And that’s why I say he’s gonna be the greatest mayor this city has ever, ever seen, as far as I’m concerned! And put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks.
Thank you very much.
2013-05-23
Where It All Began.
Your Chief of Staff escorted out of City Hall? Seriously? "I did not resign." Yeah, that is totally going to take the attention away from the crack smoking allegations. Speaking of which, we can't say we weren't warned. When Rob Ford took office as Mayor of LEAFS SUCK, he had Don Cherry deliver the inauguration speech. That speech ended thusly:
2013-05-17
All This Talk About Crack Reminds Me of Ass Gate
Hamutal Dotan has a good take on the whole Rob Ford Smoking Crack video thing. If the video is real, we're talking about a serious substance abuse issue. I disagree with Ford's politics pretty vehemently. I am offended at him and his actions not just as my Mayor but as a human being. Saying that I don't like the guy is a massive understatement. But even with all that, I'm hoping he's not a crack addict because that would totally fucking suck for him and his loved ones.
What about the city? Having a crackhead as the mayor has got to be a bad thing! Well, maybe not. LEAFS SUCK doesn't have a strong mayor system. The mayor is just one vote on council, and to get anything done, he needs to build an alliance of a majority of councillors. Riding high on his electoral victory into his first year in office let him push through all sorts of stuff by just obstinately sticking to his positions and bullying folks to get on board or get run over. Those days are long gone. If anything, since Rob's views on governance and understanding of how things work are so flawed, his being impaired and less effectual is probably a good thing for Council. Although, this behaviour is more egregiously bad than even some of the stupid crap we've had before and reflects badly on the city. Well whatevers, LEAFS SUCK has had some interesting mayors.
One thing in the Torontoist article that I disagree with is the bit about Ford's use of hateful language - particularly the bit about Justin Trudeau being a "fag". Don't get me wrong - that language is indeed hateful and incredibly inappropriate for any holder of public office. BUT, dude was saying that shit while he was fucking high on crack. I'm okay with giving some leeway to the garbage that comes out of your mouth immediately after a heavy pull on the crack pipe. It's the crack smoking that's still the major issue.
That said, I really hope that the "just fucking minorities" comment about the Don Bosco Eagles is fake. Throughout Ford's various trials (literally) and tribulations, the one mitigating aspect of his bad behaviour was his dedication to underprivileged high schools and to his football team. Sure there's a strong argument that the Rob Ford Football Foundation is just a publicity device and a money laundering tool for campaign financing. But even still, that foundation does do what it claims to. And sure, maybe football has nothing to do with turning around a troubled high school, but if you believe it does then Rob is doing exactly what he claims he thinks will help the most. And he seems to genuinely care about his football team - so much so that he misses Council meetings for games. Video of him slagging those players would totally suck. Even given that he was high on crack at the time of the statement - it would still be pretty hurtful.
Final point - to clarify my first statement on this over at Teh Mothership, Sarah Thomson accused Rob Fod of groping her during a photo op - which turned out to be a fizzled scandal despite having the awesome name of Ass Gate. Then, Sarah Thomson went on local radio and diagnosed Rob Ford as being high on coke based on her extensive use of Google, which of course - hilarious, at least it was until video evidence starts being discussed.
One thing in the Torontoist article that I disagree with is the bit about Ford's use of hateful language - particularly the bit about Justin Trudeau being a "fag". Don't get me wrong - that language is indeed hateful and incredibly inappropriate for any holder of public office. BUT, dude was saying that shit while he was fucking high on crack. I'm okay with giving some leeway to the garbage that comes out of your mouth immediately after a heavy pull on the crack pipe. It's the crack smoking that's still the major issue.
That said, I really hope that the "just fucking minorities" comment about the Don Bosco Eagles is fake. Throughout Ford's various trials (literally) and tribulations, the one mitigating aspect of his bad behaviour was his dedication to underprivileged high schools and to his football team. Sure there's a strong argument that the Rob Ford Football Foundation is just a publicity device and a money laundering tool for campaign financing. But even still, that foundation does do what it claims to. And sure, maybe football has nothing to do with turning around a troubled high school, but if you believe it does then Rob is doing exactly what he claims he thinks will help the most. And he seems to genuinely care about his football team - so much so that he misses Council meetings for games. Video of him slagging those players would totally suck. Even given that he was high on crack at the time of the statement - it would still be pretty hurtful.
Final point - to clarify my first statement on this over at Teh Mothership, Sarah Thomson accused Rob Fod of groping her during a photo op - which turned out to be a fizzled scandal despite having the awesome name of Ass Gate. Then, Sarah Thomson went on local radio and diagnosed Rob Ford as being high on coke based on her extensive use of Google, which of course - hilarious, at least it was until video evidence starts being discussed.
2013-05-14
2013-05-06
2013-03-16
Even Michael Jackson: Boyband Edition
That magical time of year has returned, the special day when everybody's Irish. And thusly due to symmetry, the Irish are everybody. Even Michael Jackson.
This is the third installment (Part 1 and Part 2), and we all know that the third time's the charm - or it is if you are really into Irish boy bands.
This is the third installment (Part 1 and Part 2), and we all know that the third time's the charm - or it is if you are really into Irish boy bands.
2013-01-21
The Paranoid Delusions of Some Gun Advocates
TPM Reader MV complains that the paranoid delusions which form his support of the Second Amendment shouldn't be considered as paranoid or delusional as those of other gun supporters.
Here is his argument:
To borrow a phrase - Sadly, No! There is SO VERY MUCH that is wrong with his argument that it really is difficult to know where to start. So warning then - this post may ramble even moar than usual.
Item - the US is a country of some 300 million people. It is the twenty first frigging century. If the US government were to "take a hard turn to tyrrany", guns don't mean sweet fuck all. What if a tyrranical dictatorial executive branch were to suspend habeas corpus, disappear random individuals to secret black site torture centres, order the extra-judicial assassination of her own citizens? The government is going to do what-ever-the-fuck it pleases and no number of citizen-held private assault rifles is going to stop them. "Guarantee bloodshed"? Only in the paranoid delusions of some gun supporters - probably after watching a lot of Red Dawn.
Item - The example cited for the deterrence factor? Tiananmen Square. Because we all know how the plethora of privately held assault rifles made a huge difference in China. FFS, if Tank Man had an AK-47, no one would remember him at all. It is the lack of guns in the hands of the protestors that made it a powerful moment in history.
Item - What are the actual results of having all these guns in all of these hypothetical potential Freedom Fighters? TPM Reader MV, the paranoid delusional gun advocate acknowledges that no modern developed country's military is going to lose to a ragtag band of citizens militia. So what are they going to be able to do? I suppose the best you can hope for is maybe something along the lines of Waco. IOW, David Koresh represents the best case scenario to justify the widespread prevalence of killing machines.
Item - Even if the circumstances arise of a tyrranical government versus freedom-loving insurrectionists - the guns themselves DON'T EVEN FUCKING HALP. If the government were to suddenly go Despot-a-palooza, guess which side the vast majority of assault rifle toting jerkwads will be on? The Tahrir Square protestors back in 2011 were opposed as much by the regime as by conservative Mubarak supporting assholes.
Item - And let's look at the current situation. What is happening in the fallout from Sandy Hook? The government has decided that your personal mental health records should be widely accessible. People are proposing that the government place armed guards at every public building. Yayy FREEDOM! This must be what "the strongest possible protections against tyrrany" looks like.
Here is his argument:
What guns do however, is basically guarantee bloodshed if the government ever does take a hard turn to tyranny. That bloodshed is itself a significant deterrent, even if its the revolters’ blood.
To borrow a phrase - Sadly, No! There is SO VERY MUCH that is wrong with his argument that it really is difficult to know where to start. So warning then - this post may ramble even moar than usual.
Item - the US is a country of some 300 million people. It is the twenty first frigging century. If the US government were to "take a hard turn to tyrrany", guns don't mean sweet fuck all. What if a tyrranical dictatorial executive branch were to suspend habeas corpus, disappear random individuals to secret black site torture centres, order the extra-judicial assassination of her own citizens? The government is going to do what-ever-the-fuck it pleases and no number of citizen-held private assault rifles is going to stop them. "Guarantee bloodshed"? Only in the paranoid delusions of some gun supporters - probably after watching a lot of Red Dawn.
Item - The example cited for the deterrence factor? Tiananmen Square. Because we all know how the plethora of privately held assault rifles made a huge difference in China. FFS, if Tank Man had an AK-47, no one would remember him at all. It is the lack of guns in the hands of the protestors that made it a powerful moment in history.
Item - What are the actual results of having all these guns in all of these hypothetical potential Freedom Fighters? TPM Reader MV, the paranoid delusional gun advocate acknowledges that no modern developed country's military is going to lose to a ragtag band of citizens militia. So what are they going to be able to do? I suppose the best you can hope for is maybe something along the lines of Waco. IOW, David Koresh represents the best case scenario to justify the widespread prevalence of killing machines.
Item - Even if the circumstances arise of a tyrranical government versus freedom-loving insurrectionists - the guns themselves DON'T EVEN FUCKING HALP. If the government were to suddenly go Despot-a-palooza, guess which side the vast majority of assault rifle toting jerkwads will be on? The Tahrir Square protestors back in 2011 were opposed as much by the regime as by conservative Mubarak supporting assholes.
Item - And let's look at the current situation. What is happening in the fallout from Sandy Hook? The government has decided that your personal mental health records should be widely accessible. People are proposing that the government place armed guards at every public building. Yayy FREEDOM! This must be what "the strongest possible protections against tyrrany" looks like.
2013-01-09
I'm the King of the World! (edited for more math)
via Atrios
It's no surprise that Republicans don't know the first thing about money. The linked Yglesias article puts it nicely:
Let's skip that part. Let's accept the absolutely ridiculous notion that a trillion dollar platinum coin needs a trillion dollars worth of platinum to mint. So, even if we accept that ludicrous notion, it turns out that the NRCC is still wrnog.
Some maths - the price of platinum is somewhere around $1,600 per troy oz but it fluctuates. One trillion dollars at this price is 625 million troy ounces. A troy ounce is 0.0685 pounds so this works out to around 21,000 tons.
The Titanic had a cargo capacity of 46,000 gross register tons.
Edit: It has been pointed out that GRT is a bad measure for how much weight it takes to sink a boat. That's true - it almost definitely requires more weight than this. GRT is a measure of permanently enclosed volume - or the amount of "buoyancy" the boat has. Since one GRT is 100 cubic feet of enclosed air or 2.8 cubic metres - the actual buoyancy is 2.8 tonnes (the mass of water that this air would displace). Additional, register tons have something to do with subtracting "non-revenue earning space" etc. Complicated rules anyways. Basic point - the Titanic had bulkheads and other enclosed volumes equal in volume to well over a hundred thousand tons of water. Another consideration though, the boat itself has mass. The light load of the Titanic (no fuel, passengers or provisions) was a bit under 40K tons leaving at least 60,000 tons of buoyancy. The loaded weight was ~52K tons (light load plus 14K "deadweight" or allowable* cargo load). Even when fully loaded, if one additional passenger in the form of Moneybags McPreciousMetals were to board the ship with his one trillion dollar 21,000 ton platinum coin, the Titanic still floats. And while she wouldn't be safe to take out into the open seas with this load, history has shown that this was never possible in the first place.
*allowable means actual. If she were loaded less than this, they would fill with ballast to get to this load since the ship was designed to be operated at this draught.
The amount of platinum needed to mint a coin worth $1 trillion would sink the Titanic.
It's no surprise that Republicans don't know the first thing about money. The linked Yglesias article puts it nicely:
But saying that the government would need a lot of platinum is like saying a $100 bill needs to have 100 times as much cotton in it as a $1 bill.
Let's skip that part. Let's accept the absolutely ridiculous notion that a trillion dollar platinum coin needs a trillion dollars worth of platinum to mint. So, even if we accept that ludicrous notion, it turns out that the NRCC is still wrnog.
Some maths - the price of platinum is somewhere around $1,600 per troy oz but it fluctuates. One trillion dollars at this price is 625 million troy ounces. A troy ounce is 0.0685 pounds so this works out to around 21,000 tons.
The Titanic had a cargo capacity of 46,000 gross register tons.
Edit: It has been pointed out that GRT is a bad measure for how much weight it takes to sink a boat. That's true - it almost definitely requires more weight than this. GRT is a measure of permanently enclosed volume - or the amount of "buoyancy" the boat has. Since one GRT is 100 cubic feet of enclosed air or 2.8 cubic metres - the actual buoyancy is 2.8 tonnes (the mass of water that this air would displace). Additional, register tons have something to do with subtracting "non-revenue earning space" etc. Complicated rules anyways. Basic point - the Titanic had bulkheads and other enclosed volumes equal in volume to well over a hundred thousand tons of water. Another consideration though, the boat itself has mass. The light load of the Titanic (no fuel, passengers or provisions) was a bit under 40K tons leaving at least 60,000 tons of buoyancy. The loaded weight was ~52K tons (light load plus 14K "deadweight" or allowable* cargo load). Even when fully loaded, if one additional passenger in the form of Moneybags McPreciousMetals were to board the ship with his one trillion dollar 21,000 ton platinum coin, the Titanic still floats. And while she wouldn't be safe to take out into the open seas with this load, history has shown that this was never possible in the first place.
*allowable means actual. If she were loaded less than this, they would fill with ballast to get to this load since the ship was designed to be operated at this draught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
