Words in past tense that start with "B"!

Good evening!  Tonight we pay tribute to words in the past tense that start with "b"!  Ready?  I know I am!  Enjoy!


BOUNCED!

Before I begin, here's the soundtrack to this article.  Remember: it was just a matter of time.

I've written a fair share about...

Look at that face.  Would that face lie to you?

...his worship Rob Ford.  Not all of it has been flattering.

Classic!  It sums everything up in one pic.

Now, I'm not a Toronto resident.  Not even close!  The closest I've ever been is in Guelph and even then at the time...

Mayor Mel!  Yaaaaaaaaaaay!

...was in charge.  There's just something about Ford, though, that captures my imagination.  I was watching Twitter like a hawk furiously hammering the mouse to see the new tweets on #robford to find the decision of the court ruling Monday.  

And then it happened.  And I was shocked.  But I should haven't have been because as the ruling came out and you went through all of the moving parts involved, a reasonable thinking person would come away with the conclusion that the judge took a look at every out the mayor had from getting bounced and reasoned it out.  Was the amount in question negligible?  The mayor himself said no on the stand.  Was the conflict of interest inadvertent?  Not really since he spoke to it in front of council, voted on it in council, and admitted straight up and down that he's never even read the conflict of interest guidelines.  There was just no way that a reasonable thinking person could look at the laws involved, look at the context, look at the mayor's actions and come away with the conclusion that he did it by any form of accident.

There is no part of kicking...

...Coach Ford...

...out of office that bothers me because the law as written says that if you get caught in a conflict of interest then off with your head.  Is the punishment too severe?  Maybe.  Is it a sledgehammer to swat a fruit fly?  Maybe.  Is the law, as has been said many times this week, a bad one?  Maybe.  Here's the thing that bothers me about this.

There's so much talk from the pundits that it's just not fair that X many hundred thousand citizens of Toronto voted for him, and one unelected judge tossed him out.  It's undemocratic that one activist judge...

Activism?  Not on my watch!

can undo the will of an entire city.  It's unCanadian.  It's...

...Tadjikistanian.

Well, the editorial board here at Raccoon Inc. is here to say that this argument is preposterous to the point of insult.  The inference here is that this one judge holds the weight of the entire city in their hands like some sort of medieval autocratic Doge that do whatever it is they want with it.  They don't like Ford?  He's gone.  They like Ford?  He stays.  This is not the case at all in the least.

Let's be clear: judges don't write laws.  Some people may not understand this, so I'll say it again.  Judges don't write laws.  Legislators write laws.  They are the ones that write the laws that govern society whether at...

...the federal level..,

...the provincial level...

...or the municipal level.

Legislators are democratically elected.  Judges are people that are selected as sound interpreters of the laws that the democratically elected legislators enact.  So how is it then that a judge ruling that a conflict of interest has taken place and that the mayor's seat has been declared empty is somehow undemocratic when it was democratically elected people that created the rule in the first place?  It's an argument that holds as much water as...

...a Maple Leafs goaltender.

Now, I don't think that I'm particularly anti-Ford.  He was elected, his big plank is that he wanted to cut the budget and he did.  He's also a mess, but everyone knew that going in.  The box of goods that is "Rob Ford" was clearly labeled years before his mayoral run.

Fords may be boxy, but it's what's on the inside that counts.

People already knew that in exchange for leaner goverment came a circus, so whatever.

One last thing on this.  Today councilor Sherrey Carroll announced that "I could run this city a damn sight better" than Ford and that she'd be putting her name in to replace him.  Hm.  I suppose that that the downside of being the populist, average Joe, Johnny Punchclock candidate is that you are inherently also replaceable by anyone else by virtue of the admission that you're no one special.  Being the everyman is a fine card to play when you're popular, not so much when you've just been booted from office.

Best of luck, Rob!  You'll need it.


BLASTED!

And here's the next song for this item on the list.

If your, say, basketball team lost 138-9 that would be pretty bad, huh?  This week saw a crucial UN vote that would see the Palestine recognized as a non-member state in the United Nations which was passed by that tally: 138 for, 9 against with 41 abstentions.  One of the group of nine was us!  Canada!  Yay!

Now, I will say this.  I can understand, appreciate, and even respect one very solid reason why Canada voted against this resolution.  And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle East.

Le belle provence.

Which makes sense, right?  If portions of nations go unilaterally declaring themselves states to the United Nations, what next?

The Republic of Alberta Welcomes You!

The Confederate States of America Welcomes You!

The Grand Duchy of New Jersey Welcomes You!

So, it's no great shock that Canada would be opposed to the resolution for this reason.  For the same reason I would assume that the United Kingdom would be opposed (Northern Ireland, Scotland), as well as Spain (the Basque region), Russia (Chechnya), and Belgium (Wallonia).  Except that wasn't what happened.  Of each of those countries with similar vested interests, only Canada voted against.  The United Kingdom abstained and the rest voted for the resolution.  I would like to reiterate that Spain with all of its grief with ETA and the Basque separatists voted for this resolution.  What is wrong with them?  You know what?  Tune them in, Johnny.

"This resolution will not advance the cause of peace or spur a return to negotiations.

Will the Palestinian people be better off as a result? No.

On the contrary, this unilateral step will harden positions and raise unrealistic expectations...

...while doing nothing to improve the lives of the Palestinian people."

Mm.  O.k.  I can see one really good reason why Canada would vote against the resolution, but in Foreign Minister John Baird's statement at the UN I saw no real mention of that or reference to it.  Instead what I gleaned was the message that the Palestinians must sit down, shut up, and wait their turn.  I'm not really pro-Israel or anti-Isreal, but I get the feeling that if a Québec-style referendum was done amongst Palestinians that they would vote overwhelmingly for sovereignty.  It's not a place like Québec or even Scotland where those who want sovereignty are a rabble rousing minority, but rather they are a real great big wad of people.

I also get the feeling that no one's right and no one's wrong.  I wouldn't completely support Israel because it seems like they're bullies.  I wouldn't completely support the Palestinians because of the indiscriminate terrorism they espouse.  Whatever they were doing up until this point has not been working, and you would have to be willfully blind not to see that.

Furthermore, with this resolution what the Palestinians have accomplished was a) non-violent and b) with a resounding nod of approval from the rest of the world's nations.  What's so wrong about that?  No rockets were fired, no government ministers were kidnapped and executed.  It was just a play by the Palestinians to breakup the log jam with Israel and procure themselves some negotiating power, again in a non-violent, globally approved method.

I guess I just don't see why Canada has such a love affair with Israel.  I get it that they are a rare developed, democratic Middle Eastern nation, which is laudable and ought to be protected, but not at the expense of the liberty of another nation.  Israeli hands are not clean.  Neither are Palestinian hands.  As Baird said, this has gone on for seven decades.  How much has improved?  Not much.  Maybe a new process is a good idea.  It sure couldn't hurt to try!

Oh, and lastly...

This Christmas why not get the John Baird action figure?  It's loudmouthed, finger pointing fun for the whole family!

Order yours today!

BOASTED!

And music for this entry is right here.

Guess where I'm going with this one.

Metaphor, perhaps?

Yes, this week The Onion declared...  Wait.  Let's get this right.  This week The Onion declared that in addition to being First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, First Chairman of the National Defense Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un is also now the Sexiest Man Alive.

Ah, the Onion.

Uh huh.

Mmhmm.

Nice.

Yes, The Onion delivered the B.S. with such a straight face and so masterfully done that the Chinese bought it.  The suckers reported it as news!  And they didn't just give him a nice glossy center-fold to gawk at.  Oh no.  They gave him a fifty-five page spread!

I beg your pardon.

Fifty-five pages.

Fifty-five?

Fifty-five, Bob.  Fifty-five pages of...

Oooooo...

Ahhhhh...

Seriously, though, he's definitely not the ugliest brutal dictator I've ever seen.  I would think even that the adjective "cherubic" applies somewhat.  No, there are definitely far more hideous dictators out there.  For example...

Eeyah, those are eyebrows!

I'll keep going in the same category and take Eyebrows for $1,000, Alex.

Pol Pot did not collect $10.00 because he did not get 2nd place in a beauty contest.  Or 3rd...  Or 4th...

I could certainly add more to this list, but I think that after all the Baird pictures I've included the ugly quotient in this edition has long since been past.  So, before we damage anyone's eyeballs any further, I will bid you all...

Goof night!