Thursday, September 23, 2010

And in this week's Ford-related election nonsense...

"It is Oct. 26, the day after the election, and you wake in a hard, unfamiliar bed. Your eyeballs are congealed chip fat and your contact lenses have gone crispy. Your liver is en route somewhere. You appear to be missing a tooth. And there's something in bed next to you. It is the sweaty, beer-smelling oik from the bar last night. Of course, you'll say what you always say, 'As God is my witness, I will never ever do this again.' You won't have to, Toronto. He's there for four years."

- Heather Mallick telling me far more than I'll ever need to know about either her deepest fears or worst habits in the Star.

"Note the same disquieting themes, which also appear in her Ford column: a casually hateful derogation of the white race, the presentation of women as passive (juvenile, drunk, unconscious) objects prodded by disgusting men, and the notion that the people who have political views she disagrees with must be motivated by sexual inadequacy."
- Jonathan Kay in the National Post going over-the-top in a rant about Mallick stemming from her over-the-top about Ford. It takes a while to him to segue into her apparent distrust of the white race (he starts with 'white men' and sneaks to the race in toto) and it's a long strange trip on both of their parts. Mallick's drivel begats Kay's drivel. It's a good case for the existence of amoebic journalism, but 'good' is used here only in the broadest sense of the term.

"Any time anyone mentions Ford's name, the Star collectively looks like those guys in David Cronenberg's famous 1981 horror flick, Scanners, just before their heads explode."
- Lorrie Goldstein in the Sun, keepin' current.

"If nothing improves over four years of a Ford mayoralty, if transit remains just as crappy and the roads just as busy, at least Torontonians won’t have been forced to spend billions bringing it about. They’ll have the same city they have now, plus more money in the bank. How is that bad?"
- Intensely pragmatic or utterly lukewarm so-called endorsement of Ford from Kelly McParland in the Post.

"The red, white and blue colour scheme is a bit much—tax revolt, tea party, we get it—but at least it’s more engaging than the other signs (though we double-checked, and Thomas Jefferson never spoke about a gravy train)."
- John Michael McGrath dissecting candidate lawn signs in Toronto Life. Pantalone and Rossi get away with little more than a nod, but Ford's colour scheme supposedly evokes the Tea Party, Thomson's alludes to one of his earlier columns, and Smitherman's sign lacks structural integrity.

All of that said, there's at least one exception to the nonsense rule:

"Mr. Ford makes these untrue statements over and over at debates and campaign appearances. His rivals for mayor have corrected him repeatedly in public, but he keeps on trotting them out as fact."
- Marcus Gee in the Globe pointing out that Ford's numbers aren't necessarily based in reality. One can quibble about the price about a bike lane, but when he says that council put $360 million towards tearing down the Gardiner when such a thing hasn't happened, that's either one hell of a spin or an outright lie or the statement of somebody who honestly, truly and deeply doesn't understand how things work. I'm indifferent to most candidates so far, I just want somebody who knows that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the 2, the second 2 and the resulting 4 all exist in the first place.


Blogger Templates by 2008