dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Or a lick of common sense...
Or Don Andrews? (*Then*, you'd be stepping into Godwin country...)
Enza Supermodel would be as good, if not better than Ford. She would have aced the social and public angles, lovin' that spotlight, while her team took care of the heavy lifting (Unions, emergencies, makeup). When faced with difficult questions, however simple her responses, she would at least tried to think about what to say. It wouldn't be too hard to avoid the inflammatory, monosyllabic repetitions of Ford's non-communiques. Also, she likes the city.
Let's face it - a dead frog being galvanized with dc current would be as compelling, articulate, visionary, masterful, intellectual, cosmopolitan and of-the-people as Ford at this point.
It's like the Toronto City Hall production of Ubu Roi. Everyone who disagrees is off to the disembrainer!
I seriously think Enza could have done a better job as mayor.
How is that? If he has a penis, he's a man, no? Our sexual organs determine what sex we are, not some convoluted self identification. As far as I know, he never had a sex operation. Even if he did, that doesn't really change who he is, but just creates an illusion that he is a she.
Act as if one is a member of the opposite sex isn't normal and any psychiatrist would tell you that.
Scientific fact will tell you that if you have a penis, you're a male--if you have a vagina, you're a female. That isn't debatable. Enza is a man, dressed like a woman. That's his business and right, but it's certainly not convincing anyone that he's really a woman. If pretending one is a member of the opposite sex isn't a form of mental illness/unstableness, what is it? It's not normal, that's for sure. How we're born is how we were meant to be. If Enza was supposed to be a female, he would have been born as one.
Homosexuality is a different topic, and it's debatable, but since you raised it. Homosexuality is still considered abnormal by many psychiatrists--they're just silenced by our politically correct media. There was strong political pressure to change the definition of homosexuality in the 1970s and beyond and it was done with strong arm tactics. Read the book, After The Ball http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-Ame.../dp/0452264987 If you're unfamiliar with it and want to read it, you'll have to order it online as it's been banned in book stores. Basically the premise of it was to change popular opinion on homosexuality through fear and intimidation. Here's a good review: "I think those that think this book is great because they support the gay agenda are missing the point. The book encourages deceptive marketing to advance its goals. It encourages acceptance of homosexuality based on intimidation, lies and half truths. Do the people who advocate this in the name of gay rights really believe that the ends justify the means, even if the means are evil and abusive? Which brings up another question, if it is impossible to convince people of the goodness of homosexuality without lying about it, have you really convinced them? As soon as they find out the truth I would think they would be angry at being duped."
Just because someone who identifies themselves as transgendered can change the sex on their birth certificate doesn't mean it isn't "nutty" and odd. So what if one calls themselves a man or a woman? Honest reality isn't pliable. That also shows you how spineless our society is. We're so afraid of offending the sensitivities of people that we'll defy logic in order to make others feel comfortable. Why encourage others to be what they obviously aren't?