79

Crack cocaine is a bad thing

Tease the day: Everyone can agree that winners don’t do drugs, right?


 

Chris Young/CP

No matter what comes of the scandal suffocating Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s office, and whether or not he actually has substance abuse issues, and no matter how effectively or poorly he governs the city between now and the next election, everyone watching the saga unfold—friend or foe to the mayor, interested citizen or disinterested observer—would probably support Gawker editor John Cook’s final words in a post he published yesterday.

“Don’t do crack,” wrote Cook. That proclamation, the final sentence in a post announcing the apparent disappearance of a video that apparently shows Ford smoking crack cocaine, doesn’t represent some paradigm shift in how anyone thinks about drugs. Crack cocaine isn’t celebrated very widely as a pinnacle of human achievement. But if the video really has gone underground, and if it really never does see the light of day, and if Ford’s ongoing denials carry the day, then a public-service message is all that’s left.

Certainly, that won’t be good enough for the mayor’s legions of critics, and they might just have to wait until 2014 for their revenge.


What’s above the fold this morning?

The Globe and Mail leads with Ontario’s plan to cut the number of graduating teachers and double the length of their teaching degrees. The National Post fronts the iconic “woman in red” who has galvanized Turkish protesters in recent days. The Toronto Star goes above the fold with Ontario teachers taking sick days they can no longer bank, leaving large gaps for schools to fill. The Ottawa Citizen leads with more Canadian Forces National Investigation Service probes into military leaks to journalists. iPolitics fronts gun lobbyists’ support for the federal government’s reluctance to sign a global arms trade treaty. CBC.ca leads with Senator Mike Duffy’s absence at nearly half the committee meetings he was scheduled to attend since his appointment. CTV News leads with the Syrian government’s claim to have “cleansed” the rebel-held town of Qusair. National Newswatch showcases Tim Harper’s column in the Toronto Star that muses about the leadership ambitions of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who’s stayed out of the fray during the Duffy-Wright affair.


Stories that will be (mostly) missed

1. Veterans. The father of an Afghan war veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder says the military chain of command gets in the way of an open dialogue about vets’ mental health. 2. Ashley Smith. Heather Magee, a middle manager at the Kitchener, Ont., institution where Ashley Smith died of suicide in 2007, apologized—in tears—to Smith’s family for their loss.
3. RMC. The feds are taking a more active role in appointing the next principal of the Royal Military College, a departure from past tradition that saw academic faculty contribute to the process. 4. Alberta MPs. When Alberta’s federal ridings are redrawn, incumbent MPs could face off for nominations—including three who could run in the same Edmonton-area constituency.


 

Crack cocaine is a bad thing

  1. Don’t do tabloid!

  2. It is very good news now that we can go back to believing that Ford was just drunk when he was thrown out of the military gala or was groping his previous opponent.
    ps growing up I idolized OJ Simpson, one of the most talented running backs of all time. I was delighted when the glove did not fit, exonerating Simpson completely and demonstrating that he was all along a virtuous role model for all of us to look up to.

    • You are waiting for the media to tell you what to believe???

      • Basing their beliefs on mainstream media reports is rule number 2 for lefties.

        Rule number 1 is to be a hypocrite.

        • Can you please point out a few alternative new sources, not, as you say “mainstream media” that you would consider reliable?

          • Well, obviously Gawker and….oh, wait a minute, did you say ‘reliable’?

          • Like Mary says, it is the word reliable that I have trouble with.

            I don’t consider any single news source as reliable, I often read about the same story from many sources (left, right, alien, etc) to get a better understanding of what the actual story is.
            Then I read up on the people involved, usually they are not covered in any of the news stories to get an understanding of the motivation behind.

            No, it doesn’t take hours to do…

    • Ya, you can go back to believing whatever bizarre fantasies that you want.

    • You don’t still believe that Sarah Thompson crap, do you? She’s been complete discredited. She has a history of making sexual accusations against those she doesn’t like, and she’s clearly got substance abuse issues of her own. Everybody knows only alcoholics lie about their drinking, and she seems to be lying about that a lot.

      • Everybody knows only alcoholics lie about their drinking, and she seems to be lying about that a lot.

        Didn’t the mayor lie about a DUI, and about being caught in possession of marijuana, and about getting kicked out of the ACC by security for drunkenly yelling profanities at a couple of tourists…

        • Yes, he lied about those things. Still doesn’t take away from the fact that psycho whore Thompson was lying. Or from the fact that Thomas Mulcair lied for 15 years about being offered a bribe. Or the fact that Justin Trudeau lies about being a pothead.

          • You’re right. The Mayor’s long history of lying about unflattering stories about him in the media, and claiming that they’re part of a conspiracy of media lies against him, and then apologizing later on when it turns out that the stories were 100% true doen’t actually take anything away from any lies that other politicians tell.

            I think it does tell us something about the Mayor though.

  3. This comment was deleted.

    • Well, if the ‘lost’ video was as fake as your diatribe is then I don’t blame anyone for not wanting the video to surface. Who on earth would want to own up to something like that!

    • Just what are you saying? You are going to sue disqus for imaginarily deleting your fantasy rampages on a post-board in order to support a story that was completely fabricated.

      Please do so, can’t wait to read the headline on that one!

      • Uh oh, looks like your comment was deleted.

        Well, are you going to man up and carry through with your threat. Please post your legel references here so that we can search them up on the court system and see that you have actually filed suit.

        Let me guess, you are not going to do anything……not really unexpected!

    • Sued for “right-wing affiliations”?

      Well that’s quite typical of a liberal to say, now isn’t it? Freedom of speech for liberals, not for conservatives.

    • Like Gawker said, don’t do crack.

  4. Wait for it to come out that Sarah Thompson and Robyn Doolittle from the star are best friends. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

    • No matter what you ultimately believe in this caper, absolutely nothing is cut and dried about it.

      • Agreed. If it was cut and dried I’d be smokin it. But I certainly hope in the future evidence is presented before running stories that could really affect people’s lives. This could have been anyone.

  5. Nick, nobody condones the use of crack cocaine. Nobody condones wife abuse either.

    How would you like if a story ran on wife abuse with your picture plastered below the headline. Try to be a little more professional Nick, otherwise you’ll end up working for the Toronto Star.

    • I’ve got a video showing Nick doing crack cocaine in the Toronto Star offices!!!

      Oh, wait-no, I don’t – I am thinking of something else.

      Oh well, don’t do crack!

    • Why is it that it is always the other party in the wrong. When ford was accused of sexual exploitation the girl was lying. When ford was accused of misuse of funds the football team was wrong (or was it his staffer). Now the newspapers are wrong (or was it his chief of staff?)
      At what point is Rob Ford reponsible for any of this or is he a saint?
      I have to admit it is very entertaining.

      • You’re quite right about one thing – the TORONTO STAR’s apparent effort to masquerade as a ‘newspaper’ on this certainly is ‘very entertaining’! However I think it’s really expensive for what appears to be essentially a comic strip, even a Leftist one? What do you think?

        • I have not read any of the Stars reporting on this issue. I have read the globes, the national post, Macleans and a few others and they are all very Similar. But I suppose they can all be considered to have a left wing agenda.
          Of course they did not see the video. It was only Gawker and the Star staff.
          And of course we all know that Rob Ford has never lied before!
          But then why would all of his staff quit? I guess they were never really loyal and he was about to expose them for the incompetents that they are.
          Then of course there is the picture of him. But the picture doesn’t show him doing anything wrong, and it has been doctored by the left wing media anyway.
          Then there were his drunken behaviour at the event a few months ago. But he was not really drunk and if he acted out of place it was probably because someone slipped something into his water.
          You are correct that it is very comical.

  6. Wonder if it’s a coincidental coincidence of timing that the video
    was “disappeared” around the the occasion of Mayordomo emerging
    with his two word mantra of “anything else”?
    Or maybe it takes him a long time to learn two words ?

  7. It’s truly amazing, now that we know the video never existed, why is the Toronto Star not doing an expose on what is apparently a massive crack dealing operation happening in Toronto? We know that their reporters know the players, why are they not being exposed and arrested as the obvious criminals that they are? Has the Toronto Star stooped so low that they’re now protecting known drug dealers?

    Or was the whole thing a pile of BS from the start?

    • For the same reason you have not heard a peep out of Sarah Thompson. Plain and simple lies and manipulation of stories made up on innuendo. Some people didn’t get their way through the democratic process and they’re acting like the children they are Rick.

    • Is English your second language? In conventional usage, the term the video “is gone” doesn’t mean the video “never existed”.

      • To prove that something exists, you have to see it. Nobodies ever seen this video. So now that we’re being told that it’s gone, it’s a fairly safe assumption that it never existed in the first place.

        There’s a $200,000 check waiting for anybody who can come up with this video, yet there’s complete silence and all the parties who claim to have seen the video now claim they’ll never be able to get it.

        So I’m supposed to believe that there’s a Somali crack dealer out there sitting on a $200,000 video tape, and he’s simply refusing to talk to anybody who wants to give him the money he originally wanted for it?

        Give me a friggin’ break. You’d have to be brain dead to believe this garbage.

        • The video has been seen by at least three people. Under accepted rules of evidence and under properly-conducted examination, their testimony would be admissible in a court of law, which is probably why Ford hasn’t sued for libel.

          It doesn’t really matter what you “are supposed to believe”. Given the circumstances under which the video was shot, then proffered on the market, the fact that its owners have gone missing is not at all surprising and completely explicable in the context.

          In this case, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. And there are already too many genies out of too many bottles (former Ford staffers with a story to tell/sell, rumoured copies of the video, an underground network of who knows how many informers, etc.) for this to go away quietly. So stay tuned. It ain’t over.

          • The question is still whether the video is authentic. Also, there should be several eye witnesses to the actual smoking of the crack. If they are reliable, the video is not really needed.

          • How do you know that any of those 3 so-called witnesses ACTUALLY saw the video? We’re talking about 3 people with a long history of anti-Ford bias CLAIMING they saw a video. It’s all rumors and innuendo.

            As for the video going missing, you’ve got to be kidding. Why would these ass-hat drug dealers make an incriminating video to sell, call the media, get their price, and then disappear? Are you telling me these geniuses called up MULTIPLE media organizations and were then shocked that their allegations were published? Are these the stupidest drug dealers in the history of time? And then, when they actually get their six-figure paycheck, they decide to disappear instead of taking the money and running?

            Unbelievable the lengths you people will go to try sooooooo hard to believe a story that is so littered with holes it’s gone beyond unbelievable.

          • How do you know that any of those 3 so-called witnesses ACTUALLY saw the video?

            That’s what oath under testimony in court is intended to elicit. It would be up to judge and/or jury to determine credibility and character of any witness who testified to viewing the video.

            Are you telling me these geniuses called up MULTIPLE media organizations and were then shocked that their allegations were published?

            Far be it from me to try to tell you anything. As for how the purveyors of the tape chose to market it, at least three media organizations have indicated they were approached. And where have I commented on the intelligence or judgment of the tape’s owners? People will do idiotic things if they think they can make easy money in the attempt. In addition, if the individual who tried to peddle the video has a habit to support or, as reported, was desperate to finance a clean start elsewhere, he may be inclined to commit rash acts to finance the addiction or underwrite their escape.

            All of which is pretty much beside the point. Unless they have the chance to personally witness Ford’s self-destructive behaviour, his idolators will apparently believe anything he says on this story. Even though he’s been a proven liar regarding numerous similar escapades in his history.

          • “It would be up to judge and/or jury to determine credibility and character of any witness who testified to viewing the video” – Ya, and no sane person would believe 3 people who have a proven bias against Ford.

            “…he may be inclined to commit rash acts” – Since when does spending weeks trying to market a video, meeting with media people in the backseats of cars constitute “rash”. This was clearly a well-thought out plan to extort money. It wasn’t like “hey, I just remembered this video on my iPhone, we should call someone!”

            Either we’re dealing with the dumbest drug dealers on the planet, in which case their credibility is immediately even more questionable than if they were, you know, just drug dealers. And we also have a story about the only crack addict in the history of mankind who didn’t lose weight.

            Ya, it’s alll REEEAAALLL credible.

          • Whatever…you must have a little altar in your basement on which pride of place is reserved for a Buddha-like icon bearing remarkable resemblance to Rob (the “Enlightened One”) Ford.

          • Another fantasy woven by a TORONTO STAR-devotee and an addict of the Left – they find them faster to manufacture and less risky than outright lies. LOL!!!

          • Rick, we are dealing with DEDICATED ‘crack dealers’ here, committed to serving their community in pursuit of a few bucks in spite of the risk of being murdered for it. No offer of an easy $200,000 could lure such presumably TORONTO STAR-addicted community servants away from their high and noble calling.

            Having apparently easily palmed off the ‘punk’ video on the TORONTO STAR, they were perhaps simply happy to look forward to the on-the-record-against-drugs Mayor being removed as an harrassing impediment to their doing business. That would also probably be worth far more than $200,000 in the long run to them and with zero associated risk. :)

          • ‘That’s what oath under testimony in court is intended to elicit.’ – ‘Oath under testimony’? WHAT? Out come the barrack-room ‘lawyers’ to rampage around with terms they don’t even understand!

            ‘Far be it from me to try to tell you anything.’ – never a truer word spoken by you yet!

            ‘All of which is pretty much beside the point.’ – nice summary of your idiotic ‘non-argument’!

          • Only two questions would be necessary to demolish that in a court of law: “So you are saying that the person in the video you claim to have saw LOOKED LIKE Mayor Ford?” and “You would agree that it might be POSSIBLE to create a fake video with someone in it , elentronically transposed or not, who LOOKED LIKE Mayor Ford?” No definite evidence that it WAS Mayor Ford in a GENUINE video equals no defense at all given the definiteness of the claims that appear to have been since made..

          • Answer to first question: “I saw the video more than once and was convinced the person I saw was, beyond my own doubt, Mayor Ford”

            It’s up to a judge/jury (as is with in any eye witness testimony in a court of law) to reach a determination regarding the witness’s motivations, character, and credibility. It’s the word of two professional reporters with no history of prevarication against that of a man who has demonstrably lied in regard to several similar events in his past.

            Regarding the possibility that the video was “faked”, authoritative expert testimony could be readily adduced to establish that such convincing fakery isn’t yet possible given the current state of the technology. Producing a video even approximating such refinement would, in all probability, be beyond the resources of all but the best studios. Several informed and credible individuals have already been quoted to that effect in the coverage of this story.

          • Wrong. The credibility of the first answer depends on the accuracy of the response to the second question.

            Are you trying to assert here that a big city college film program would not have equipment capable of faking this video?

            The three who saw it cannot even even hypothesize on its presumed authenticity as none of them are experts in video technology – the only thing they KNEW, apparently, was what they EXPECTED and presumably WANTED to see.

          • Yes, I’m asserting that a “big city college film program” couldn’t fake a credible video like the one in dispute here. In fact, a close relative of mine is a professional special effects animator who graduated from one of the best such “big city college film programs” and has since amassed credits in both digital games and many feature films. He has shown me “humans” rendered on the latest technology available, as recently as a month or so ago. Even you would be able to readily discern they aren’t real.

            But if there are people who believe the moon landing was faked and Elvis still lives, why would you take the word of anyone who has more expertise on the subject than you? You probably believe that it was a doppelganger of Ford’s who was obnoxiously drunk and disorderly at the ACC a few years back…and later brazenly lied about it. And that virtually all the major media in Toronto are engaged in a massive conspiracy to discredit him.

          • A completely irrelevant answer! Wake up! I wasn’t asking about CGI here! WOW, I hope no one paid your ‘close relative’ for his ‘expertise’ if he shares your lack of concentration on questions asked of him!

          • Run along now. I’ve got better things to do than argue with another member of the tinfoil hat brigade.

            It’s been special.

          • I love it when Lefties are called out on the non-content of their ‘arguments’ and try to take the ‘high moral ground’ before they promptly flee the field!

            I’ll be watching out for you,neurotichog – I’m sure we’ll meet again :)

          • “Called out”? Laughable.

          • Neurotichog! You’re back! I thought you had ‘better things to do’ – or was that just another Leftie lie, too :)?

          • ‘Several informed and credible individuals have already been quoted to that effect in the coverage of this story’ – and one of the most respected experts in the business has already stated emphatically that you could not know whether it wasn’t a fake until you had the opportunity to examine it and, among other things, examine the metadata encoded within it.

          • No, THE video showing Ford smoking crack has NOT been seen by at least three people.

            Three people have reported seeing A video, these three people say it shows someone resembling Ford smoking crack.

            There is a difference, a large difference.

        • That is not true. Three reporters have seen the video from 2 seperate news agencies. There is also a picture that we have all seen that could be tested for authenticity.
          It is doubtful that some people could ever be convinced. I am sure that his ex chief of staff was convinced.

          • Gawker is not a “news agency”, it’s a gossip rag. Which is pretty much what The Star has now become.

            The 3 reporters CLAIM to have seen the video, yet are surprisingly inconsistent in what they claim the video contains. All 3 have also had long-standing biases against Ford.

            The picture could be tested for authenticity, yet I can tell you by seeing the photo that it was digitally altered. Unless that one guy just has a blurry face naturally. Not to mention the fact that everyone who claims to have seen the video says that Ford was the only one in the frame. So what does this other photo even have to do with the video? So, the photo’s authenticity absolutely can not be proven. In fact the only thing about the photo that we do know is that it has definitely been digitally altered.

          • To be fair, they likely had to blur out the other two fellows for legal reasons. Publishing a picture of a public figure with his arms around a murder victim in front of what is apparently a notorious drug den is one thing, but showing the faces of other people in the picture is something else I would assume.

            Unless or until the other young men in the photo with Mayor Ford turn up dead or are arrested for a serious crime, I don’t expect we’ll see their pictures in the paper unblurred.

            As for the notion that the PHOTO is a fake, even the Mayor and his lawyer don’t appear to argue that it’s a fake. Their explanation is simply that the mayor goes to lots of events and has his picture taken with lots of citizens. So, if he happened to be photographed in front of a crack house with a young man who ended up being shot twice in the head, that shouldn’t be considered unusual or noteworthy.

            ETA: You’re right that the photo isn’t connected to the video. Some people have mistakenly assumed that it’s a supposed screen cap from the video, but no one who’s published the photo ever claimed so. Now, some might claim that a photo of the mayor with his arms around a murder victim standing in front of what (it is now being reported) is a notorious drug den is somehow evidence that the notion that the mayor has smoked crack with drug dealers isn’t totally crazy. It’s hardly conclusive though, you’re right.

          • “To be fair”????? LOL. To be fair, you might want to see some actual evidence before judging a man.

            “To be fair”, since when is it against any law for a newspaper to publish a picture of people? Did The Star ask Ford’s permission to publish the picture?

            “To be fair”, if you’re going to publish an incriminating photo of someone, you’d do so without digitally altering it.

            “To be fair”, you might think that the Mayor having his photo taken with a constituent who ended up dead doesn’t necessarily connect him to the murder, or the guy’s profession as a drug dealer. How many politicians in Ontario have had their photo taken with the admitted drug addict George Smitherman? Are they all now suspects in every crime committed by Smitherman’s drug dealing associates?

          • Wow.

            The faith of Ford Nation is strong, I’ve got to give the Mayor that. He’s unlike any politician on the planet.

            At this point, I’m starting to think that he could shoot a kitten in the face with a shotgun in the middle of a live press conference and a significant number of people would stick with him.

  8. That’s funny. All of a sudden the Toronto Star is “reporting” other news now that the supposed Ford video is gone. I can hardly wait to watch the gigantic lawsuit unfold.

    • Just for giggles – tell us what you think this gigantic lawsuit would be based upon?

      • Its primary evidence would probably be the TORONTO STAR’s now-notorious ‘missing evidence’ :)

        • So… Ford is going to sue The Star on what grounds, exactly? What will they allege The Star has done?

          • Acted just like the STAR :)? Don’t be an idiot – do we have to take you through this whole sorry tale of “crack journalism” AGAIN?

    • That’s funny. All of a sudden the Toronto Star is “reporting” other news now that the supposed Ford video is gone.

      You’re really going to hate the latest. That photo of the mayor with his arms around a murder victim? The Star and the Globe are now reporting that the house in the background of the picture is a notorious drug den.

  9. Cheeseburgers and coke. Nothing better

    • And there,apparently, speaks the voice of experience :)!

  10. Nick, you are journalist. Obviously there would have been a number of people around when the alleged smoking of the crack took place. Why haven’t the journalists from the Gawker and the Star brought forth some of these people as credible eye witnesses to the incident. With their eye-witness testimony, would we really need the video, which let’s face it was never authenticated? How would a journalist have done this job in the old days before cell phones?

    • Why haven’t the journalists from the Gawker and the Star brought forth some of these people as credible eye witnesses to the incident. With their eye-witness testimony, would we really need the video…

      I can’t think of it off the top of my head, but there might be a plausible explanation as to why someone who was an eye witness to the Mayor smoking crack in the company of drug dealers might not come forward publicly.

      • It looks like I spoke too soon…the journalists are getting tips from someone. Hmmm….can’t think of it off the top of my head why someone who was a eyewitness to the mayor smoking crack might want to come forward….
        Yes, it isn’t like it is possible to keep a source anonymous as long as the person is interviewed by an objective third party…say Bob Fife. There might even be other photos floating around. It is even possible that this wasn’t a one-time event.

  11. Gawker should take that 200K and buy all the Toronto homeless their own fake-gold Jesus Piece http://bit.ly/15ERmJl

    • ‘Toronto homeless’? But that would move this whole sorry manufactured ‘scandal’ into an area that the TORONTO STAR probably would have no interest at all in! What would ‘Toronto homeless’ have to do with overthrowing Toronto’s democratically-elected Mayor?

  12. “Crack journalism” is a ‘bad thing’, too, and maybe newspapers that find themselves perhaps becoming addicted to is (does the TORONTO STAR come to anyone’s mind here?) should perhaps be permanently removed from the news marketplace to protect the public and as the ultimate and best form of corporate rehab?

    • Yes, excellent, let’s eliminate a media outlet for committing an act of journalism.

      You’re advocating for freedom of the press, except when…

      • Oh, I’m all for ‘freedom of the press’. It’s apparently attempted ‘putsches’ against democratically-elected Mayors by the press that I’m against. Thanks for asking :)

      • Nice article in the VANCOUVER SUN, headed “The Rob Ford Lynch Mob Should Be Ashamed”, with the sub-head: “Harassment comes down to one thing – a hatred for Toronto mayor’s right-wing politics and the inability to accept their fellow citizens elected him”.

        Well, they are certainly apparently not afraid of the TORONTO STAR in Vancouver! Come to think of it, is anyone, anymore, in Toronto :)?

        This excellent article includes these telling paragraphs:

        “Do the words “due process” mean anything to these people? There is
        absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on Ford’s part, yet his
        opponents apparently believe him guilty of smoking crack. In their minds, since his politics and persona don’t jibe with their own, he automatically forfeits the presumption of innocence that every other Canadian is entitled to when accused of illegal activity. Not even the rankest amateur among Crown attorneys would stand up in court and insist he or she had a solid case against a defendant, even though the single key piece of evidence had never been proven to exist.”…

        …”A Facebook posting by the group I Hate the War on Mayor Rob Ford — some of whom say they’re not Ford fans, but are disturbed about the reckless assumption of Ford’s guilt — makes a chilling point: “What is happening right now in Toronto is very bad for everyone. A full-on mob frenzy to drive the ‘wrong person’ out of power is not what our ancestors fought and died for, or helped enable. It’s what they fled from.”

        Shame on those in Toronto who think that “innocent until proven guilty” applies only to people whose politics they agree with.”

        Read the full, excellent piece at http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ford+lynch+should+ashamed/8484659/story.html

        • “Do the words “due process” mean anything to these people?”

          Do they mean anything to you, Ford Nation? Because they usually refer to a court proceeding. Rob Ford isn’t in civil court, he isn’t in criminal court, he hasn’t been slandered, he hasn’t been libeled, he hasn’t been lynched.

          For the love of god, we’re not on opposite teams here. Stop spouting talking points and use your head. Neither you nor I has any idea whether Ford used crack, but that doesn’t mean this story was a fabrication or a smear.

          The Toronto Star is not a villain and nobody can point to anything they’ve done wrong on this story. Have you even read the Star’s coverage on this? Not as quoted by the Sun, but the Star’s own coverage?

          Jesus. no wonder Ford got elected in the first place.

        • Scanning further down in your quote of the Sun article:

          “A Facebook posting by the group I Hate the War on Mayor Rob Ford… a chilling point: “What is happening right now in Toronto is very bad for everyone. A full-on mob frenzy to drive the ‘wrong person’ out of power is not what our ancestors fought and died for, or helped enable. It’s what they fled from.”

          Amazingly, our “ancestors” also fought and died and fled for freedom of speech, including freedom of the press. But Mary, let me guess – you don’t understand what’s “chilling” about your call for the elimination of the Star.based on a story you disagree with.

  13. THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW CRACK IS BAD! I really needed a news article to tell me this.

    • Actually, in Toronto crack is totally acceptable if you’re George Smitherman or any other Liberal. It’s only bad if you’re falsely accusing a Conservative of using it.

      • You really just want a political argument, don’t you? I was just throwing out some facetious fun to lighten the mood ;)

  14. The article is spot on, but a little slow in coming. Ford’s already been thoroughly ridiculed on American late night television.

Sign in to comment.