Rob Ford's Toronto

[dt_toronto_geek]

The case of alleged influence peddling can lead to Rob Ford being imprisoned if convicted. If this goes anywhere, this is actually more serious than his conflict of interest charge. However, it is not as straightforward to prove because a lot of the evidence isn't on the public record. Witnesses would need to be called, an investigation would have to take place. It could take years before it's settled. I don't think it would affect Ford in this term.

Let us not forget, he appears hellbent on a second term.

 

[k10ery]

TVO's The Agenda will focus on Ford Nation tonight.

http://theagenda.tvo.org/episode/182117/fumbling-with-ford-nation-and-angry-us-voters

Unfortunately Steve Paikin is not hosting this one.

Karen Stintz was the only politician on a panel of pundits - unusual. She basically endorsed Rob's right-wing aspirations, but said he was incompetent to be mayor.

So it seems to me she's running for mayor. But is she thinking of a 2013 by-election, or would she even run against Rob in 2014, if he lasts that long?

 

[Lenser]

One thing that fascinates me is the use of the word "elite" as a means of undercutting a person or group. Rather than seeking out the best people in a society - particularly with respect to government - the word is now employed as a means of disparaging those who actually might know better. People shun the idea of an elite, either out of petty prejudice, or out of fear. We've come to a point where we seem to want people who we can have a beer with rather than someone who might be thought of as "too" intelligent. Change the category from politics and government to heart surgery, and suddenly having an elite surgeon around to do the work becomes a desired quality.

Yes. And much of the mediasphere uses the word "elite" as a partisan code for anything deemed not part of the "approved" talking points and chosen stances. In much the same way we see talking heads (polticians or infotainment personalities alike) dissing "special interest groups." It's yet another term that's been used so often it's been largely drained of meaning - reduced to just another plastic, opaque, utterly malleable slogan. Not that it matters, as political discourse has been reduced in popular media to the status of a circus side-show. Substantive and complex issues were thrown under the bus years ago in favour of coarsely simplistic arguments, false dichotomies, colourful figureheads and ceaseless partisan bickering masquerading as intelligent conversation.

I know they're teaching media literacy out there but I often wonder if it's actually 'taking.' Seems we still have to put up with a lot of dumb arguments, straw men and ugly propaganda. It's a pretty shallow pool to play in. Mr. Ford enjoys wading in it all the time - it's his milieu. it's what got him elected.

 

[Tewder]

The degradation of political discourse and debate has happened on all sides of the spectrum, however. How many years did we have to suffer the crimes and abuses of the majority Liberals because of blatant and irrational fear-mongering with respect to Harper and the Conservatives? I fail to see how this was in the interest of anybody, and in fact quite the opposite. You see, what was lost was balance and the objectivity that is its biproduct. Now it's about being 'right' at all cost; drawing your line in the sand and defending it tooth and nail (so to speak). As surely as it is shaping all forms of societal communication the internet has all but destroyed moderate, reasoned and rational discourse... and a whole generation has now been raised with these norms. Shame.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

First of all, the Liberals under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin is arguably centre-right (perhaps more accurately, Neo-liberal) - hardly the "all sides of the spectrum" you have claimed; second, while the competence of the Harperites in the mechanics of governance is never in doubt, the jury is still out on their motivations and agenda. And funny you should mention them - recall who are the ones who called the attempt to unseat his government through a 3 party alliance a "coup" and "anti-democratic", even though it's provided for in our system of governance?

And before we get all wax poetic about the past - just how "moderate, reasoned and rational" was it back then? Don't blame the Internet, the degradation (if any) of discourse is driven by baser forces than a mere technological tool.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

Definitely a failure of both the left and right. It's funny; I expected the internet would be an effective counter against the dumbing down of political discourse, but in many ways it's accelerated it. Guess I was naive. Want to see real toxic venom, however? Read the anonymous reader commentary after articles in online papers like the Globe. Shame indeed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think it was any better without it - Internet provides a more convenient forum for one to air their views - doesn't mean it necessarily changes prevelance of those views. Just think radio talk shows, etc.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

I don't think it was any better without it - Internet provides a more convenient forum for one to air their views - doesn't mean it necessarily changes prevelance of those views. Just think radio talk shows, etc.

AoD

Agreed. I suppose it's the public airing of formerly privately-held beliefs. The political spectrum was the same, but nowadays there's a certain democratization of expression occurring. Now that we're all plugged into the same omnivorous media sphere, we're free to shout at one another all the time!

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

First of all, the Liberals under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin is arguably centre-right (perhaps more accurately, Neo-liberal) - hardly the "all sides of the spectrum" you have claimed

I think my point is clear enough, without heading into a pitched debate on what is meant by 'political spectrum'.

; second, while the competence of the Harperites in the mechanics of governance is never in doubt, the jury is still out on their motivations and agenda. And funny you should mention them - recall who are the ones who called the attempt to unseat his government through a 3 party alliance a "coup" and "anti-democratic", even though it's provided for in our system of governance?

I made no claim that Harper and the Conservatives are any better than any other party. I pretty much toss all politicians into the same pile, quite frankly... all of which is irrelevent, however, because I'm talking about an overall degrading of discourse, and on all sides.

And before we get all wax poetic about the past - just how "moderate, reasoned and rational" was it back then? Don't blame the Internet, the degradation (if any) of discourse is driven by baser forces than a mere technological tool.

AoD

The media is the message, AoD, and these new tools of communication (texts, tweets, and the internet) are indeed shaping our public discourse... and this is not 'waxing nostalgic', the standards have changed (even if they weren't always followed).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Quoting me Marshall McLuhan is one thing - casually attributing to perceived changes in public discourse (whether those changes are real or not is another question entirely) to technology without demonstrating validity is another. Dramatic claims that somehow Internet destroyed "moderate, reasoned and rational" discourse clearly has to be shown through demonstrable cause-effect relationships.

AoD

 

[TOperson]

Quoting me Marshall McLuhan is one thing - casually attributing to perceived changes in public discourse (whether those changes are real or not is another question entirely) to technology without demonstrating validity is another. Dramatic claims that somehow Internet destroyed "moderate, reasoned and rational" discourse clearly has to be shown through demonstrable cause-effect relationships.

AoD

Just following on from this comment, I can't for the life of me remember the titles now, but some recent books review political discourse through American history, and evidently it was always very, very dirty and lowdown. So, I think there is something else going on, some icky part of human nature that can never quite be reasoned away.

 

[Tewder]

Quoting me Marshall McLuhan is one thing - casually attributing to perceived changes in public discourse (whether those changes are real or not is another question entirely) to technology without demonstrating validity is another. Dramatic claims that somehow Internet destroyed "moderate, reasoned and rational" discourse clearly has to be shown through demonstrable cause-effect relationships.

AoD

I didn't realize we needed peer-reviewed documentation before venturing a 'casual' point here. Nevertheless, pointing to McLuhan's work is more than à propos if we are talking about new technologies/forms of media and how they shape communication (degradation of discourse).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I didn't realize we needed peer-reviewed documentation before venturing a 'casual' point here.

I wasn't the one quoting an academic here, you did.

McLuhan's work is more than à propos if we are talking about new technologies/forms of media and how they shape communication (degradation of discourse)

He is asserting that it shapes communication - you are asserting that a)there is a decline in moderation and rationality and b)it is caused by a specific mode of technology. I don't think you have provided the evidence to infer that conclusion - and this objection is surely reasoned and rational?

AoD

 

[EMP1729]

Interesting photo of Rob Ford:

All alone, standing in the light, what's he thinking???

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I am the king of the world? Only doing it from the backend of the boat.

AoD