Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« More on 7/7 | Main | Giuliani to Londoners »

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Howard Moscoe is an Idiot

I just wrote an email to the councilor responsible for the Toronto Transit Commission, regarding inappropriate remarks he made earlier today at a press conference.

Mr. Moscoe

I am writing because I feel ashamed at this moment that you - a high profile member of Toronto's council -  were quoted in a press conference this afternoon making glib and catty remarks regarding the London attacks.
For you to say that "we have no troops to pull out of Iraq" and "the terrorists would have to find Toronto first" is disrespectful, condescending, and completely out of line.
In regards to your comment about Iraq, it leads to even more anti-Americanism, and it is already rampant here in Toronto. There is already a feeling that everything from the Crusades to a fender bender should be blamed on George Bush and America. Your remarks do not help. It also indicates that the blame for today's attacks rests with Tony Blair and the UK itself. Would you have the courage to say such things on the BBC? Please remember that you are a politician, and you are to behave in a more diplomatic way than you demonstrated to us today.
Your words about the terrorists finding their way to Toronto is a lark, when you consider the "diversity" that is oh so prized in this city. The remark also diminishes Toronto's importance on the world stage, as if it were a backwater that no one should bother with. Perhaps you should run for minister of tourism?
You owe the people of Toronto an apology, for it is by them you are employed. And you owe the people of London an apology for your crass and disrespectful behaviour. Remember that the United Kingdom is the home from which we sprang as Canadians, and there is little point in flying our flags at half-mast in their honour if our councillors and other public figures demean the occasion by hamming it up for the cameras.

Posted by RightGirl on July 7, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344c839a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Howard Moscoe is an Idiot:

Comments

Good show. I heard Moscoe's comments on the radio and was disgusted by them. What a moron!

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-07-07 8:36:35 PM


Hey Rightgirl:

It's nice to know that not everyone in Toronto has been brainwashed by the Miller/Moscoe/Pantalone-Clean-Green-Jobless-Waterfront crowd at City Hall. Good for you for sending it.

Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-07-07 8:45:58 PM


You go girl!

Posted by: The Wild Duck | 2005-07-07 8:57:42 PM


"the terrorists would have to find Toronto first"

This has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard from an Ontarian - and that's saying something.

Every time I ask if you people could GET any stupider, someone comes along and surprises me.

This is why I will never set foot in Ontario again. You people are a menace to yourselves and others. You attract trouble, and Albertans have to protect themselves from the likes of you. The biggest question is who is worse: the terrorists or the Ontarians?

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-08 1:01:23 AM


Howard rules!
God I'm proud of these comments and I hope that everyone that disagrees leaves Toronto asap. Please go. I offer my help to assist you with moving.

As for your anti-American comment - you consider Democrats anti-American and last I looked they were American too so please stop being such a shrill.

Geez, women are so emotional sometimes!

Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 1:06:42 AM


I only caught the end of it, but I think it was also Mr. "Moscow" who said later that the TTC has no means of preventing or even deterring an attack, and that should terrorists want to attack they would free to do so without impediment. Our new line of defence: "please don't!"

I suspect that Howard (a) actually didn't know that Canada is on the hit-list, and (b) probably blames it on the Americans now that he does.

Our ability to blame the victim in this country is embarassing. I mean, sure London was asking for it, look how short her skirt is!

Posted by: markdsgraham | 2005-07-08 7:36:14 AM


Good for you. I sent a letter to Moscoe and Miller as well.
Moscoe's comments were ignorant and insulting.

To assume that terrorism is only a reaction and never an action, and, in this case, a 'deserved' act because 'you are in Iraq' is so monumentally ignorant of the causes of terrorism as to be beyond belief.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism began LONG before Iraq, Mr. Moscoe and other ignorami. It has two agendas: (1) get rid of the current tribal leadership of the countries of the Middle East; and (2) insert Islamic fundamentalism as the governing mode in those countries.

Obviously, therefore, it's an INTERNAL civil war between tribes.
The problem with the ME is that is has remained in the medieval mode of governance - tribalism - and hasn't move to a civic mode that empowers all people not just one tribe.
This tribalism has been empowered by oil which has enabled military dictatorships which can't be taken out by internal civil wars.
But, the ME population has increased exponentially over the last two decades; this has left the majority of the population with no economic or political power in their own countries. And..no means of addressing this imbalance.

So-how does one get rid of a military dictatorship? By having the West move in and take it out. Then..the hope would be that the Other Tribe would move in, take power, and insert the 'cleansing ideology' of fundamentalism. That's what they attempted to do in Afghanistan..have the Russians take out the old leaders, then, the Taliban moved in..to develop fundamentalism.

The Sept 11 attacks were meant to provoke the US to retaliate against the homeland of the perpetrators - Saudi Arabia. Instead, the US went in and took out the Taliban!! And then, went in and took out Hussein..And developed democracy in both nations!

That's not the agenda of the terrorists; the agenda is to have the West, as a military force, take out the old tribal leaders so that the new tribal power can move in. And most certainly, the agenda is NOT, NOT to develop a civic mode of governance..i.e., democracy.

That's why the insurgents are in Iraq; they are from the Al Qaeda AND from the current tribal powers of the other countries, for, these nations don't want democracy.

Moscoe is an ignorant idiot. What is going on is an internal civil war that has been externalized, to force the West to carry out the military actions to topple the tribal dictators..but then..democracy must not be allowed in these areas. That's the agenda. The US and its coalition - MINUS CANADA - is carrying out both actions...and ensuring the development of a civic rather than tribal society...and democracy.

That will end terrorism. Canadian smugness will only foster it.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 7:46:14 AM


Scott said, "The biggest question is who is worse: the terrorists or the Ontarians?"

Last time I checked, Ontarians were not organizing covert units to kill civilians. Even given Scott's pathological hatred of all things Ontarian, the comparison is so bizarre that I truly have to question his sanity. What the hell drives someone to say things like that?

Look, I grew up in a blue collar neighbourhood in Hamilton. (Go Tiger Cats!) I have very little use for the effete, uber-liberal attitudes of many Torontonians. I have no use for David Miller, Howard the duck Moscoe or others of their ilk. I can, however, tell the difference between an idiot and a murderer. Maybe someone out west can explain the differences to Scott.

Posted by: Mike | 2005-07-08 8:03:59 AM


I live in Toronto but grew up in Hamilton and Mike, no offense, but this 'effete, uber-liberal' (alright I'm not really effete) could probably take you (or let's just say it wouldn't be easy for you). So when you're pointing fingers at Toronto remember some of us Eat'em Raw.

As for Scott - if you ever do come to Ontario again. Look me up. I'll take you on a special tour that ends at the bottom of Lake Ontario.

And Rightgirl I bet you've written letters to politicans before! How feminist of you! Wow sweetie, how you going to protest Moscoe next? A bra-burning?

Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 8:57:52 AM


Jason - what's your point? All that you are doing is a show of chest-thumping screeching.

You react to Scott by telling him that you, a hefty bullish Ontarian, will kill him. You, the ultra-liberal, ignore that Scott has severe psychological problems. The vicious and consuming hatred he has against ONE set of people is so irrational that it reveals psychological problems. What's your reaction? You tell him you, an Ontarian, will kill him. How liberal, how intelligent.

You react to Mike in the same manner. Mike posts an intelligent comment, showing the empirical and logical weakness of Scott's rants - and your reaction? Another rant; you'll beat him up. What's your point?

RightGirl points out the empirical and logical weakness of Moscoe's conclusions that 'Because we are not in Iraq, we will not be attacked' - and what's your reaction? You attack her because she's a woman. You completely ignore the validity of her critique..and attack her, mock her, because she's a woman?

Notice what this is revealing about you? You, a liberal, refuse to(or is it that you cannot?) enter into any reasoned discussion of causes, effects, you refuse to critique Moscoe's ungrounded conclusions..and you shriek (I think that's the only word to be used) against people who do dissent from him.

What's your point? What are you trying to do?

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 9:27:37 AM


Sorry ET but might is right. It's a lesson I've learned not only from the many conservative rants on this site but also from your esteemed leader GWB.
Also my comments to Rightgirl have biblical precedent. I'm glad she's posting and having political opinions but I don't want her to forget that God made women to be in service to men. It's great that she's writing letters to political leaders and if she want's to be a modernday suffragette I think that's cute but she shouldn't forget what God intended for her.

Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 9:48:31 AM


"I don't want her to forget that God made women to be in service to men."

I can't quite tell if your kidding or not. If not, I'm pretty sure that your comments are some of the most ignorant on this whole site. I've read some pretty nonsensical right wing banter here, but at least they respect the basic human rights pal. Women deserve equal opportunity, thats what our charter of rights is for.

Furthermore, concerning your "biblical precedent," for every piece of scripture you can find that says woman are less than men, any pro-feminine christian can find one that states that woman are equals. This is the reason why there are such huge rifts in churces nowadays concerning allowing women to be elders: the bible is unclear.

Thanks, now lets try to actually get some intellectual responses and far fewer flames.

Posted by: Mike | 2005-07-08 10:18:12 AM


"Women deserve equal opportunity, thats what our charter of rights is for."

Mike, I couldn't agree with you more but be careful - you start standing up for the Charter of Rights around here and they will crucify you.

"I'm pretty sure that your comments are some of the most ignorant on this whole site."

You haven't looked hard enough.

Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 10:27:24 AM


I think all of this pointless bickering is distracting us from one important fact: the Hamilton Tiger-Cats suck harder than Howard Moscoe.

AAAAARRRRGOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-08 10:33:40 AM


Jason- would you prove that 'might is right'?

Please provide empirical and logical proof. Just because you, or anyone, says something, doesn't make it the truth. So- prove it.

Bush, by the way, doesn't say that 'might is right'. What he says is the opposite - that 'right is might'...and what is 'right', is that people should live in freedom, not slavery. That includes the freedom to think, to dissent, to debate. That's the whole essence of Bush's actions. As he said - 'no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave'.

You, on the other hand, believe that 'the mighty' are indeed the righteous masters, and the weak, are necessearily slaves. I'm glad Bush, and not you, is the leader of the free world. Your rhetoric belongs with the Al Qaeda criminal gangs.

Equally- your statement that "god made women to be in service to man' is nonsense. I'm an atheist; there's no such thing as god; and - any tract that says that 'women are in service to men', or, vice versa, is a tract, a belief...created by human beings. Not by gods.

I'd bet that you probably don't even know the socioeconomic basis for the various societal beliefs...in some societies, men are privileged, in other societies, women are privileged, in yet other societies, both are equal. I'd bet that you have no knowledge of why these differences exist...and therefore, you 'fall back' on the irrational claim that 'god said so'.

I think you've got to do a lot better than that, to be a human being. You have to learn to think, to critique, to base conclusions, not on 'flatus vocis '(Rosselin: empty words)..but on hard data, and logic.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 10:42:12 AM


Just a heads up:

This post

"I don't want her to forget that God made women to be in service to men."

I can't quite tell if your kidding or not. If not, I'm pretty sure that your comments are some of the most ignorant on this whole site. I've read some pretty nonsensical right wing banter here, but at least they respect the basic human rights pal. Women deserve equal opportunity, thats what our charter of rights is for.

Furthermore, concerning your "biblical precedent," for every piece of scripture you can find that says woman are less than men, any pro-feminine christian can find one that states that woman are equals. This is the reason why there are such huge rifts in churces nowadays concerning allowing women to be elders: the bible is unclear.

Thanks, now lets try to actually get some intellectual responses and far fewer flames."

is from a second Mike, not the one who questioned Scott's comparison of Ontarians and terrorists.

Just wanted that to be clear. I don't deserve either the credit or the flames for other peoples' thoughts.

Posted by: Mike (the first one) | 2005-07-08 11:19:50 AM


"Mike, I couldn't agree with you more but be careful - you start standing up for the Charter of Rights around here and they will crucify you."

It may be "the stupid charter," but that doesn't mean that all of the rights it upholds are stupid. I would agree that the charter has issues, but again, I think that every human deserves equal opportunity, regardless of sex or race.

"I'm an atheist; there's no such thing as god"

I fully agree, and I am an aetheist as well. Science is just too convincing. If we assume that science can explain our evolution (as it can), then we as humans are just complex intellectual organisms. We are equal in our scientific roots, there should be no room for differentiation based on sex.

Posted by: Mike (the second one) | 2005-07-08 12:07:01 PM


RightGirl post this a couple weeks ago:

"They're Here, They're Queer, We're Finished"
So ends the institution of marriage in Canada. I've been married just under four years.
Marriage - alas, we hardly knew ye.
Posted by RightGirl on June 28, 2005 at 07:14 PM

At that point I didn't hear any of you standing up for gay rights??
I wasn't kidding earlier, per se, but more using the exact argument that's been used by RightGirl and others of her ilk around here to suggest that gays don't deserve the right to marriage.

She's so ignorant of the struggle for women's rights (in marriage and at the voting booth) that I stand by the personal insults. When the debate was about a women's right to vote people cited the bible in defense of the status quo. Many said that it would lead to divorce and all types of evil (like women deciding not to have babies!!) and now that 'evil' is her right to be whatever she wants.

Anyway this was an experiment and it worked. Thanks for being my guinea pigs (especially you Rightgirl).

Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 12:33:27 PM


Forgetting about Jason for the moment, I've been trying to post all day and I'm having trouble with typepad. Howard Moscoe sent me an apology email. I won't post the whole thing here, but he does you "out of context" as an excuse. anyway, he was very prompt about replying, which is always appreciated.

It's posted at Girl on the Right.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-08 12:36:40 PM


Ahh, Jason - the typical tactic of someone who can't answer criticism of his 'beliefs' - you introduce a red herring.

What does 'gay rights' have to do with our objections to your unproven beliefs that 'might is right' and that "god made women to be in service to men'???

Not a thing; it's a diversion. Another rant. You can't prove that your first two beliefs have even a shred of validity, and so, now, you try to weasel out of accountability by a red herring.

What are 'gay rights' and how can they be compared to 'women's rights'? Are the rights social or innate? What about: male and gay; female and gay? How do you deal with this complex variable? Do you, or are you just trying to get out of providing proof for your first two irrationalities of might and god?

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 12:58:55 PM


I'm having trouble with the comments pages, they are loading super slow and posting my comment takes forever!

Posted by: ld | 2005-07-08 12:59:03 PM


Ahh, Jason - the typical tactic of someone who can't answer criticism of his 'beliefs' - you introduce a red herring.

What does 'gay rights' have to do with our objections to your unproven beliefs that 'might is right' and that "god made women to be in service to men'???

Not a thing; it's a diversion. Another rant. You can't prove that your first two beliefs have even a shred of validity, and so, now, you try to weasel out of accountability by a red herring.

What are 'gay rights' and how can they be compared to 'women's rights'? Are the rights social or innate? What about: male and gay; female and gay? How do you deal with this complex variable? Do you, or are you just trying to get out of providing proof for your first two irrationalities of might and god?

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 1:02:53 PM


The 'might equals right' thing was a red herring.

Anyway back to the women's rights struggle = gay rights struggle. I was right and Rightgirl's silence on the issue proves it. I love when people like her are insulted but she's perfectly fine saying things like " I do not wish to be forced to celebrate a diversity that could kill me. I have no doubts that the cells operating in Scarborough, Ontario are just waiting for their moment."

Rightgirl is a COMPLETE wacko and I was using her tactics when I was being sexist. She's completely racist and homophobic but no one is on her case about it. When i turned the tables and used similarly repulsive arguments against her rights everyone got upset about it.

Anyway now I'm Rightboy.

Jason.

Posted by: Rightboy | 2005-07-08 1:19:21 PM


Jason-
No, you can't get out of accountability by, after being called-to-account and asked to provide proof for your beliefs, you simply attempt to flip them aside, by NOW saying that the belief was a 'red herring'.

You made the statement, several times, that 'might is right'. I asked you, several times, to justify this. You, so far, haven't done so. And, you can't now flip it aside by saying that it was, originally, a 'red herring'. Red herring to what? It was the major part of your comment!!

Then, I asked you to explain your belief that 'god made women to be in the service of men'. Your 'proof' was only that 'god says so', which, as a metaphysical force, can't be used as proof of a non-metaphysical reality. So - again, what's your proof?
You can't flip accountability by now saying that you were 'copying Right Girl'. YOU made the remarks, several times, and therefore, YOU are accountable. So- provide some proof.

And now, you've got a third specious belief, that gay rights are equivalent to women's rights. YOU made this equivalence, and your attempt to remove yourself from accountability, by saying that YOU are RIGHT, because Right Girl didn't reply to you - that's a complete illogical fallacy!!
You can't claim that a statement is true, just because someone else doesn't refute it!!
Your statement has to be true or false, in itself.
So- again - what's your proof that gay rights are equivalent to women's rights?

Now, you move onto yet another diversion - the ad hominem tactic. You are trying to say that your arguments are TRUE, because - not only Right Girl hasn't replied to you, but, also, because she is Racist and Homophobic?

This is yet another fallacious tactic; it's ad hominem. Your argument has to be true or false, based on its own data. Not on whether someone else replies, or whether the person who did or did not reply is...a bad person. That's utterly irrelevant.

Oh - and Prove it. Prove that Right Girl is 'racist'. Prove that she is 'homophobic'. Prove it.

And answer the first questions. You know, the ones you are ignoring, about 'might is right' and 'god made women in the service of man'.

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 1:57:14 PM


ET and everyone: Isn't it just plain obvious that Jason's original comments were ironic? That his point about 'might is right' was intended as a joke? That the bit about God saying that women are made for men was also just a bit of sarcasm?

He was poking fun, how could you have missed that?

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2005-07-08 2:17:19 PM


Gosh- maybe I missed it because it wasn't there in the first place.

Look - Jason meant exactly what he wrote, right from the beginning. He talks pure nonsense, and, when called to account, offers only more nonsense in the form of diversionary red herrings, personal insults, and now...he's claiming that it was 'all a joke'...and that we are the idiots who never saw his 'jokes'.

Sure.
Jason is one of those people who pompously present their beliefs as Truths and when called to account for those same silly opinions - flee like rabbits to the woods...

Posted by: ET | 2005-07-08 2:33:19 PM


Regardless of how obnoxious Jason is, an implied physical threat is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-07-08 2:57:29 PM


Any of you ever walk down the street and have someone - be it a homeless man or that old lady who pushes the shopping cart - start throwing insults at you, when all you wewre doing was looking for your keys or stopping to buy a newspaper? If you haven't, you're lucky. Happens a lot in Glasgow, but I learned the worst thing you can do is respond. They hate you and insult you not because they know and dislike you, but perhaps, in some dark memory recess, you remind them of someone who hurt them. It's pointless and sometimes dangerous to bother responding to them.

Besides, what do you stand to gain from the exchange?

But to the rest of you, I appreciate you're bothering to respond to one such character. But really, there's no need.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-08 3:11:47 PM


All right. Enough.

I don't appreciate having to dig through your insipid comments to delete profanity, so if you don't want your asses banned out of here, keep it civil.

Posted by: Kate | 2005-07-08 4:12:01 PM


Sorry.

Really I just hate women because my mother didn't give me any attention; that's why I make a point of using your gender in my arguments. Now that I've taken my lithium, I'm calmer and read through your commentary more clearly. And even more clearly, you ARE right. Howard Moscoe (Moscow!) is an appeaser, an apologist for the worst elements on the face of the earth.

I'm sorry if I offended you; my experiment was to see how well I could ape the commentary of barking moonbats.


Posted by: Jason | 2005-07-08 4:40:57 PM


Now that you've apologized to Kate, which was nice of you, why don't you send me another email apologizing for the one you sent earlier, full of the profanity that has Kate so enraged?

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-07-08 4:50:30 PM


The ranting that goes on here from the Ontario people makes me pray that no terrorist ever attacks you.

If they did, people would sympathize with you - and that will only make things worse. That sympathy would be abused by your corporate masters for their personal profit. As bad as things are now - you people are insufferable - we must make sure they don't get any worse.

I would hate to be a Muslim or non-white in Toronto after a terrorist attack there. It's bad enough now, but afterwards the white people would turn against them in a huge way. Ahenakew is right if biased beyond belief: Canada is a racist country.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-08 6:57:53 PM


The ranting that goes on here from the Ontario people makes me pray that no terrorist ever attacks you.

If they did, people would sympathize with you - and that will only make things worse. That sympathy would be abused by your corporate masters for their personal profit. As bad as things are now - you people are insufferable - we must make sure they don't get any worse.

Oh yeah: Jays, Craptors, Argos, Tiger-cats, Senators, whatever the hell Ottawa's football team is called, and ESPECIALLY the Tronna Unable Leafs = they all suck because they're in Ontario.

I would hate to be a Muslim or non-white in Toronto after a terrorist attack there. It's bad enough now, but afterwards the white people would turn against them in a huge way. Ahenakew is right if biased beyond belief: Canada is a racist country.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-08 6:59:14 PM


That last email wasn't me (and to whoever wrote it I'd never use the word 'moonbats' but you had my sarcasm right and the Moscoe/ Moscow thing was good). I don't apologize for anything I said especially not to you people.

RightGirl has said many offense things about gays and when I said THE EXACT same things about women (God's plan, cited the bible, biological determinism, etc.) I was told I was offensive. That was my point.

ebt's comments about gays are as bad as mine about women but mine were completely ironic (where is your anger for him?).

I don't believe in the bible, I don't believe God would tell women to foolishly follow men and I don't believe our fates are determined by our wombs or lack thereof. If I tried to have said the exact same things about gay marriage and gay rights I would have started a storm of protest. Rightgirl's contempt for gay people and muslims reveals a person that has no clue regardless of her gender. She is defined by her immense ignorance and not by her womanhood (of which, politically and historically, she is again immensely ignorant).

The gay rights movement owes a huge debt of gratitude to the women's movement as they have both been attacked for very similar reasons.

Thanks to P M Jaworski for understanding what I meant earlier.


Posted by: RealJason | 2005-07-09 12:14:17 PM


" DIVIDE AND CONQUOR" seems to working on this site. Anglos fighting Aglos> Quebec seperatists and the headchoppers must be having orgasms.

Stephen PARKSILLE BC WW 2 VET.

Posted by: stephenmichaud | 2005-07-09 7:12:58 PM


Howard MosCOW the loudmouth , sweaty , fat , overpaid , councellor on the toronto city councel / ttc chair , son of a cabbie , who uses his big mouth to push people around , has finally opened his mouth wide and clear enough that even his big foot was not enough to stop the stupid from leaking out the sides of it ,

terrorists could not find TORONTO if the wanted ,
i guess he forgot that we had raided cells that were printing material and passports for them...

well if someone was to start a petition to get rid of him , i would love to sign it

Posted by: chuckthetowguy | 2005-07-11 6:30:13 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.