the good guy protect against a shooter like that? Or, today, a group of 3 shooters with AK-47s who ambush and can shoot from long distance before you can ever get your gun out. What kind of security protects against that? Buildings and houses with no windows? Is that the type of world we want to live in? I don't.

No, it seems the only solution is to divide the land up. Right down the middle. Everyone on one side of that line believes in one way of life. Everyone on the other believes in another. Then, those sides can debate any other issue with those factors off the table.

I want to be on the side where nobody has guns. Not even police. If you do, you get the death penalty for even having one. If you don't like that, live on the other side and do as you please. But you aren't welcome on my side of the line.

I don't see any mediation or therapy. There is a defiant tone, even from those who actually aren't that dangerous. They have to have their guns. It's their right, and you aren't taking it away from them. The states simply aren't United enough to make that happen. In fact, the whole country is controlled by a powerful NRA lobby that makes sure that it will never happen. In terms of irreconcilable differences, this is the definition of that. A reformation is needed. A divorce and a start over.

Guns are for war. And killing. Not for protection. At least not on my side of the line. Other than the army, which will be employed if we are invaded by a hostile outside force, nobody on my side of the line needs a gun. If nobody has one, nobody needs one. Everybody is a good guy, or at least a less dangerous bad guy. It's a mindset. A mindset that the pro gun lobby and supporters don't have. Which is fine. As long as you don't live on my side of the line. Do whatever you want on yours. Live in fear of gunfights in restaurants and help centers. Abortion clinics. Schools. Churches. Malls. Theaters. Etc. Etc. Etc. If having a gun makes you feel safer with that, have fun with that. On your side of the line.

If that is how you want to live, live that way. Most of the rest of us do not want to. And frankly, I don't feel safe anymore that you are among us. Nor should I. Because it isn't safe out there anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A conversation about Mice and Terrorists.

Last night, I killed our first mice invader of the season. He made some noise at the entry point. I knew he was there. I was alerted he was around. I set the trap, he entered again, 15 minutes later he was dead. Done, just like that.
That wasn't my tactic last year, and we had too many by the time I decided to get on the job.

Last year I tracked a few, they would go in and out of the house. I killed the odd one, but I spent a lot of time doing it, and it seemed if I killed one, there were two more. I felt good when I finally took one out, but at the end of the day, there were more each day and I couldn't keep up with them. They came and went as they pleased. Near the end of the year, I found some old traps I had lying around, I set them in the most likely spot, and I wiped out the entire population in about 3 days.

After last nights successful kill, my wife wants me to find the hole they come in and close it off. I could certainly do that. I might even end up doing that eventually. But what would that mean, if I was successful in closing that hole? It would mean those same disruptive mice would be out there, looking for another way in, a spot I don't know about, and then would get in and cause havoc before I figured out they were there.

For now, they come in the hole I know is there, I set the trap, they take the bait I know they will take, and they die. The odd one still will evade the trap, but the majority will fall right into it. And in the meantime, I'm not wasting time chasing my tail, looking all over for mice. I am doing productive things to stop the odd one who is smart enough to avoid the trap. If I don't get that one, it means I need to be better at it. Not that my system of controlling the problem wont work.

Terrorists are like mice. They aren't very bright, and they are easy to catch. If you know where they are and let them come to you. They will. If you keep them out, they are much harder to control and find.

When they caught the "mastermind" of the Paris attacks on Thursday, where did they get him? Paris. Yes, that's right. They got him right at home. If he had returned to Syria, or god knows where in the Middle East, would he still be at large? Certainly he would. He would be "in the wind" as they say on the cop shows.

Ask yourself this: Why did it take so long to get Bin Laden? Simply, because he was hiding out in caves in places that made it impossible to find him. He could still plot destruction, every bit as much as if he was inside our borders. But he was impossible to track and stop. So, what is better?

Do I think that within the refugees from Syria, there are some hidden terrorists? Probably. A few. So what? Let them in. Track them on the way in. Follow them. The ones who appear to be dangerous, don't let on that you know they are. Put a team on them. Make sure you don't lose their trail. Let them lead you to all the ones who are already here who you can't currently find. When they take the bait you can set for them, lock them all up. Or just kill them if that is practical. But don't exclude them. That is completely the wrong way to go about controlling them.

I say, let them all in. At least on the way in, if we are good enough, we can figure out who the terrorists are and watch them. Track them. If we can't even do that right, then we have no shot of ever thwarting them. 
Think about this. How hard is it to track terrorists around the world? Very hard. How hard is it to track them when they are in your city? Not hard at all, if you really want to and put in the time and effort.  And the second they leave the house with a device that can get them arrested, you stop them in their tracks.
I want all the terrorists to come to my country. All of them. I want to know they are here when they come in, and I want to know that they can't leave without me knowing about it. In that way, I have control of their whereabouts, at all times.
And when the time comes that I need to remove them, like the mouse in my house last night who is now dead and gone, I can just execute, and move on to the next one who wants to invade and destroy my way of life.
My theory is this: Do I want to send 100,000 ground troops to fight on the ground in the Middle East? No. I don't. Nobody does. Forget everything else, but just think about how costly that actually is. We could take that money, and manpower, and simply use it to protect ourselves here and stay 100% on top of the terrorists in our own cities and neighborhoods. And from a strategic, intelligence standpoint, that will lead us to the real troublemakers at the top of the terrorist food chain. In so doing, that will also weaken them on the battlefields of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq or any other region they choose to ravage and pillage. 
The fact is, we have a bigger problem than refugees who might be terrorists. The guy they killed on Thursday, they knew about him all year, and fucked it up. If they had just been on top of him, Paris never happens. We should spend a lot more time and effort stopping the ones we have than worrying about the ones who might be coming, who we can log and get on now if they come.
The reason that the Paris killings happened are not because they have Muslim extremists in their country. It happened because the Belgian and French security forces dropped the ball and didn't do their jobs. There will always be extremists in any country, refugees or not. As long as you know who they are, where they are, what they are doing, and when they are going to act, you can stop almost every one of them, and break the entire organization. It's just like the Mafia. Knowing how it all works, who the players are, and what they are up to, you can stop them if you want to.
But what you can't do is think you can stop them from existing or populating your environment. That is the foolishness of small minds. It's just too bad that the majority of the politicians these days are dumber than the mouse I killed last night. They have fallen right into the ISIS trap. Like the mouse I killed last night.

What would YOU do if you thought people in YOUR town were executing YOUR family members?

Lets suppose you have a neighbour and you don't get along. We have all been in that situation.
I have, many times. 
I have also had many more neighbors that I got along great with and was glad to have known. But we don't really mention them much. And they aren't relevant to this discussion.
Now, you do your best to avoid contact with that neighbor. In some ways, so does he. But when it comes down to it, if he wants something his way, and you are in the way of that, there will be contact. And conflict. 
Now, lets suppose you have a dog. Your dog barks a bit, Nothing major. Dogs bark. And your dog doesn't bark any more than the average dog. You don't leave him out at night. He doesn't howl and keep the neighborhood up. He doesn't sit at your front door and bark loudly at every passing car with headlights that goes down the street. You might let him out late at night in your backyard to take care of his business, but you bring him back in right away. And he rarely barks at all when he does that. 
Now, one night, for some reason, you take him for a walk, and he sees something. Maybe a cat. Or another dog. Or just something that rattles him. He barks his head off. What can you do? It happens.
The next day, your neighbor engages you. He doesn't mince words. He warns you to get "that dog under control, or I will."
You are somewhat startled, but you say nothing. You ask him, "what does that mean, 'or I will'?"
He doesn't say it outright, but he hints he will kill your dog. Being a reasonable person, you warn him that he would not do very well to do something like that. We have laws. If he has a problem with something you do, he can take that up with the law. He has been sufficiently warned. There is no misunderstanding here.
Anyway, he is standoffish and you know he has no intention of obeying the law. Which you are also doing, by the way. So, your dog barks again. Dogs bark. It was bound to happen.
He comes screaming over--with a gun--threatening and with full intention of killing your dog. You have no choice, you shoot him. He is 
1) trespassing
2) threatening physical harm, to your dog and possibly and likely you 
3) giving you no choice. Kill or be killed.
Now, he is dead. Now what?
Well, in normal circumstances, somebody was in the wrong. In a normal world, it would come out that he was in the wrong, instigated the incident, and you are innocent.
But wait. What if you live in Ferguson, Missouri? Or pretty much anytown Southern USA? And now, lets suppose he was respected in the community, somewhat rich and powerful, AND white. And you are black, Joe Average, a nobody, and possibly even have some past history, which isn't relevant but still a consideration in the real world of justice.
Likely, you are going to jail for murder. Or, in an alternative turn of events, he kills your dog, injures or kills you in the process, and he gets off  found innocent. Somehow.
What would YOU do if you thought people in YOUR town were executing YOUR family members? Or would. And they are likely to get away with it. And the law has failed you.
Your neighbor is above the law.
He is ABOVE THE LAW!
In your view, and your segment of societies view, the law doesn't serve you, or justice, but in fact serves those with the power and privilege to benefit from them. There is basically no law.
What would you do about that?
I know what I would do.
I watched a very short CNN clip this morning. I can't post it because it isn't easy to add those types of clips on a blog. But here is the text.

"We have come to terms with the fact that, in the United States of America, it is perfectly legal for police officers to murder people of color. And I think that is something that we're coping with and that is the reality we live in. There is no justice when you are murdered by a police officer and you are a person of color. That is a harsh fact to embrace and accept in today's times."

-Tef Poe, speaking to CNN last night on the incidents in Fergeson. 

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/25/rapper-in-u-s-police-murder-of-blacks-legal-in-all-but-name/ 
 
What would you do if you thought people in your town were executing your family members? And getting away with it. 

He told Amanpour that, in his opinion, teenager Michael Brown was “murdered because [officer] Darren Wilson feared his black skin.”

When people believe they are getting screwed, whether that is true or not, they basically feel that they have nothing to lose. The most basic instinct, to live and the need to survive, has been removed in the minds of many in Ferguson, and all over America. Once that happens, they don't care anymore about any potential consequences. You have broken their hope and spirit, and there are only two kinds of people who result from that status.
First, some just quit and go away. There are enough of those. They make up the group that protest peacefully, and many just have opinions on what is going on, or they accept it as the way it is, as the Tef Poe related above. They are realists. Maybe they are cowards. Probably not. More likely they think it just isn't worth wasting their lives fighting a war they can't or will never win. 
Can they (we) win that war? Maybe. I don't know. So far, in my almost 50 years, I have never seen it won. And if you look at the history of humans, not a dent has really been made in that war. A few battles have been won, but in all cases, a lot of blood was shed, life was lost, for very minimal gains. The average guy isn't really interested in being a martyr for someone 50 years from now to reap that benefit. I'm certainly not.
But secondly, and mostly,  the most dangerous people are the ones that perceive themselves as having nothing to lose and will do anything. Like lighting a city on fire and burning it to the ground. What do they care? In their eyes, it isn't their city anyway. These are the types that burned Ferguson to the ground, or at least attempted to do so. They aren't martyrs. They are fighting for their lives, and figure they have nothing to lose anyway. They aren't fighting for a future generation. They are fighting so they can live and not have the fear that their neighbor (the state) will come over and kill their dog and themselves and not have to pay any price for that.
That is their dog in this fight. Themselves. Not the big picture.
Now, we can look back at Ferguson with some reality and perspective.

What would you do if you thought people in your town were executing your family members, or friends, and they were the ones who are supposed to protect you? And the state was seen to be condoning it and saying it was okay. Justified.

You would do exactly what the people of Ferguson did two nights ago. You would be foolish not to. If you didn't, you would be saying you condone it, are okay with it, and have nothing to show them its not okay. 
However, that doesn't mean that Michael Brown was murdered. Killed yes. He was killed. But I don't think anybody knows for sure how it went down. 
But was he murdered? We don't know that. A jury of citizens says he wasn't. But, that isn't what this is about. People in Ferguson believe that IF he was murdered, he would get away with it. That is the issue. The perceived lack of justice. And when there is no justice, there is violent outburst. That is all you have left. When you think you have nothing left. Like the right to live and not be killed for no good reason.
I tend to think, in this case, that there was good reason to kill Michael Brown. But, I can't be sure. Nobody really can. There is no video of the entire event, Ferguson is a racist town, in a racist state, in a racist country with a history of incidents where people of color have been killed and murdered and the murderers walked scot-free.

Above, I added a clip of the trailer for the movie Mississippi Burning. It is a story based on facts. A real incident. That happened 50 years ago this year. Things haven't changed much. Only that it was easier to get away with it then, if you were in fact guilty. But make no mistake about it. It still happens a lot and Ferguson is not an isolated incident. Nor will it be the last. Or a freak occurrence. 
Below, I have included a link to the actual incident. For the most part, the criminals got away with it. And the state had a big part in making that happen. Or trying to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers%27_murders

That is what the people in Ferguson were rioting about the other night. I don't think they even know one way or the other if Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown. They just know if he did, he is likely to get away with it. Because Wilson is a white cop in a racist town and Brown was a young black man in that town. And the citizens have had enough of it. They don't care anymore. Even if that means more violence. Peaceful protest has not worked, in their eyes anyway. I would tend to agree with them. 

“[Ferguson Police] Chief Jackson came up with excuse after excuse and it just appears to be a complete cover-up in my opinion. I live in Missouri, I’m from St. Louis, I know how the police are, I can’t sugarcoat it for you.” 

-Tef Poe

Ferguson. It is a textbook microcosm of what our society is. Have and have nots. And what we do about that. In the view of the black community, especially the ones that live in that region and many others like it, they do nothing but protect their own, violate the civil and human rights of blacks and anyone of color or different religious background than themselves, and engage the state to make that all happen. A state that is supposed to be for all, but is only for those it serves to protect and help flourish.

Chris Rock has a very humorous video that has been out there for quite a while. It is very funny. Chris Rock is a funny guy. But there is some truth to it. Certain things you do will get your ass kicked, or shot, by police.
In this case, as was related the other night, Michael Brown did many of those things. That is if you believe the story they are telling us. I don't know either way. But it is clear he did flee, and might have been dangerous.
Policing is a very dangerous job, especially in towns like Ferguson, and many like them. I have been to much bigger towns, like Memphis, New Orleans, Washington DC and Little Rock where I saw much of the same type of thing that occured in Ferguson. They just aren't safe places to be, and police officers go right into the eye of that storm everyday. That doesn't give them a pass to shoot unarmed citizens of any color who aren't resisting the law, but it does make it understandable that it happens enough when some do flee or threaten. Police officers die just about everyday in the line of duty and they are not likely to cut you much slack when you show that you are hostile or resisting on some level. It's a tough call in this particular case, and I suspect we will never know either way what the actual truth of it is. Nor is that what the riots in Ferguson are about. 
The history of the world is conflict and conquer. That is how humans rose to the top of the food chain. There are winners and losers. Those that rise, those that don't. Those that have. Those that are have nots. And power follows that stream.
It would be easy to stop a Ferguson from happening. Everyone just share, let others have, and not have more than they need.
That would go against every principle our society is built upon. We used to vilify the Russians for having a society like that. Where is the freedom? The freedom to be great. The freedom to get what you deserve, either way? And so, there will be inequity and laws that serve some while hurting others. Will that ever change? I don't think so. The history of humans says it wont.

“I think right now the most important point is that this isn’t the end, in many ways this is just the beginning.”

No,  I would argue its neither. It is simply a continuation. It will happen again and again. It always has. It always will. Some will rise, many will rise because they conquer, and that will happen through conflict. Violent conflict. And when those who are at the bottom attempt to rise, they will engage and encounter those who will attempt to conquer them again. That is how it is. How it will always be. It is how humans rose to the top of the food chain. It's a tried and true method of success in life. It wont change. There is no reason for it to change. The only possibility is that the players change. One day, the blacks and people of color might be the top of the food chain, and they will act the same. Just as the Chinese did when they ruled and the Brits did when they did. And on, and on, it goes.
Ferguson looks like a jungle these days, and that is because it's a jungle out there, and it gets worse everyday.

The law of the jungle always rules over our lives, no matter how far up the food chain us civilized humans have come. And that law is simple. Those who have conquered and risen to power get to make and enforce the laws that benefit them. 
That is a law you can always take to the bank that will be enforced. Those who don't benefit will feel forced into violent protest, and likely, most will die trying to fight that power.
It's dog eat dog out there, and right now, the top dog is a white man with a gun that works for the state that is run by white men. They rule this jungle. 
And it gets "worse here everyday" as Guns N Roses claimed.

Runaway trains and using your brains.

I like to think I am pretty smart. Some agree with that. Some don't. But I know this and I think most would agree with it. If I am smart, it is because I keep things simple and see what is there, not what I want to be there.
Back in the summer when a train went off the tracks in Lac- Megantic, killing 50 people, I made the point that ultimately the Prime Minister is responsible for this.
You can read that blog and see what I said then.

http://markdeutsch39.blogspot.ca/2013/07/lac-megantic-everyone-is-pointing.html
 
Now we find out that it is much worse and dangerous than we thought. It turns out that the number of runaway trains is triple what is being reported, many carrying hazardous and flammable components in them, and the government is not doing anything about it.

So lets summarize this. We have runaway trains in an alarming amount, and many are not being reported or investigated.
Huh?
Yes, read that again. It is just hard to believe, but it is true.
It seems simple to me. They report them all, investigate them all, and anybody who doesn't do that on purpose in some kind of ass covering maneuver should go to jail, for a long time.
And if there is that many runaways, there should be a commission called to study them all, figure out why that is, and come up with changes to be made that are fully enforceable by law. 
Find out why we have runaway trains and do what it takes to stop that from happening. If we do that, we should get it down to a number that is reasonable to expect as pure accidents. The only reason these runaways are happening now is due to human error, lack of competency of the operators, profit before safety practices and/or poorly maintained or inadequate equipment. Find out which it is, or what combo it is, and fix it. Simple as that.
Accidents happen. I get that. One or two runaway trains a year is going to happen no matter what. When hundreds are happening each year, that is no accident. 
Seems simple to me. And I didn't have to be that smart to figure all that out.
Figuring how to get our bought and paid for Prime Minister to actually represent us and not big business is likely going to take a lot more smarts. More smarts than I have. Because there is no simple solution to that complex problem.

Okay. Just one more. But it is not about Rob Ford. Sort of.

I said my Sunday blog would be my last Rob Ford one. It was. This blog is not about Rob Ford. 
Sort of.  
It is about you and me and our rights as citizens.
Rob Ford should resign. Because he isn't worthy of being Mayor. But, the reality is, that is his decision to make. The people elected him,  as he has said, and unless he is charged and convicted with a crime and sent to jail, he has every right to stay being Mayor and have all the powers that go along with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY1nExxVASY 

In his interview last night with Peter Mansbridge of the CBC, the Ford brothers made a very valid point. If the people elected him, what right do a bunch of councilors have to remove him? What kind of precedent does that set? 
I have big issues with the people not getting to decide who serves them and who doesn't. Sure, most of the Rob Ford supporters are blockheads, and that is how he got elected in the first place. But, our society gives every person one vote. It doesn't matter that they are idiots. My vote and your vote count equally the same. Do we want to change that system? 

"The people elected me, the largest mandate in Canada's history and they  (the councilors) just stripped my powers...this is not a democracy, this is a dictatorship."

-Rob Ford

However, last night Mr. Ford  also did admit that he bought drugs while he has been Mayor. He admits and understands that that is a crime and as such, he should be charged, convicted and removed from his position as Mayor. That is perfectly legal to do, and that is how the system is supposed to work. As of now, he has not been charged or convicted of anything. Why is that? That is the question I have had all along.
He should never have been removed by others who don't have that power. That is very undemocratic. In doing so, we have let the good side sink to the level of Rob Ford's bad side. 
Now, Ford claims that he is human and that we are all human. We all do things that don't directly harm others, like smoking weed, or drinking when we are slightly over the limit and not drunk or harming others. We even say stupid things that we come to regret.
Here is that difference that Rob Ford doesn't get. When you are The Mayor, you have to be better than that. What you and I can get away with and pay very few if any consequences for, the mayor cannot. He or she is held to a much higher standard. If you don't want to, or don't think you can live up to that higher standard, then don't seek public office. 
Ultimately, the people will and should decide if Rob Ford should remain being the Mayor. That is how it should be. No matter how bad he is, or was, or will be, I want to make my own decisions. The worst thing about this is that a select group of others are trying to make that decision for me.
In that way, they are every bit as bad or worse than him. 
Last night, he admitted to committing a crime. If you are the police, you can charge him and either force him to resign or have him convicted and remove him from office. Why is that not happening today? Seems very simple to me. The checks and balances in the system only work if people follow and respect the system. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
And as far as I'm concerned, that is a much bigger issue than anything Rob Ford has done.
Democracy and rules are much more important issue than a jackass Mayor in denial about his drug and alcohol problem. 
At least that is what I thought it meant when I thought my vote meant something. Apparently, it doesn't.

The "Man" and Rob Ford

"Do you understand how you are to behave?"

"And if I don't play along?"

"We will cleave you from the herd. And watch you die in the wilderness. Welcome to Washington."

-House of Cards.

If you have watched the Netflix show House of Cards and you believe it is based on reality, then you know the way that it is. The things that we see happen and think we have some control over--say and bearing on--simply aren't decided by anything to do with us. There is a chain of command for which we are on the lower rung. The higher level actually calls all the shots. When you get in their wheelhouse, you realize that you are at their mercy, and that you always were. 

"Money, is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power, is the old stone building that stands for centuries."

-Frank Underwood

House of Cards.
People are asking this week, based on the latest outrageous episodes.....How can they get rid of Rob Ford? Really, there is only one way, and I propose that is happening this weekend. If I am correct you will see him make a statement this week based on what I suggest happens below.
The following is a transcript of a fictitious conversation that led to Rob Ford resigning.

Rob Ford enters the room and he waits. He has no idea what is going on. He just knows he has to do it. The "man" wants to talk to him.
Nobody has ever really seen or knows the name of "The Man." He is some guy they all talk about. He is the guy that runs the city, the country, pretty much anything that happens. He pulls those strings. Now, it was Rob Ford's turn to face "THE MAN."

Then, the "man" enters. He is disguised. It is for Ford's protection. If you learn the identity of the man, he has to take you out. That is how it works. The chain of command is so secret and so high up. In actuality, this "man" isn't really the "man" after all. Even the "man" doesn't know who the actual man is. But whatever the man wants, the man gets. Nobody crosses the man. When he decides you must go, you go. End of story. Nobody ever gets to know who the man is.

The Man: Rob. Tell me why you are still The Mayor?

RF: I haven't done anything wrong. Really.....

The Man: Cut the fucking bullshit. We all know what you did. Who do you think has been covering up for you all this time? Your idiot brother? Your family? Your aides?

RF: I don't know what you are talking about.

The Man: Anyway, this week, you are going to resign. That is the end of the story.

RF: No, I'm not. What are you going to do, slander me in the press?

The Man: Listen, Rob, you don't get it. So I will explain it to you. You are the Mayor only as long as we want you to be Mayor. We control the press, the police, the money supply, the bankers, the courts, the judges. You name it, we control it. You are just a pawn. As long as you were useful to us, we let you do what you do. And we covered it up. Watched your back. You are of no use to us anymore. Your time is up. Go quietly, as quietly as you can...and be happy you got what you did.

RF: No, I'm not going. There are laws.

The Man: Listen, Rob. If you want to be like that, we can do it another way.

RF: And that means what?

The Man: Well, how about some jail time, with some rapists, and hard ass criminals that would love to take a crack at you? How does that sound?

RF: You got nothing on me. You can't make that happen.

The Man: We can't? Try us.

RF: And that means what?

The Man: We can make it up. Whatever we want. You will be convicted and you will rot in jail, for as long as we wish you to. And I mean hard time. Real hard time. You aren't playing with flunkies here. You are miles over your head. Take the easy way out. Walk away now. We will make it worth your while. You can still have a decent life. 

RF: And if I don't walk away?

The Man: Well, for all your yapping, do you want to end up in jail? Is it worth that to you? Because that is where it is going. And you wont' be able to lash back out at the person pulling those strings. Whatever you come up with, we will come up with more. You cannot fight us. We have decided that you have to go. So you go. That is the way it is. Play time is over. You had your fun. You had your spotlight. Now it is time to fade into the background. Either you resign tomorrow or we start to release the stuff that gets you charged and convicted. Your choice. I won't mention this again. We will be watching to see what you do. Do the right thing. Or......face the consequences. That is up to you.

The "man" gets up and abruptly leaves the room.

The next day, Rob Ford resigns, sighting reasons like.... for the good of his family...and the city....and his own personal health. 

"

"Politics. There are forces bigger than either of  us at play here."

-Frank Underwood

House of Cards.


The end. 

The Stunned Wife

When "The Good Wife" came out, I was compelled to watch it. It was the hot topic show, button pushing concept we all wanted to see dramatized and played around with. There was also Chris Noth. A lot of us love Chris Noth from the Law And Order days, and many like him from his Sex In The City days. 
In "The Good Wife" Noth might have been the original starting point, but mostly he was a secondary character that they framed everything else around and gradually the show became more about the wife than the "bad husband."
I loved that show. I watched all of season 1 religiously, but lost my way and still haven't seen any episodes since. I certainly plan to go back and watch them all. Julianna Margolis is a fantastic actress, the supporting cast is superb, the writing is top shelf and almost all of the episodes kept your attention from start to finish.

The show was based mostly on Eliot Spitzer's wife, the one who stood by him on the podium when he copped to having multiple affairs and liasons with prostitutes, escorts and call girls of varying degrees. At the time, he was not the only one. There was a steady stream of men who got caught with their pants down, so to speak.
Spitzer was then the Governor of New York, and the glory boy with a big time hard ass reputation who could have ended up President one day had he not got caught. His wife Silda was by his side at the podium, being the good wife. Hence, the impetus for the title and the show.

The Good Wife mixed two different scenarios into one. At around the same time, the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich (Blago) was found to be horrifically corrupt and sent to jail. The show also deals with that topic and mixes in the Spitzer situation and uses Illinois as the base.
Again though, it is mostly about the wife and what it is like to be her when you are in the position to make a decision to support your husband, one who is having his and your dirty laundry aired in public and act like you are on his side, when likely you aren't anymore. 

http://nypost.com/2013/09/11/spitzer-weiner-good-wives-disappear/ 
 
What is it like to be the wife in that situation? To have to play the good wife in front of the camera and then deal with it all when the public eye doesn't get to see the rest of the hours in the day. That is what the show explores, and then adds a whole bunch of drama and subplots to the mix, all the time adding a dash of the good wife situation and the failed husbands story to pull it all together. 
And then yesterday I saw another Rob Ford press conference. This one, after he made outrageous statements in city hall and to the press. Even for Ford, this was too much.

Lets be perfectly clear about something. Rob Ford couldn't take the high road even if the Space Shuttle was attached to his ass. No one would ever mistake him for slick or well spoken. We all understand that. But as men, we also know there are certain things you can never say and not pay a huge price for. Even more than what you do wrong, it is what you say wrong that really leaves a mark. And a scar.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/11/14/rob_ford_admits_drinking_and_driving_says_hell_sue_former_staffers.html

"But it was his comments about allegations in court documents released Wednesday that he had claimed to have been intimate with former policy adviser Olivia Gondek that stunned reporters.

“It says I wanted to eat her pussy and I have never said that in my life to her. I would never do that. I’m happily married and I’ve got more than enough to eat at home,” he said before heading up to council."

And yet, despite this stunning comment to the world, one that even the dumbest of men and politicians would never make, there was his wife on the podium with him a few hours later when he had to "eat" those words.

Rob Ford's rarely seen and stunned wife beside the podium yesterday.

We had never really seen Ford's wife--nor seen her at the podium--like we did yesterday. To say she looked stunned-- and shocked--is a monumental understatement. I can only imagine what she is saying to him when they get back home and nobody else but those two have to face each other.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/11/its-a-waste-of-time-sarah-thomson-on-why-she-wont-tell-police-about-rob-ford-incident/ 

Rob Ford isn't a confirmed adulterer, although most suspect that he is. But he is a confirmed liar, drunk, drug user, drunk driver and one who associates with drug dealers and gang members. He is also a bully and a general jack ass. 
As far as we know, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Mark Stafford and Anthony Weiner are just smart and slick educated guys who cheat on their wives a lot. That is bad enough, but none of them are in Rob Ford's ballpark.
And now, Rob Fords wife is the disrespected wife. What he said yesterday was so out of line and vulgar that I can't see even the most devoted of good wives staying with him. If she does, it is only because she is in such a level of shock that she is the deer in the headlights at this point. If she survives and the car doesn't run her over, she has only one real option: To run off into the woods and as far away from Ford as she can. 
In my opinion, he now is beyond help and the way this ends is with a very traumatic incident where somebody dies. Likely him. Just like OJ, but with a much different ending.
This is no Hollywood drama with carefully crafted plots and twists. Nobody knows what's coming next. But what we do know is that not even the most devoted of good wives could withstand what he did yesterday. You can cheat on them and some will forgive, but when you describe what Ford did in public yesterday, you disrespect them and no woman ever forgives or forgets that.

Should the media back off on Rob Ford? Hell No.

If you know anything about writers, you know that they like a story to have a beginning, a middle and an end. If you take away any part of that, especially the ending, you will see them get very antsy and do all sorts of things that reflect that. Like a baby when you take its bottle away or a dog when you take its toy away, the longer that goes the more agitated they get. 

When the media get agitated the people they begin to chase get agitated, defensive, protective and sometimes they clash. No, most times they clash. 
Readers are mostly the same way. They also like to be teased, stimulated and then have it all come to a final resolution. A conclusion. 
I have written extensively on various issues regarding our Mayor, Rob Ford and his troubles. This blog is more about how to end those troubles and what sort of rights the citizens and the media have with regards to someone who holds a public office and refuses to step down. When everyone knows he should step down. 
Is it any of our business what the Mayor of our town does in his private life? Even if it is, is it right to go on his private property and hound him? What role should the media play as our advocate? These are tough questions and if you ask a variable amount of people you will get varying degrees of answers. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-suspensions-don-t-blunt-mps-questions-for-harper-1.2416779 

"In a surprising move, House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer intervened on more than one occasion to warn Mulcair to stick to government business, not party business.
"As I heard it, it seemed mostly to deal with party business but I'll let the Right Honourable Prime Minister answer," Scheer told the Commons.
The prime minister reiterated that Wright has taken responsibility for his actions and was held accountable."

Last week, the Speaker of the House of Commons--Canada's parliament--instructed the leader of the opposition not to ask certain questions of the Prime Minister because it wasn't the public's business. That enraged opposition leader Tom Mulcair. We have never seen him as angry when he stood back up. Most of the time he is like most politicians in question period. He is making points and looking for a snappy sound bite moment to get on the National News. It is a whole lot of scripted acting designed to meet an end goal. Not this time.

The leader of the NDP hit back at the Speaker saying,

 "Just to be clear, perfectly clear, this is about a coverup in the Prime Minister's Office. This is government business. This is the public's business."

Then last week, I saw a posting from a long time friend of mine about how the media should back off Rob Ford, our crack smoking Mayor who refuses to step down in spite of every reason to do so for the good of everyone, including himself. In city government we don't really have an official opposition or question period to call the Mayor onto the carpet to answer for the things he does that we don't think are in the public's interest. The only real recourse we have is when we vote, and until then, the media to watch, find out and report on things. 
We all know Rob Ford is a sick man. He has some sort of major problem, likely a drug and/or alcohol addiction. The right thing to do would be to back off and let him deal with it. But, he is the Mayor and continues to be. So, the media keeps hounding him, looking for answers. Looking for closure to the story which is still very active.
Should the media back off? I say no. Below, I will make my case for why they should not. Not yet at least.
Yes, Rob Ford is sick. If he resigns, then fine, he should be left alone.
If he wants to stay Mayor--and have the power that a mayor does--then he is fair game.
The media, as our voice and investigative interest, is obligated to pursue him and call him out.
Should they be allowed to enter his private property and hound him?
No, that is different. But once he steps on public property and off of his, he is working for the public and must answer for that. And because he is Mayor, he must show up at the place the Mayor belongs and do his job. When he does that, he is fair game. That is part of the deal and what he signed up for.
If Rob Ford wants this to end, all he has to do is quit. He is writing the story now. He needs to write his own ending. Quitting is writing that ending. Once he does that, there is no more story. He isn't the Mayor anymore. Nobody will really care. Not enough to chase him, or hound him, or find out more information. There will be other more important stories to chase. Until he quits, there is no ending and he is still the story.
So, quit today and story over today. That is how it works. If he is still the Mayor, the story is active and the intensity only grows for the final cliffhanger conclusion. People want that conclusion. They have been brought to the edge and until that is resolved they will keep waiting for resolution. For someone to write the ending. Rob Ford has that power now. Only he can end it. The writers will prolong it. That is the only power they have. 

It all reminds me of OJ and the car chase. And then the trial. Until the verdict, or he admitted he was guilty, there was no letup in the interest.There needed to be some kind of resolution to end the spectacle and complete the story. Even though most think he was guilty, the real interest stopped when the verdict came down. The story was over. He got away with it. In that case, the jury ended the story. 

The ball is in Rob Ford's court this time. The writers are on the other side of the net and the citizens are the fans in the stands waiting for someone to win or lose the point. Someone has to finish the point. If Rob Ford keeps hitting it back to the writers, they will only hit it harder back at him. Each time, the suspense grows. 
Should the media back off on Rob Ford? Hell No. Rob Ford should back away from Center Court--diffuse the whole situation--and give himself time to get whatever help it is he needs without the stress and pressure he keeps fostering on his own by not leaving when he should. The longer it goes, the more intense it will get. 
For all he has done wrong, lets just hope this doesn't end with a hostage situation or a suicide attempt. Or something like that. We have seen him blow up already many times and it isn't a stretch to think he will go completely off the deep end and do something that crazy people do when you back them into a corner. That is where it seems it is heading. No matter what, none of us want that. But we also don't want to see him keep his position after all the horrible things he has done. He doesn't get to skate away on that and keep his job. 
So, I say to Rob Ford:
Write the ending to your own story if you want others to stop writing it for you.
If you don't, the story goes on and so does the media frenzy. Only Rob Ford can stop that. If he doesn't, we should never expect others to do it for him. That is the only way the story ends.