[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Looks like the Kickstarter campaign to buy the video of Mayor Ford has hit a bit of a snag:...they can't find the seller.

http://gawker.com/rob-ford-crackstarter-update-509596078

Perhaps they can no longer be found to recieve this money because maybe, just maybe, the video isnt what it seems to be...

On the other hand, the way Ford is handling this has given the story legs.

Yeah, it's hard to determine who is the more full of bullshit. 

If someone came up with a story in which both sides were lying, I could believe it. 

[Josephus]

I don't normally recommend reading comments at the end of a newspaper story....but this is comedy gold:

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/23/rob-ford-told-to-go-to-rehab#disqus_thread

[HVC]

Ford got booted as coach, that probably hurt him more then being booted as mayor

[Barrister]

So... news reports are that Ford fired his Chief of Staff because his advice was to 'get ahead of the story and go get treatment'.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/23/toronto-ford-towhey.html

Ford himself finally addresses the media to say he does not smoke crack, nor is he an addict, but refuses to answer any questions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/24/toronto-ford-newser.html



Look, I kind of like Ford in that  I appreciate any politician who isn't in it for some "grand vision", but just wants to get the nuts and bolts of governance done.  I thought the initial allegation of a secret video shot by a shady drugdealer, and news reports based on what reports had seen in the video (but without showing the video itself) was so silly that the right response was to ignore it.

But obviously it has caught the public's attention.  Ford had to respond.  But his responses could only be:

A: Get out front.  Admit a problem, check yourself into rehab.  Come back in 45 days or whatever as a new man.  People love a redemption story.  or...

B: Deny it.  Loudly and repeatedly.  Of course you should only do this if you have not, in fact, smoked crack before.  But if so, the truth shall set you free.  Sit down for a news conference and answer every damn question they throw at you.  Then, and only then, say you'll never answer another question about such a silly story.

But the way he's carrying on now sure makes it seem like he does smoke crack and doesn't want to stop...

[Josephus]

The Ford family...and its history of drugs. [This from The Globe not The Star]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/

[Barrister]

The Ford family...and its history of drugs. [This from The Globe not The Star]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/

And unlike the Star it cites several (albeit anonymous) sources.

But so far not a single allegation against Rob.

[Malthus]

So... news reports are that Ford fired his Chief of Staff because his advice was to 'get ahead of the story and go get treatment'.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/23/toronto-ford-towhey.html

Ford himself finally addresses the media to say he does not smoke crack, nor is he an addict, but refuses to answer any questions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/24/toronto-ford-newser.html



Look, I kind of like Ford in that  I appreciate any politician who isn't in it for some "grand vision", but just wants to get the nuts and bolts of governance done.  I thought the initial allegation of a secret video shot by a shady drugdealer, and news reports based on what reports had seen in the video (but without showing the video itself) was so silly that the right response was to ignore it.

But obviously it has caught the public's attention.  Ford had to respond.  But his responses could only be:

A: Get out front.  Admit a problem, check yourself into rehab.  Come back in 45 days or whatever as a new man.  People love a redemption story.  or...

B: Deny it.  Loudly and repeatedly.  Of course you should only do this if you have not, in fact, smoked crack before.  But if so, the truth shall set you free.  Sit down for a news conference and answer every damn question they throw at you.  Then, and only then, say you'll never answer another question about such a silly story.

But the way he's carrying on now sure makes it seem like he does smoke crack and doesn't want to stop...

I agree - the initial story struck me as bullshit, but his response makes me think it is true (or at least, that he has in fact smoked crack). Both sides seem to be lying.

If I was forced to guess, I'd say that (a) the actual video isn't provably Rob Ford, but (b) he's smoked crack before, and is afraid to come right out and say he has never done so for fear that he could be disproved.

[Malthus]

The Ford family...and its history of drugs. [This from The Globe not The Star]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/

And unlike the Star it cites several (albeit anonymous) sources.

But so far not a single allegation against Rob.

To my mind, much as I think Ford's a clown, this sort of story is bullshit. His brother once sold pot, 25+ years ago? Why, the long-haired freak bastard! That's a complete non-story, even if it's true.

Half the people I know either sold pot themselves in the 80s or were related to people who did. Many of them are now pillars of the community types nonetheless. 25 years is a very long time ...

[Josephus]

If I was forced to guess, I'd say that (a) the actual video isn't provably Rob Ford, but (b) he's smoked crack before, and is afraid to come right out and say he has never done so for fear that he could be disproved.

So the Toronto Star made up a video, or saw a made up video, of Ford smoking crack, and it turns out, although that wasn't him in the made up video, he in fact, by pure chance, does smoke crack.

Quite the gamble by the Star. They could have said he shoots heroin, or freaks out on acid, but no, they chose crack...and it turns out he smokes it.


Right. 

[Malthus]

If I was forced to guess, I'd say that (a) the actual video isn't provably Rob Ford, but (b) he's smoked crack before, and is afraid to come right out and say he has never done so for fear that he could be disproved.

So the Toronto Star made up a video, or saw a made up video, of Ford smoking crack, and it turns out, although that wasn't him in the made up video, he in fact, by pure chance, does smoke crack.

Right. 

I'm trying to come up with a reasonable explaination as to why both parties are acting as if they are full of shit.

Normally, I'd dismiss the notion that some Somali drug dealing dudes have a video, which they showed someone, as being straight out nonsense.

But if so, why is Ford not simply saying "I never smoked crack in my life, so this has to be bullshit"? Instead, he's pussy footing around, saying more ir less that he doesn't smoke crack currently. He sounds exactly like someone who has shit to hide.

OTOH, if the Somali dudes have rock solid video, why can't the people who want to hand over hundreds of thousands for it not even able to get in touch with them?

To me, sounds like some dudes know that he had the taste for it, but lacked actual proof, so they just made some, hoping to shake him or someone down (I mean, even dumb as Ford is, it stretches credulity that he'd let some Somali drug dealers video him smoking crack, right?). Now they have cold feet, knowing that their video will be subject to high levels of scrutiny, which it can't pass. These days it is easy to fake up a video that will cause an Internet sensation - remember the Montreal baby-snatching Eagle? - but rather harder to make one that will pass lots of forensic scrutiny. 

There's no "pure chance" about it.

[garbon]

To me, sounds like some dudes know that he had the taste for it, but lacked actual proof, so they just made some, hoping to shake him or someone down (I mean, even dumb as Ford is, it stretches credulity that he'd let some Somali drug dealers video him smoking crack, right?). Now they have cold feet, knowing that their video will be subject to high levels of scrutiny, which it can't pass. These days it is easy to fake up a video that will cause an Internet sensation - remember the Montreal baby-snatching Eagle? - but rather harder to make one that will pass lots of forensic scrutiny. 

That sounds plausible.

[Jacob]

It all sounds plausible Malthus, except the "cold feet" part doesn't quite make sense to me. If they are scammers and shake down artists, why not  take the money and release the video? It's unlikely they have a professional reputation to maintain. So "cold feet" doesn't really make sense to me, unless it covers something other than "it won't stand up to scrutiny".

Three possible hypotheses that make sense to me are:

1. Somehow the makers of the video are in a position where releasing the video is bad for them - not because the video won't pass muster, but because releasing it will harm their interests one way or the other.

2. It was a political job to start with, and the figure it's better the video is kept off the table because it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will change the direction of the story which is focusing in Ford rather than the video; in other words, it is being more effective unreleased than it would be, released (or alternately, releasing it later will extend the story).

3. They sold the video and decided to make themselves scarce; whoever bought it (so unlikely to be press) is hanging on to it for whatever reason.

[Josephus]

I have a feeling the video isn't going to turn up, but I still think it's true though. Even The Sun, a pro-Ford paper, is basically saying Ford should seek counselling. Because even if the video is fake (and I really doubt it) they know the basis of it, that ford has addiction issues, is true.

[Neil]

It all sounds plausible Malthus, except the "cold feet" part doesn't quite make sense to me. If they are scammers and shake down artists, why not  take the money and release the video? It's unlikely they have a professional reputation to maintain. So "cold feet" doesn't really make sense to me, unless it covers something other than "it won't stand up to scrutiny".

Why risk going to jail?  Fraud is still illegal, after all.  Sure, as a crack dealer I'm sure he's done some time, but why put his head in the noose?

[Admiral Yi]

People are assessing the information very differently.

That means there's a good bookmaking opportunity.