Of Witnesses and Weakness

One week ago, the trial of the suspected murderers of Jordan Manners -- a grade 9 student shot to death in the halls of C.W. Jeffery's Collegiate in Toronto -- concluded with a verdict of not-guilty. The trial really hung on the testimony of two witnesses, one of whom retracted testimony and another that changed their testimony significantly.

In this case, the witnesses were too scared to testify.

This week, the SIU concluded it's investigation into the beating of Dorian Barton, a protestor at last year's G20 summit. The SIU determined there was not enough evidence to lay charges against the police officer accused of the beating even though a photographer witnessed the beating, identified the officer and provided a photo of the officer.

The police no doubt knew which officers were assigned what areas. Process of elimination alone would have been enough to figure out this bully with a badge. Even with all of this, none of the officers in the vicinity of the beating would identify the accused. Not even the roommate of this officer during the summit.

In this case, the police are too scared to testify.

Two crimes. Same problem. Same results: justice denied.

How can we as a society expect citizen witnesses to face their fear, stand up and testify against criminals if the police themselves won't? How can the police expect cooperation in the prosecution of criminals if they themselves will not cooperate? Do they really expect that citizens will bend over backwards -- such as freely providing DNA samples -- when the police give them every reason not to be trusted?

This is a sad, sad week for Canadian justice. I am a big supporter of our police officers having a cousin who is a member of the Ontario Provincial Police. But I expect more of them than this, certainly more than citizens who live in an area with one of the highest crime rates in the entire country. It is a tragic statement on our society when even the police are actively involved in the denial of justice.

Cowards.

David Miller's Legacy: A Bankrupt City

I was speaking with a friend of mine last night and we were discussing different aspects of the city. With me being kind of centre-right and her being more to the left, we of course have different perspectives. She dreaded the arrival of Rob Ford while I am relieved that we have somebody with a unique and very ambitious plan for Toronto.

However, she took me totally by surprise in suggesting that David Miller had a positive, long term vision of the city and that Toronto is one of the better fiscally managed cities in Canada. She also indicated that Toronto's debt has been managed very well compared to other cities in Canada.

Needless to say, I was dumbfounded. While I didn't want to take her to task over this -- being well aware of the ballooning budget -- I decided to not say anything about the debt level until I could present to her the actual numbers. So, this is what I pulled up.

Toronto - 2003

• Debt: $2.1 Billion
• Annual Budget: $6 Billion

Toronto - 2010

• Debt: $3.1 Billion
• Annual Budget: $9 Billion

In case it doesn't jump out at you right away, these numbers indicate that both the debt level of the city and the annual budget post-Miller is 150% of what it was pre-Miller. And let's not forget that Toronto is now pulling in approximately $750 Million more each year with the new Land Transfer Tax and Vehicle Registration Tax.

And when we compare Toronto to other cities, the picture isn't pretty either. Toronto has the third largest debt per capita of any Canadian city:

1. Montreal = $8,274
2. Calgary = $3,843
3. Toronto = $2,671

This kind of lays to rest any discussion on whether or not Toronto has been well-managed. It's not like David Miller was mayor for 30 years; he was in power for 7. To increase the debt and budget size of the city that significantly in that short of a time... it's almost imperceptible.

David Miller may go down as the most destructive mayor the city of Toronto ever had. One need only look at his spineless approach to unions in capitulating to their each and every wage demand...

...his ridiculous approach to poverty and community housing by giving away property...

...his mindless approach to the homeless in not even trying to figure out who they are, how many there are and coming up with a concise plan based on real numbers...

...his approach to roads in the city that have left businesses in ruins...

...and his complete disregard of the taxpayers' money.

Toronto is in sore shape right now. Thankfully we have somebody who is ready to give the city the shock therapy it so sorely needs. Let's hope that Rob Ford is able to enact the changes he plans. Toronto is on the brink. If Ford can do for Toronto what Rudy Giuliani did for New York, we may enter a new Golden Age for the city. And if anybody has the cojones to do it, it's Rob Ford.

UPDATE * * *

As pointed out in the comments section, my debt figures in the trillions of dollars is incorrect. As it is, I was using figures from the City of Toronto's website in which they quote their figures as being in millions.

The gross outstanding debt in 2010 is 3,063,064 (millions). Clearly, if the base value is in millions, that number becomes $3,063,064,000,000 or roughly $3.063 Trillion. However, Toronto's gross debt is actually $3.063 Billion. That would mean their base value is in the thousands: 3,063,064 (thousands) = $3,063,640,000

I've correct the debt figures back to being in the billions. Surprise, surprise that the City of Toronto's finances are so screwed up that they can't even quote financial figures on their website correctly.

Toronto to Ontario to Canada: A Conservative Cascade Effect

The victory of Rob Ford in Toronto's mayoral race certainly changes the political landscape significantly. Having a staunch conservative running the show in one of Canada's most liberal cities is a coup of the highest order. But it is the timing that could prove to be the most promising aspect.

As we all know, October 2011 will mark the next provincial election in Ontario. All signs are pointing towards McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party's demise with a possible takeover by the Tim Hudak lead Progressive Conservatives. The next Canadian federal election is set for October of 2012 though this could be overridden by actions of the official Lame-O-pposition.

It is the annual frequency of these elections that offer a certain degree of promise for supporters of the federal Conservative Party of Canada. If Rob Ford can withstand the obvious resistance he will face from Toronto City Council and build a certain degree of momentum, the changeover of the provincial government to a more conservative government could turn the tide in the options available to Toronto.

There can be little doubt that some of Rob Ford's more ambitious plans would find a louder resonance with a Conservative provincial government over the current Liberal one. And if Rob Ford can build a coalition within City Council to move his agenda forward, combined with both a provincially and federally Conservative atmosphere, Torontonians may in fact see this as a windfall of cooperation between the levels of government that has not been seen for decades.

McGuinty rams heads with Harper. Mike Harris had to ram heads with Chretien and Martin. David Peterson and Bob Rae rammed heads with Mulroney. Bill Davis rammed heads with Trudeau. To have three levels of cooperative, like-minded political ideology between Ford, Hudak and Harper... the promise is certain.

If Hudak takes power and works with both Harper and Ford, it may be possible to destroy the Liberal bastion that is Toronto and shift it forever to the right. Of course, this will all depend on the Harper Conservatives maintaining power until the next scheduled election of October 2012.

If they can do so and at the same time build a coalition of willing participants to change the Toronto landscape, Stephen Harper may be able to secure the majority that has eluded him thus far. If that majority is achieved with the help of a Toronto that begins to see the benefits of conservative principles in governance, there will be nothing stopping Harper from taking back those mandatory government political party subsidies that have been so difficult for Harper to dispose of.

We all know such a change of funding will ruin both the Liberals and the Bloc entirely. But more importantly, without this income, the Liberals may never be able to take Toronto -- or Canada -- back again.

Mayor Rob Ford... yes, it's official!

All I can say is, thank the maker... we have a real fiscal conservative in control in Canada. And in Toronto of all places!

The city needed shock treatment and that's what it got. I certainly am hopeful that Rob Ford surprises everybody and is able to implement his seemingly mountainous platform.

More subways? Yes!

Less streetcars? Double yes!

Respect for drivers? Triple yes!

Councillors being held accountable for both their voting and spending? You better believe it!

And, uh... Mr Miller? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your legacy has arrived. And his name is Rob Ford.

Tomorrow is the End... Hallelujah!

Regardless of who becomes Mayor of Toronto tomorrow -- George Smitherman or Rob Ford -- I think the overwhelming majority of Torontonians can breathe a sigh of relief that the David Miller regime will be gone.

It is disturbing to look at Toronto today in comparison to where we were before David Miller took office. The city has become a dump. The roads have become a disaster. The unions have turned the city into their own fiefdom.

And the cost? The yearly city budget is now 50% larger than when Miller took office.

With nothing to show for it.

Not a single monument to the success of David Miller.

Why? Because David Miller is the ultimate failure. The only thing people will think of when David Miller's name is spoke will be the smell of garbage piling up in the streets.

Regardless of whether my favored candidate -- Rob Ford -- wins tomorrow or not, I will be able to smile on Tuesday knowing that David Miller is gone. Hallelujah.

Toronto Mayoral Poll Fabrication?

I have suspected all along that the polls showing George Smitherman running a much closer race to Rob Ford were in some ways being fabricated to change the course of the Toronto Mayoral election. It appears that the Globe & Mail has finally given us some proof that something is afoot.

The Globe & Mail are reporting tonight that the latest Nanos poll -- conducted after Rocco Rossi dropped out -- puts Rob Ford's support at 43.9 percent versus George Smitherman's 40.5% and Joe Pantalone at 15%. According to their numbers, the "lion's share" of Rocco Rossi's supporters have migrated to George Smitherman's camp.

If you will recall, just a week ago, Ipsos-Reid pegged George Smitherman's support at 31% with Rob Ford at 30% thus showing a much tighter race. They even mentioned that if you take into account committed voters, George Smitherman's lead over Rob Ford was in fact 6%.

This is where the possible fabrication starts to reveal itself...

If we take Nanos' indication that most of the Rocco Rossi's support went to George Smitherman and apply it to the numbers from the Ipsos-Reid poll, we should in fact see Rob Ford polling in the low to mid 30% range with Smitherman at 40% at least. And yet Nanos shows that we are absolutely nowhere near that scenario.

Additionally, last week Rob Ford's camp indicated that their own internal numbers had him much closer to the 50% mark than what was being reported by Ipsos-Reid, a fact that NOW Magazine derided with their typical, black tooth grin. And yet, if we are to take Nanos' poll as accurate, it would appear that Ford's internal polling was in fact more reliable than Ipsos-Reid.

Which begs the question: what the hell is going on that the polls would be so ridiculously off the mark?

Let's remember that it was the poll Ipsos-Reid released on September 27th pegging Rob Ford's support at 28% against George Smitherman at 23% that convinced Sarah Thomson to bow out of the race and throw her support behind Smitherman. It was also their polling that convinced Rocco Rossi to drop out this past week.

So, we either have both Nanos and Rob Ford's internal polling being way off or we have Ipsos-Reid being way off.

If in fact Nanos' numbers turn out to be closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Ipsos-Reid conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark. Meanwhile, Nanos' numbers haven't changed much in the past two months. So, if Ipsos-Reid is closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Nanos conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark.

But they both can't be right. And they all can't be that far off.

Needless to say, I think election day is going to reveal a rat.

Where did all those mayoral polls go to?

Is it just me, or up until last week did we not see about a poll every three or four days on who the next Mayor of Toronto was going to be? Every newspaper was spilling page after page of ink on this poll and that poll... Ipsos-Reid and Nanos seemed to be doing cycles around each other every week. And yet the last poll to be discussed was released on the 26th of September.

And now? Nothing.

Gotta wonder what the next poll is going to say when everybody is keeping their internal numbers to their own chests and the polling firms are quiet. Could there have been a dramatic turn of events? We'll know soon enough.

What if Rob Ford was anti-immigrant?

Since the first debate where Rob Ford questioned the sustainability of Toronto's infrastructure with the population it already held, never mind any further growth, rival candidates and media pundits have been shouting from the roof tops that Rob Ford is anti-immigrant. By extension they have also linked him being anti-immigrant to the idea that he is racist.

Now, anybody who listened to what he said without a preconception that Rob Ford is Satan in disguise and therefore everything he says must be of the most villainous interpretations possible would know that he was not talking about immigration.

But let's say for a second that he was anti-immigrant. The big question from me would be: so what?

I'm a thirty-something, English speaking white male. I grew up in Dufferin County but only moved to the GTA a few years ago. That makes me an immigrant. Could it be gleamed from the interpretation of statements that in fact Rob Ford would be a racist for thinking it was a bad idea for me to move into Toronto with it's problems in infrastructure?

Of course not. Immigration is not about race. It's about population. It's a numbers focused question not a race question. As such, even if Rob Ford was speaking in an anti-immigrant tone, then it could not be considered racist.

Anyone-But-Ford: only if Smitherman folds

It has been the recurring chorus of the ever so unbiased Toronto Star that mayoral candidates Joe Pantalone, Sarah Thomson and Rocco Rossi should drop out of the race and let George Smitherman be the last man standing against Rob Ford. Today they reported that Sarah Thomson is in fact considering dropping out and casting her support behind Rocco Rossi.

The logic behind the Star's reporting is made that much clearer by the fact that Thomson is in fact 3 points ahead of Rossi. Yeah... you figure it out.

Still, the question does remain regarding how the other candidates would best defeat Rob Ford. The Star obviously has not thought this through past their unabashed slobbering over George Smitherman; much of the support for Pantalone, Thomson and Rossi would go to Ford if any of them dropped out.

In fact, as the Toronto Sun reports, 19.3% of voters' second choice is Rob Ford vs 15.3% for Smitherman. This makes it statistically impossible for an Anyone-But-Ford campaign lead by Smitherman to win.

If the other candidates dropping out won't defeat Ford, it seems to me that there is only one solution: George Smitherman should drop out now and lead the way throwing his support behind the most right-wing of the remaining candidates.

King George's camp seems to be the most entrenched ideologically. So, it is unlikely that his supporters would vote for Ford as a second choice. Moving politically left to right -- from him to the next most right-wing candidate beside Ford -- each candidate's supporters would more likely throw their support behind anyone but Ford which isn't true in the opposite direction of politically right to left. As such, if Smitherman and two other candidates dropped out and threw their support against the most right-wing of the remaining candidates, their supporters would likely see that candidate as the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately for them, the closest thing to a right-wing candidate next to Rob Ford happens to be Rocco Rossi who is polling last at 8% of decided voters.

Ultimately, the notion of an Anyone-But-Ford campaign is simply another symptom of the rot in Toronto municipal politics. Any candidate who drops out of the race now to throw their support behind somebody else reveals them to be completely devoid of principle. They have worked hard with their campaign workers, their supporters and presenting their own vision for the city. To fold now shows a complete disregard and disrespect for all of these elements.

I can only imagine how their supporters would react if these so-called "leaders" they were bucking for followed somebody else and drove their campaign off a cliff. I know I wouldn't exactly be appreciative of that. And I can see many campaign supporters voting for Ford just out of spite for the disregard the other candidates are showing them, their ideals, their efforts and the entire notion of democracy.

***UPDATE***

As it turns out -- and I really should have expected as much from the Star -- the poll they put out is in huge disagreement with other polls. Hardly surprising when you look at how the Star is doing everything to skew every aspect of this mayoral contest. As such, their poll has shown a drop from the mid-to-high 40's down to around 39% for Ford.

I guess when you actually have a poll identified as being from "Toronto Star - Angus Reid", you have to know that they are polling for themselves and their ideals. Meanwhile a Nanos poll from the exact same time period shows Rob Ford's mid-to-high 40's lead as being rock solid.

The funny part of this being that the numbers in the Nanos poll -- showing Thomson behind Rossi -- are more in line with the Star's reasoning for Sarah Thomson to concede and throw support behind Rossi!

I guess when you want to pointless badmouth Ford you use your own numbers. But when you want to logically convince Thomson to drop out, you use somebody else's numbers. It's clear that the Star's poll is emotional and the Nanos poll is logical. And that's all you need to know to figure out whose numbers are right.

Unions: an expense in blood and money

I work in franchise development. This basically means that when somebody is interested in starting up their own business, I help them determine whether ours is right for them and they are right for us. It is a unique type of franchise in that it is a consultation franchise so one doesn't need a building, office staff, equipment or overhead.

As a global franchise, people from all over the world approach us for information on how to start up a business. This affords me a fantastic experience in that I speak with people from all over the world.

Last week I had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman from South Africa. This gentleman is a successful owner of two service stations and has operated them for years. At the end of October the leases for his two locations are set to expire. But instead of making efforts to renew the leases and continue on in this business, he has decided to let the leases expire, close down operations and look for another business.

Why? It's very simple: unionization.

South Africa is an extremely unionized country. Since August, the country has been crippled by a massive civil service union strike with workers demanding a wage increase of between 8.6% and 11% as well as up to $190 in housing subsidies.

And with hospital workers being a part of this group, it has gotten so bad that the South African National Defense Force has been called in to protect union workers who have been threatened with violence for defying their union's strike position. Additionally, the hospitals themselves are now serviced by military doctors who are filling in for hospital staff.

South African hospital officials are also claiming that the strike by hospital workers is responsible for up to ten deaths for lack of access to medical aid. As somebody from Toronto, that particular aspect of the strike hits particularly close to home considering our own public sector strike last year and how a man died after slow response by Toronto's EMS.

For the man I spoke with last year, he simply cannot afford to stay in business. He does make a monetary profit through his businesses. But monetary costs aren't the only expenses in life. And the cost in stress versus the monetary returns are simply too great for him to stay in business.

As he mentioned, anybody who runs a business in South Africa is subject to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) of South Africa. This governing body is designed to settle disputes between labor and management. However, as is with so many far-left governing bodies (our Human Rights Commissions, anyone?), it is really just a farcical, rubber-stamp organization where people can claim victimhood with the tribunal going through a facade of a process so they can award the complainants whatever they want.

This man told me that many business owners in South Africa spend a good portion of their year in front of the CCMA tribunals just answering for non-stop complaints. And they're not even legitimate complaints. His own final straw was when an employee of his was caught stealing from him.

The gentleman fired the thieving employee and had him charged by the police. The thief was convicted under the courts for stealing. But the thief then filed a complaint with the CCMA who ruled that the business owner's actions of firing the man were improper. The CCMA forced this business owner to rehire the thief!

This is eerily reminiscent of the wildcat labor strike at Air Canada back in 2005. At the time, Air Canada was taking action against employees who had been swiping time cards for coworkers who either showed up late, left early or didn't come into work at all. The ground crew walked off work for four hours effecting several flights and thousands of passengers. In the end, Air Canada agreed not to take punitive action against these employees so they would come back to work.

Now, this gentleman from South Africa is getting out of business. He's fed up with the bureaucracy of dealing with organizations such as the CCMA and the highly regulated, paper-pushing South African government which makes starting, operating and even ending a business an insanity inducing process. He wants something where he doesn't have to worry about carrying the deadweight of employees who don't want to work or governing bodies who are more interesting in giving workers what they want than what is right or wrong.

It is frustrating to see the attitudes of modern day unions. They claim that they are simply trying to ensure that workers get "fair" pay and conditions. But one would have to be a fool to look at modern unions and actually believe this. It is becoming increasingly clear that modern day unions want equal pay across the board, no matter the position or duties, with workers being free to do whatever they want -- even not showing up -- as long as they can come up with a decent enough excuse.

A few years ago I was debating with somebody who is pro-union whether or not workers should all get the same pay. His logic was that if somebody gets a job and puts in a full day's work, he should get the same pay and benefits as anybody else. I asked him straight-up whether he felt that they should get the same pay as the person who started the business. And he actually said that he did believe they should get the same.

Talk about a true socialist!

It amazes me how far society has come in terms of valuing people's contributions. Somebody who begrudgingly comes to work, punches in at 9 and leaves by 5 on the nose and puts in the bare minimum does not deserve to be rewarded for their efforts the same as somebody who worked hard for years, saved up enough money to build a business, took that high risk investment of starting the business and has now created opportunity for others who wouldn't have a job if it weren't for his/her actions.

The value is not the same in any regard! The business owner is the one taking the risk. The business owner is the one creating a means for others to make a living. Of course the business owner shouldn't take advantage of their workers. But it is the myth of the union mentality that the natural attitude of a business owner is to take advantage of their workers.

Why? It's very simple: that is the only justification for the existence of unions.

But what of the opposite? What about workers taking advantage of their employers? Do we have safeguards to prevent this? Not really. If a worker wants to have their time card swiped while not at work, shouldn't the owner have a say on whether to pay this person for work they never did? If a worker steals from the employer and is even found guilty by a court of law, should the business owner not have the right to keep a thief away from his business?

Union-minded people don't seem to care one bit about morality. It's about money. It always is.

As society becomes more and more aware of the expense that unions exact upon society -- both in blood and money -- it is becoming increasingly hard for society to accept their prima-donna attitudes. One need only look at this year's mayoralty race in the largely leftist city of Toronto to see that people are getting fed up with union power.

People are starting to recognize that the value for service just isn't there and that unions have taken too much control. And it isn't just a local phenomenon. One need only look at Europe's reluctance to assist Greece in the face of their massive debt burden. Greek unions simply don't care where the money is or where it comes from as long as they get what they think they're entitled to. And this hasn't sat very well across the EU. Germany most notably is sick and tired of being the engine of the EU economy while countries like Greece rest on their haunches.

Thankfully with the freedom of news sharing that the internet affords, people are more aware of what is going on in the world around them and why. And as it becomes increasingly difficult for unions and their leftist apologists in the media to argue their points for them, the public is learning the true cost of unionization. And it isn't a pretty picture.

One can only hope that the tide turns and people can build businesses without the fears of being a target for unwarranted oppression from the government and unions. I feel sorry for the gentleman in South Africa I was in talks with. To think a person would build up two businesses and then just walk away out of the frustration of union control... he brings a means to a living for these people and they run him out of town.

It's truly heartbreaking. In the end everybody loses.

Pub owner suing Ford: his lawyer reps Warren Kinsella

We already know that George Foulidis, owner of the Boardwalk Pub in Toronto, is threatening to sue Rob Ford for libel. Ford suggested that the process allowing Foulidis to renew his lease 20 years for $1.5 million less than he originally offered is corrupt. Representing Mr. Foulidis is lawyer Brian Shiller.

NewsTalk 1010 reported today that Brian Shiller also happens to represent somebody very familiar to Conservatives everywhere: Warren Kinsella.

And what is Warren Kinsella happen to be doing these days? Why, he's acting as campaign strategist for Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi.

What a coincidence!

Mind you, NewsTalk 1010 provided further information to say that it was somebody in Rob Ford's camp who recommended Shiller to Foulidis. But still... coincidence? I don't believe in such a thing. Especially not in politics.

If you eliminate coincidence, there are really only three possibilities here:

a) that Rob Ford's team did put Shiller onto Foulidis knowing that it would cast suspicion on both Kinsella and Rossi, thus eating up Rossi's support;

b) that Warren Kinsella and/or Rossi thought this issue could be used as another faux scandal involving Rob Ford in hopes it would drive voters away from Ford and actually were the ones to put Shiller onto Foulidis; or,

c) a third candidate thought they could take both Ford and Rossi down by having the lawyer attack Ford only to have his connections to the Rossi camp be revealed and orchestrated the Shiller/Foulidis connection, thus casting suspicion everywhere.

Mind you, I highly doubt the third scenario could every be true. Considering the limp-noodle antics of the other candidates, such a tactic would be far beyond the pedestrian brains of either them or their strategists.

Whatever way you spin it, Rob Ford is going to come out on top in the end with this story. As Sue-Ann Levy in the Toronto Sun has put it, the attention being given to this issue (a sole-sourced contract that went for $1.5 million less than what the leaser offered) only illuminates the ridiculous nature of how the city of Toronto is being run. And that only further bolsters Rob Ford's message of fiscal ineptitude of city council.

Of course, we must keep in mind that Foulidis hasn't actually launched a lawsuit. He is only threatening to sue Rob Ford. Personally, I can't think of anybody who would use just the threat of a lawsuit to control political news.

All sarcasm intended.

Something only Rob Ford could do.

It was revealed last night that Rob Ford had claimed to not have been arrested for a drug charge only to reveal that he had in Florida. People jumped all over him for supposedly trying to deny or cover up this impropriety. He said he forgot.

The question became, how can anybody forget a pot bust in Florida? After his press conference this morning, his revelation not only made sense but is so very Rob Ford.

Ford said that the reason he forgot the dropped pot charge was because it was in a much more serious DUI charge to which he plead guilty. In that light, it makes sense why somebody might forget a dropped secondary charge.

Does it make Rob Ford look good? Not really. But it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of his critics and rival candidates that he was intentionally lying or trying to cover it up. And by revealing the other charge he now looks even more honest.

Only Rob Ford could turn a DUI conviction into a sign of honesty.

Is Toronto regaining its sanity?

It was with significant surprise that I read yesterday how Rob Ford has slipped into a comfortable lead over all of his opponents in the Toronto mayoralty race. It is surprising considering how comfortable Torontonians were in electing the spendthrift David Miller over the fiscally responsible and always full of unique ideas John Tory.

Perhaps this is a sign of resignation of the citizens of Toronto after endless disruptions by the spoiled brat leaders of the TTC and the Toronto Civic Employees union that has resulted in transit strikes and garbage strikes and saw David Miller fold like a deck of cards every time. To put simply, Torontonians are fed up.

Now, I don't see Rob Ford as a knight in shining armor. I tend to find some of his views to be a little too far to the right for me. But as long as his more socially conservative views are not going to cause a ruckus or lead to ill treatment of minority groups, I don't see this as a problem.

Toronto's problems are fiscal in nature. Under David Miller's seven-year leadership, the annual operating budget has risen from $6.4 Billion $9.2 Billion almost a full 50%. This is as clear a sign of the utter ridiculousness of the Miller team.

And what has it gotten us? Ask any Torontonian what David Miller's legacy will be and most will have no clue. Ask any Torontonian what major changes happened in Toronto since David Miller came to power and they are likely to give you windfall of negativity and no positive angles at all. From new tax after new spending after new tax, Miller has achieved the most epic of epic fails.

Make no mistake, Toronto is a left-wing city. The fact that the federal Conservatives can't make a single headway into the Metro core is a clear sign. As such, it is more likely that people aren't being drawn towards Rob Ford so much as David Miller's policies are driving them in that direction. They know that they were sold a bill of goods by Miller and his cronies who have achieved nothing substantial for the incredible increase in costs Toronto has seen.

As Kelly McParland so eloquently put it, David Miller's legacy could very well be Rob Ford.

Unlike certain places that refuse to accept that there is no such place as a utopia where you can pay anybody anything they want without taking in more tax money to cover the costs, everyday Torontonians have obviously recognized that you can't spend money that isn't there. And while it's a nice fantasy that unions should be able to pay uneducated trash collectors the same wage as some of the most trained professionals out there, fantasy does not bode well in reality and can usually kill it.

Here's hoping that a Rob Ford victory will find him actually able to implement the kind of policies that would save this city from its fiscal destruction.

Is Rob Ford not exactly what the Gay community wants?

I support gay marriage. For the longest time I did not. But it had nothing to do with being against homosexuality. Far from it... I have many friends who are gay and I see nothing wrong with who they are and the life they lead. They are amongst the most beautiful of human beings.

My stance against gay marriage was based on the fact that marriage has always been a union of a man and a women to be husband and wife. I didn't feel that this definition was an affront to the homosexual community. It was simply a word/term/condition that had been used to define a specific bond between two groups.

And there was nothing to stop the homosexual community from coming up with a term to describe their own unions. Just because the name would be different would not mean that it was less than marriage. After all, we have priests, rabbis and imams, all performing the same functions in society but each with a different name based on the community they were a part of.

With time my views changed and I felt that there simply wasn't enough of a reason not to extend marriage to be the union of two people -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- in an exclusive bond. And I have been witness to some very logical arguments that outline why even conservatives should not only accept gay marriage but in fact embrace it as a sign homosexuals embrace what are defined as long standing conservative values.

That said, not everybody supports that view. And that is their right. Until we live in a socialist or religious extremist dictatorship where every thought must be authorized by the state, people are allowed to believe what they want or think what they want so long as they do not partake in actions that harm other individuals. I don't want to live in a world where there is no freedom of thought, belief or expression.

Which brings us to the present brouhaha surrounding Rob Ford and his views on gay marriage...

Rob Ford supports the traditional definition of marriage being that of a union between a man and a woman. When mayoral candidate Wendell Brereton dropped out of the race this week and threw his support behind Rob Ford, their views on homosexual unions came to the forefront of media attention. And of course the opportunistic media and other self-serving candidates are swooping in on Rob Ford like carrion for their own political goals.

However, Rob Ford qualified his views stating that gay marriage is not something he even cares to focus on and is outside of his scope, specifically saying, "To each their own... I'm not worried about what people do in their private life, I look out for taxpayer's money." And he's right. The Mayor of Toronto has no control over who can and cannot get married and cannot put laws in place that harm the homosexual community. The dominion of the courts prevent it. As such, Rob Ford's views will not affect the homosexual community at all.

But it does raise an important question...

If Rob Ford holds views that run counter to the homosexual community but has no interest in doing anything against them, is that not the very definition of tolerance? And if so, would Rob Ford not be the very icon of what the homosexual community could hope for in a conservative politician? After all, what better example of tolerance could there be than a man who does not support same-sex marriage but does not lash out at the gay community?

The political left and the gay community have fought for tolerance for decades. Well... guess what? That's exactly what Rob Ford is the icon of.

The real question is, does tolerance run both directions? If Rob Ford can be against the views of the homosexual community but have no interest in taking action against them, is it possible for the homosexual community be against the views of Rob Ford and not take action against him?

I'm not saying that Rob Ford is the ideal candidate. There are many reasons not to vote for him. But, contrary to the popular opinion that his views on same-sex marriage should make him a pariah to the homosexual community, I think the homosexual community would in fact be missing a fantastic opportunity in embracing him.

I could not think of a better way to show the world what tolerance is than to have a mayor who does not share the moral views of homosexuality but is tolerant of the gay community... and a gay community who does not share the moral views on homosexuality that the mayor does but is tolerant of him.