Let’s be clear here. If I hear John Baird is being criticized somewhere, I usually rush to join in. It’s fun and healthy and almost always appropriate. But surely it was obvious from the context that he was not in fact wishing that all of Toronto would depart in a fornicatory manner? Surely it was, again, obvious from the context that he meant those Torontonians who had improperly filled out an application for infrastructure money should embrace themselves profoundly. Surely it was clear from the outset that Baird was not urging, say, the wait staff at Bistro 990, the CityPulse weather guy, the drivers for Beck Taxi, and the entire Humber College faculty hump off into the sunset. Basically Baird was mad at David Miller, and I believe he’s not the first.
Let’s be clear here. If I hear John Baird is being criticized somewhere, I usually rush to join in. It’s fun and healthy and almost always appropriate. But surely it was obvious from the context that he was not in fact wishing that all of Toronto would depart in a fornicatory manner? Surely it was, again, obvious from the context that he meant those Torontonians who had improperly filled out an application for infrastructure money should embrace themselves profoundly. Surely it was clear from the outset that Baird was not urging, say, the wait staff at Bistro 990, the CityPulse weather guy, the drivers for Beck Taxi, and the entire Humber College faculty hump off into the sunset. Basically Baird was mad at David Miller, and I believe he’s not the first.
Somehow it seems entirely appropriate that Baird, who is uniquely gifted in the arts of disingenuousness, would offer up a prompt apology for something he didn’t really say. The whole thing is trivial. But surely there are enough real outrages out there that we don’t need to add some false outrage on top of them?