A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

September 30, 2006

Foam-flecked rantings because of Stephen Harper's success

Stephen Harper scores a major diplomatic victory. Watch the left go nuts.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:27 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Right Steve. Only 1 in 5 voters vote NDP as compared the the massive 1 in 3 for the Tories.

Posted by: Greg at September 30, 2006 01:29 PM (TzHMM)

2 Stirring up swamp water does release some obnoxious gas doesn't it?

Posted by: Shaken at September 30, 2006 02:35 PM (JyC7p)

3 Greg: Look at the level of arguments--the left is hyper-emotional, while conservatives hardly ever roll in the gutter like left wing hack jobs do. Yes, there are exceptions...some on the left are sensible, while some on the right can be out of touch...but by and large, the reverse is true. Don't believe me? Visit Rabble.ca

Posted by: Richard at September 30, 2006 02:51 PM (Jv1u0)

4 Steve says "And they wonder why no one takes them and their leader Jack Layton seriously". Then right on cue Greg replies "1 in 5 voters vote NDP" as if this is something to be proud about. As usual the dippers are factually incorrect the number is 1 in 5.71, any reasonable person would round to 1 in 6, but math and balancing budgets never was a strong point. No matter, the fact is the dippers are a fringe party that attracts the loony left, and the saner members are bleeding to other parties eg CAW workers to the Fiberals and younger voters to the Greens. Good luck trying to get one in six voters next time around Greg.

Posted by: Cascadian at September 30, 2006 02:58 PM (1+Lce)

5 But Greg, two of those voters were only "lending their votes" to Jack! - they'll want them back before the next campaign.

Posted by: Deaner at September 30, 2006 04:13 PM (KvkNo)

6 Well, I've been looking at the headlines on this story and they range from reluctant praise of Harper to outright scorn. One story was about how this was another example of Harper adopting Bush's foreign policy. We're not talking Rabble here. We're talking about that entity we so affectionately refer to as the MSM.

Posted by: The Cyber Menace at September 30, 2006 04:35 PM (RuT12)

7 Hey, it could be worse. They could be obsessing about Cindy Sheehan's vagina.

Posted by: thickslab at September 30, 2006 04:38 PM (3Atoa)

8 Regardless of the reaction in the MSM or on Rabble, Harper did the right thing. It was disengeuous for the Francophonie to omit the casualties in Isreal. What Harper did was stand up in a very public way and hold them accountable. I think the reason for the emotional, over the top reaction by people like Kevin is that they know deep down that Harper did the right thing. And it eats away at their liver.

Posted by: Canard at September 30, 2006 04:42 PM (xlDb1)

9 The problem with the left is that ils ne sont pas sÃƒÂ©rieux. They are stuck in 60's adolescence, in a world where the stakes are high and demand careful thought and tough tradeoffs. Ils ne sont pas sÃƒÂ©rieux - but increasingly, adult voters are.

Posted by: Robin Burk at September 30, 2006 05:18 PM (Qincd)

10 I'm hoping that the day comes that Israel is just a country like all the rest in the world and we don't have to bow down before it any longer.

Posted by: Real Conservative at September 30, 2006 06:06 PM (EZLLA)

11 Kevin_Laddle speaks for the "left" as much as Pissedoff speaks for the "right" when he proposes that: It should be mandatory in Canada that Chow Chow [MP Olivia Chow], Alexa M and all the other ugly looking feminazis in Canada wear the burka. Not just to teach them a lesson, but to spare everyone from looking at their ugly faces. In fact even that over bossomed broad from PETA, Anderson as well, she is way past it. Can we not agree that there's an equal distribution of reasoned opinion, uninformed histrionics, and outright boorishness across the entire political spectrum? It's biased and wishful thinking to claim, as commenters here and elsewhere have done, that the "left" is mostly "hyper-emotional" while the "right" is mostly "sensible," just as it would be to claim the opposite (as many on rabble.ca and elsewhere do). These sorts of unproven--and unproveable--pronouncements translate into little more than juvenile bragging, along the lines of, "Hah! We're more sensible and reasoned that you are!" Indeed, the labels "left" and "right" accomplish little these days except to pigeon-hole one another, distract from the substance of the issue being discussed, and encourage unreflective partisanship and blind loyalty to ideologues. It's also the case that the world is simply too complex and nuanced for such a naive dichotomy. Perhaps we, bloggers and blog readers alike, could agree to collectively move past the tired, oversimplistic, cliched stereotypes of a monolithic "left" vs a monolithic "right." A moratorium on lazy debating, if you will. I think we'd all better off for it. Incidentally, I think PM Harper made the right call at the Francophonie summit. By definition, any civilian death is tragic and inexcusable. Nationality should never be factored into the moral equation; nor should quantified death tolls. On this point, he is absolutely correct.

Posted by: A at September 30, 2006 06:28 PM (0pX37)

12 He sure has a way with words,I'm impressed

Posted by: Paul at September 30, 2006 06:54 PM (4c826)

13 Canard said, What Harper said is the truth and it eats away at their [MSM*s] liver. The MSM eats away at my liver for not joining the dots. . . mixing in too much Sheenan, Pam boobs and Liberal incestathon while failing to draw a clear picture of the current emergency and how fast it is moving. Churchill and Mark Steyn; This is great company to be in. I was worried about Musharraf saying one thing to us in English, while telling his people in urdu that this politeness to the West/US is only a temporary policy. I was worried about the new multi-Billion$ oil and gas pipelines across Pakistan to China. China is insecure about shipping their lifeblood energy by sea, open to US naval intervention. See: AlJazeera news [Google] I was worried about *our friend* Musharraf giving over a district of Pakistan as home base for Taliban and Al Qaeda. http://dukemcgoo.blogspot.com/ If only our MSMedia would join the dots for all North Americans. It will take *An Awakening* before we can get the support required to escape certain dhimmitude to the laws of Shia. I suspect the *Awakening* will come with the precision bombing of the known 24 Nuke plants in Iran. Hoping for something less messy though. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 30, 2006 07:05 PM (2GVBQ)

14 Janke, Noticed the red masthead . . . Red for support our troops . . every day, not just Fridays .. Great! = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 30, 2006 07:09 PM (2GVBQ)

15 Welcome back, (Sinister) Greg. I assume that you have only partially recovered from your bout of NDP despair, since you still haven't turned comments on at your blog? I don't blame you. There's nothing that can really be said to defend the despicable, cut-and-run tactics of your party and Neville Layton. I would have called him your "leader" but, we all know, he's really not leadership material for a serious, prime-time party ... which is why he's doing his bit over at the true communist party of Canada. 1 in 3 ... only in your dreams, Greg. Meanwhile, as a full-fledged member, enjoy your associates in the frothing crowd that Angry writes about. Ah, I feel better already. Bye Greg.

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at September 30, 2006 09:13 PM (TfPle)

16 Greg: You sound like a math wizard, so you ought to grasp the concept. Most baseball games are played in sets of three or four games, then the visiting team moves on. The key to victory, and $ucce$$ for the punters, is a difference of TWO game. Through the year, the ability to pick up extra points and coin$ boil down to one simple reality. First, break the season down into 5 game chunks. WIN 3 out of 5 games, more frequently than not, throughout the season, and you're headed for the big game. HOWEVER, if, throughout the season, of each set of 5 games, one's team gets to LOSE 3. . . then it must be the NDP, heading out to the links before autumn leaves start to fall. I'd like to encourage you to continue taking your comfort in your brilliantly creative math. In fact, spread the word to all your Permissive pals. " . . .Only 1 in 5 voters vote NDP as compared the the massive 1 in 3 for the Tories. . . " Things aren't really all that bad for the Nearly Deranged Permissives. Yup. You're darned tootin' correct Greg. 20%IS almost as good as 33% or 36%. But please, don't give up your day job -- unless, of course, you're in charge of teaching "math" to the young and impressionable of this fine land. In that case, get a job emptying cess-pools. Your senses are probably suitably acclimatized for this career change, in light of the company you seem to keep. PLAY BALL!!!

Posted by: TangoJuliette at September 30, 2006 11:27 PM (Q/ANj)

17 "I'm hoping that the day comes that Israel is just a country like all the rest in the world and we don't have to bow down before it any longer." Can't say as I've ever bowed down before Israel (or felt the need or inclination to). Personally, I'd like to see Israel as just a country like all the rest in the world and no one is trying to wipe them off the map. (Hope I didn't misconstrue your post there Real Conservative)

Posted by: up north at September 30, 2006 11:39 PM (l+D7i)

18 The comments ar not surprising given his support for Taliban Jack and his Jackettes. Harper absolutely did the right thing despite people trying to tie him in with George Bush. If you believe the lefties and the socialists you would think that Harper didn't have a brain in his head or an original thought. Of course if they repeat the mantra often enough they hope Canadians will buy it. If Harper doesn't bend to Canadian public pressure I don't know why they think he would bow to any George Bush pressure. It's silly and low brow politics. That's what this is all about.

Posted by: Helen Hollingsworth at October 01, 2006 12:37 PM (mrcoZ)

19 (Sinister) Greg: Just to get your teeth grinding a lot more (I can only hope): http://www.thistechnology.com/neville A fan site devoted to your good buddy Jack a.k.a. Neville "Peace in Our Time" Layton.

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at October 01, 2006 06:39 PM (TfPle)

20 PM Stephen Harper is like the tortoise--and that's a compliment. He's not the hare, running ahead, looking around to see who's noticing him and how fast he is. He's putting one foot in front of the other and is doing what needs to be done. Who the Hell do the Francophonie think they are ignoring one side of a very destructive battle zone, while acknowledging the pain and suffering of only one of the parties? No balance there. No fairness there. So PMSH brings balance and fairness to the table and what do some of the Francophonie/phony leaders do and the MSM? They have a conniption. Well tough. Get used to it. As long as the moral pygmies think that the sewer smells sweet, it's going to take a little longer to drain it, but PMSH is going to give it his best shot. My sense is that, as Robin Burk puts it, the left aren't serious, adults are, and more adults are beginning to notice the serious, well-thought out, tough decisions that Stephen Harper and his government are making and are being impressed. That's my hope at any rate, because a return to a Librano government would be a disaster for Canada.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 01, 2006 08:22 PM (siwnA)

21 I've been trying to post the above for 24 hours. 'Am not a techie, so have no solutions when I get the dreaded "This page cannot be displayed" message! I seem to get it far too often! Any suggestions?

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 01, 2006 08:28 PM (siwnA)

22 Jeez can we bury the Librano thing already? It is neither funny nor clever.

Posted by: Aaron at October 02, 2006 10:40 AM (B3QwP)

23 I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and even I have to agree with Aaron. There are still a great many decent Liberals around (I'm related to some). For those Liberal supporters who don't qualify for that description, I suggest we find a more clever (and preferably funny) term that is NOT offensive to the decent Liberals. Let's show that we're better than that.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 02, 2006 11:55 AM (Uagor)

24 O/T but you will probably forgive . . . Chaveze*s guy beats gun contol. Manuel Rosales unveiled his crime fighting program yesterday so lets take a point by point look at what he has to offer: 1)He will have a gun buy back program offering $2,250 for every gun turned in to the government. With this brilliant idea he can almost forget about his stupid oil money distribution plan called Mi Negra – people will be able to make a very nice living just by selling guns to the government. But not only will Venezuelans go crazy selling every gun they can find to the government but Colombians will probably start crossing the border in droves trying to sell their guns. In fact, Venezuelans might start flying to Miami just to buy guns at Walmart and then fly back to Venezuela and sell them at a huge profit. There are some incredible business opportunities here if you think about it. Its almost enough to make me wonder if Rosales owns gun manufacturing plants or something. Hopefully, his other ideas will be better so lets move on. ============ OK, not the greatest but; ==== It would have removed many OUTLAW arms [ Addicts sell anything for a fix] and saved us Canadians Billion$. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 02, 2006 12:45 PM (2GVBQ)

25 Hey, Aaron! Would you also request the Liberal Party stop supporting and encouraging fraudsters and con artists, so that I won't be offended? You do that, and I'll stop using Librano$ (which I still find very funny because it hits the nail on the head). Better yet, when the Librano$ pay back all of the money they have siphoned off, stolen, stashed away in non-audited "foundation" slush funds, THEN I'll stop calling the Liberal Party the Librano$. Fair deal? See what you can do, Aaron, to encourage the Librano$ to make wid da money to da Canadian people. Bada bing!

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 02, 2006 05:00 PM (EKVxQ)

26 And, PLEASE, Brian in Calgary, don't give me "There are still a great many decent Liberals around (I'm related to some)." It's not about individual Liberals. It's about the Liberal Party. Any individual who supports this Party should be asking some very serious questions of the Party's various and sundry leadership hopefuls. I don't detect a serious and intentional attempt on the part of Party members to put the sleaze and law-breaking behind them. Witness Joe Volpe and his shenanigans. $20,000 fine???? Big deal!! Much too little, much too late. $20,000 is NOTHING to Volpe. Give me a break. Frankly, I could care less if Liberals are "offended" by the label "Librano$." I, and many Canadians, are deeply offended by the new lows to which this Party has taken politics in our country and how they have dragged what used to be the noble calling of politician through the mud. When the Liberal Party pays back all the millions they've defrauded hard-working, over-taxed Canadians of, I'll begin to call them Liberals again. Otherwise, they're Librano$ and they deserve the "offensive" label. Cry me a river.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 02, 2006 05:10 PM (EKVxQ)

27 Been Around the Block, I try to hold off, but I can not resist backing all that you say. Also can not resist asking why we Canadians fail to demonstrate on Parliament hill for Librano$ to be brought to justice. And why is it not a pre-requisite for the Librano$ party to do an ethics housecleaning, cutting away all the contaminated members like Volpe and Brison before they can participate in elections once again? = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 02, 2006 05:18 PM (2GVBQ)

28 Sorry I let that slip. It may be their best route to re-election. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 02, 2006 05:24 PM (2GVBQ)

29 I don't think one can say the comments from the left or the right have been less or more emotional or strident than the other. The right was more strident when the left was in power and vice versa. What does seem different is how the emotion and stridency is expressed. The left seems to use more visceral swearing and general raunch. Michelle Malkin, for example, is continually referred to as a "fucking whore." Perhaps those on the right are more articulate in their stingers, but that is of little consequence in the end. What is of consequence is whether the rage of the out-of-power is sublimated into policy and political renewal. The right certainly achieved this, at least in the US. Arguably the Liberals are moving in that direction, with party outsiders being the leading candidates for leader. However, I do not perceive any renewal of policy. Perhaps it is unnecesasry in Canada, as much of the country is socialist-diposed to begin with. The renewal that is afoot in the US democratic party does not seem credible.

Posted by: murray at October 02, 2006 05:39 PM (dw9A3)

30 Murray, You have a nice flowing and smooth reading text there, but you may not get away with, * the left are emotional while the right are more articulate, but that is of little consequence in the end* You are correct, the left, especially now, after massive disgrace, are indeed more emotional. Correct also in that the right are more articulate. *But of little consequence?* Nice try pal, but you just can*t squeak by with that. Clear and logical expressions of sound reason is a major fabric of the middle right in today*s Canadian terms. That is something Canadians recognize and vote for. CBC, liberal MSM, and Hollywood spin is not fooling all Canadians all of the time. Not yet at least. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 03, 2006 01:56 PM (2GVBQ)

31 If it was a war of words, the "right" would win hands down. We make a lot more sense and there's some inner integrity to our thinking, thererfore, our words. On the other hand, words and being articulate don't have the same importance as they used to. But words do matter: That we say what we mean and mean what we say will, in the long run, make a difference--"even" if it's only in Eternity... Our kids will be influenced, big time, by our meaning what we say and saying what we mean, even if they roll their eyeballs and moan, "Oh, Mom!" Believe me.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 03, 2006 10:20 PM (5UIPo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Liberal delegate returns: Trickling in...very, very, slowly

I've been idly updating the Liberal Party webpage reporting on delegate results:

Ignatieff: 27.6% (239 delegates)
Dion: 18.5% (160 delegates)
Rae: 18.1% (157 delegates)
Kennedy: 14.3% (124 delegates)
Brison: 7.5% (65 delegates)
Dryden: 5.8% (50 delegates)
Volpe: 3.8% (33 delegates)
Hall Findlay: 1.8% (16 delegates)
Undeclared: 2.7% (23 delegates)

As only 96 of 465 meetings have reported, it's too early to make too many generalizations. But these numbers haven't changed since 6am Eastern, when I first checked them. Given that the Atlantic provinces would be farther along in the day, it would explain Brison's strength and Volpe's apparent weakness. The numbers are likely to shift around as Ontario delegates are selected.

Which gets me back to the fact that these results haven't change in nearly six hours. Given that this is not a election for public office, the Liberal Party is not actually required to report on anything. But clearly they have set up the website with the intention of keeping everyone informed. So why have six hours passed without any updates? Is there a problem? Something about the numbers that they don't like? Just curious.

Update: Maybe Ontario won't help Volpe. Bob Rae is trailing Stephane Dion, while Volpe is getting one third the support of Martha Hall Findlay.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

A Congressional Freak and the Role of Parents

A US congressman has resigned after it was revealed that he was engaging teen pages in X-rated online conversations. Parents take heed.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:58 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Mmmm, why kids would not need text message cellphones? One reason I have one is because of my disability, deafness. Text messaging is the only way to stay in touch with my family if I'm out.

Posted by: Crazy Dan at September 30, 2006 12:12 PM (3dt8Y)

2 I'd be surprised if they even make cell phones that aren't text-capable anymore. Also, I'm not sure why SMS would be more dangerous for kids than regular cell phone use (it didn't seem to be involved in this case, at any rate). Otherwise, great post Steve.

Posted by: The Invisible Hand at September 30, 2006 05:54 PM (4mWXn)

3 Why is the emphasis on technology and parent-child relationship in this story? Where is the main story of Republican coverup of perverted child molestation and abuse of positions of power? Why is there no mention of the Republican leadership's year-old coverup and hiding of the Republican congressman's disgusting perversions. Why is there no emphasis on the cult of child sexual abuse by conservative Republican christian rightwingers?

Posted by: Sean at September 30, 2006 11:51 PM (Vhq4k)

4 yer a wank janke

Posted by: at October 01, 2006 08:49 AM (lQYPr)

5 I love how you avoid mentioning the fact that he's Republican as much as possible, the only mention being the (R-FL) in the sections you quote. Then, of course, you gloss over the whole coverup and blather on about technology. Remember "McClelland, stay away from me and my family. Don't ever come near my kids. Ever." Remember that? Of course when there's a real sexual predator, Janke doesn't give a shit. If he's a republican that is.

Posted by: thickslab at October 01, 2006 09:09 AM (3Atoa)

6 Stay away from my 16 year-old boy, Wanke!

Posted by: Angry on Great White Toile at October 01, 2006 10:52 AM (h3ieu)

7 I love how you avoid mentioning the fact that he's Republican as much as possible, the only mention being the (R-FL) in the sections you quote. Then, of course, you gloss over the whole coverup and blather on about technology. It seems the whole point of the article, from its title onward, was less about exposing cover-ups and more about the role and responsibility that parents have to take in the lives of their children and the safety thereof. Seems reasonable to veer into a discussion of technology, be it web chat programs or SMS phones (which can become, in essence, portable chat clients if you have a plan that gives you a bundle of free messages every month). The focus of the story is not on political backroads and closed-door sessions; it's on the role of parents in the lives and safety of their children. Totally different subject. Remember "McClelland, stay away from me and my family. Don't ever come near my kids. Ever." Remember that? Of course when there's a real sexual predator, Janke doesn't give a shit. If he's a republican that is. Doesn't seem to me that Steve doesn't give a shit. His whole post is on how parents can take action to protect their children from sexual predators that use the internet to hide their identity. That seems to be the opposite of "not giving a shit", really. But I'm sure you recognized that.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether a sex offender is left wing or right wing, and as Steve points out there are monsters hiding in all the closets. I think he was fairly up front about that. Once again, thickslab, you seem to be setting yourself in opposition to those who speak out in favour of protecting children from sexual predators. You've said you're not a pedophile yourself (or maybe you just don't think that's what it is when you do it -- maybe it's an expression of sexual diversity?), and yet you seem to come down hard on anyone who has the "gall" to suggest that kids be protected to the maximum degree possible from untoward exposure to age-inappropriate sexual material and advances. Are you SURE there's not something you are hiding from us? Close friend who's gotten involved with kids before, perhaps?

Posted by: ken at October 01, 2006 11:13 AM (BsFSR)

8 Considering that you support the Pope, ken, I think you should look at your associates instead of worrying about mine. You're the one who supports a an organization that allowed child molestation to go on and covered it up for years. I come down on Janke because he's a fool. There isn't anything he posts on here that isn't about cheap political points.

Posted by: thickslab at October 01, 2006 11:38 AM (3Atoa)

9 It astounds me the number of parents who think nothing of their children using MSN on the Internet at the age of 8, but would probably be aghast if their child picked up the phone and started talking to a stranger.

Posted by: Saskboy at October 01, 2006 04:43 PM (+1E2g)

10 It astounds me the number of children obviously under tha age of 12 who have cell phones...which, one can only assume, their parents are paying for. Interesting commentary on parental responsibility...one could not easily conceive of an easier thing a parent might clamp down on if the need arose. Maybe it doesn't arise in all cases. Still, it begs a question of necessity. Or, as Saskboy points out, the necessity of giving children as young as 8 essentially unfettered access to the virtual world of MSN. Do kids need cell phones, and do they need to include in their network of friends a host of people from Myspace? Mind you, these days, the way kids used to go about making friends and hanging out with them has been all but obliterated as playgrounds, bicycle riding, and other activities have become more and more sanitized and encumbered by safety legislation, some of which has merit and some of which just makes one scratch one's head. I suppose parents would like to think that the virtual world is a safer place. Perhaps I'm not one to make such commentary -- I am Catholic, and I do speak on a regular basis with priests, and even the Archbishop on occasion (and we all know that "those" people are just a rape case waiting to happen...or so some here would lead us to believe!). But then, I take solace in the fact that while the Church -- not exempt from the mire of human evil -- has had its scandals, it is dealing now with them, and harshly in many cases. Pope Benedict has no tolerance for the abuse of children, as is right. Still, in thinking of the particular affiliations a certain other commenter here may be keeping, I can't help but think again of what Mark Shea remarks from time to time..."there will come a time when the Church is condemned not for covering up pedophilia, but for condemning it". I find the phrase "I think you should look at your associates instead of worrying about mine", I can't help but interpret it as a tacit affirmation of my earlier speculations from the way it is worded. Interesting.

Posted by: ken at October 01, 2006 06:40 PM (BsFSR)

11 Truer words were never spoken: "We are not the last line of defence for our children, we are the only line of defence." I was often accused, by other less vigilant parents--some would say laid back parents--of being "overly protective" of my daughters as I kept an eye on the sex ed curriculum at their school (many teachers strongly disliked me), and monitored their computer use and television watching. My own children would groan when I put a stipulation on their activities and moan, "You're the ONLY MOM who does that." My response was always, "well, that's their family and this is ours." Years later, both of my girls understand that I was actually being a caring mom not a mean mom. I'm grateful for that--and they're grateful for my vigilance. True story: The son of friends was on the Internet a lot, as both parents worked outside the home. The day of his 16th birthday, he didn't come home from school, which was in a rural area of the province they live in. Just as they were about to become alarmed, a friend of their son arrived at the house with a note. They became much more alarmed: Their son had been corresponding with a man in a province over 1000 kms away, who had bought the boy a plane ticket. The boy had caught a bus to the nearest city with an airport, picked up the ticket, and had flown to his destination: the man's house. The note said, "Mom and Dad, I'm fine. I'll be in touch when I get to where I'm going." My friends immediately contacted the provincial police who, fortunately, had an officer who was a computer whiz--their son had e-mailed them on arrival at the man's house, only telling them what city he was in and that he was OK--and who was able to trace the e-mail server and prevail upon them to help him identify the customer. I don't know if that's totally legal, but that's what happened. And this police officer did the computer work on his own time, he was so concerned. To make a long story short, one of this boy's parents flew to the city where their son was, where they were met by one of the city's policemen, who then went to the house where they knew he was. When the door was answered, the only thing the officer could tell the man, because the boy was 16 and no longer a legal minor, was "we're watching you. We know you have this boy living with you. His parent simply wants to talk to him and will not coerce him to go home." The boy and parent had a meal together, and the boy opted to stay in the big city, where he could attend a larger high school with more exciting programs than his rural school offered. Who knows what he was exposed to while he was in the big city? He did, however, eventually return home. Right under his parents' noses, from the bosom of his family (he has other siblings who were quite traumatized by the event), this boy was whisked away by a body snatcher. And it's happening far more than we know. Later: I agree with Steve when he says "Your kids will hate you for it [monitoring their use of the computer]. Good. A parent who is not hated by their kids at least twice a week is not doing his or her job." And this is precisely the problem. Because so many parents hardly see their children in a day--a hurried breakfast, goodbyes while everyone rushes off to school and work, a frenzied after-school round of sports or after-school activities, no sit-down dinner, homework, laundry, shopping, cleaning, bed--too many of them hesitate to put restrictions on their kids OR they just aren't physically around to watch what's going on. They dread being hated by their kids, whereas when youÂ’re with them 24/7, itÂ’s not such a big deal. Kids don't bring themselves up. As 'grownups' have been intent on fulfillment and career success in the past 30 years, there's been a growing societal myth that kids should be independent, that they don't need 'parental guidance' as much as they used to, that they're 'resilient' and can handle a lot of 'freedom' or activities without adults 'hovering.' This is a myth. It simply is not true. Without adult supervision, it's too easy for kids who are inexperienced, looking for laughs, fun, danger, and to push the envelope, to experiment with all kinds of things, like drugs, sex, Internet, e-mail, etc. and find themselves in much hotter water than they had ever thought was possible. Being vigilant is part of a parentÂ’s responsibility. Being thought to be Â“too strictÂ” or Â“the only mom or dad who does this,Â” etc. goes with the territoryÂ—and your kids will thank you later when they realize how high the stakes were.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 01, 2006 08:34 PM (siwnA)

12 Look, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat who's abusing younger people: This is a matter of an adult exploiting a young person, all the more reprehensible, because the person has a position of authority and therefore of privilege. Foley was someone who the page should have been able to look up to. Instead, Foley has compeltely betrayed a trust, and now he will have to pay the consequences. He happens to be a Republican. IF, HOWEVER, SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS: Bill Clinton repeatedly, as a State Governor and then as the President of the United States, betrayed the trust of, what?, six, seven, eight, women, by sexually assaulting and abusing them, the last one that we know of being Monica Lewinsky, a 23-year-old intern. He grossly abused his authority and privilege in this instance, and, at the time, I found it difficult to find too many people who were willing to condemn him for it. They're response usually was, "Well, Monica Lewinsky is obviously a tart." EXCUSE ME? Bill Clinton was old enough to be her father and on top of abusing a young intern, he lied under oath, despite the fact that he was the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. If a man in any other position such as a teacher, preacher, lawyer, etc. had done what he did, they would be out of a job and would find it difficult to get hired anywhere else. And Bill Clinton? He kept his job and is now making hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches around the globe. ANY adult who sexually exploits a young person should have the book thrown at them, of whatever political stripe, and I find it obscene that anyone would play the partisan card when it comes to an issue as serious as this.

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 01, 2006 08:49 PM (siwnA)

13 Many posts here are skirting the issue of a white guy, pedophile, position of power, abuse etc., while talking about parents. In this instance, the kid was 16, his parents had allowed him to work for what he and they believed in (government), and in a great job which must have been coveted by many other applicants, for a man who the parents believed to be a responsible, forthright and upstanding person. How wrong those parents of that poor kid were! Someone said, "stranger on our street" and I put forth it's not the stranger on your streets you need to worry about; it is the (mostly white and male) men who win the parents' trust who need to be monitored carefully. This is an issue which rightfully should rock this nation, and particularly resonate with all the right-wing religious people. This evil can and will infect you whenever if finds an opening. No matter how much you hate evil, it will get to you. No matter how surprised you act when a story such as this gets out, it is a reminder that evil IS you. This is the story of original sin. To pretend otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. Pedophiles are all over the place, many in important positions, and they make the laws that you as parents follow regarding your children. Imagine the horror those parents felt when they learned that the guy who runs the anti-exploiting children cashcow is actually a child abuser? Time for you to grow up and be able to defend your own children, and that means confronting these monster men at each and every turn. Do that instead of casting aspersions on this young man, or labelling this current monster "gay" and washing your hands of the matter. It will come back to haunt you, your children, your grandchildren and so on, including your neighbours' children. Do something creative now to stop these monsters. I suggest: quit freaking out over Janet Jackson's tit on TV and start cracking down on the porn that has proliferated using young people to stimulate old men. Do you think Foley knew that porn was one of America's GDP winners these past years? I say Yes he did. And so do a lot of other politicians/parents/partakers. Remove the mote from your own eye, for God's sake!

Posted by: Concerned parent at October 01, 2006 10:52 PM (F8R7p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A profile of William Imona-Russel

William Imona-Russel, the man arrested for the murder of Yasmin Ashareh, is a con man. But is he a murderer?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:25 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

September 29, 2006

Was Joe Volpe behind the complaint against Michael Ignatieff?

Maybe Joe Volpe isn't behind StopIggy.com, but it looks like Volpe tried to smear Michael Ignatieff with allegations of membership irregularities. But the man who file the complaint, Volpe supporter George Kunz, has disappeared, and some wonder if Kunz is himself a phony concocted as part of the plot against Ignatieff. Not likely, as I have a picture of George Kunz.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

The Finley Memo: Not leaked on purpose?

According to Aaron Lee Wudrick, the Finley memo was not leaked on purpose. Indeed, the Tories are hopping mad that the memo got out, and Aaron has another leaked memo to prove it!

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Volpe: Renegade and Kingmaker?

Is Joe Volpe holding all the cards in his fight against the Liberal Party executive?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:41 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Volpe to Liberal Party: Screw you!

Joe Volpe will pay...over his dead body! (Or a body of one of his recently recruited members of the dead kind).

Update: Is this why Volpe is hanging tough?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:53 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Volpe has been whacked by the Power Corp controlled lieberal mahine in order to allow an easier trip to the leadership position by Corp's puppet Bob Rae.

Posted by: RNC at September 29, 2006 05:54 PM (4FLA4)

2 Just how does one pay a Librano fine? Specially marked brown envelopes?

Posted by: Shaken at September 29, 2006 06:41 PM (JyC7p)

3 Rae doesn't need Volpe to implode in order to shine. Get smart!

Posted by: mICHAEL at September 29, 2006 06:58 PM (Xv/2i)

4 Buffalo Bob is da man, the Power's behind him, the machinery is whirring away.

Posted by: Biddy at September 29, 2006 08:07 PM (+aWmk)

5 I find it odd. A report which is to be released on monday, as not to interfere or bias the DSM selections has been released early. The answer is quite simple actually. The report that vindicated iggy for the same accusations as volpe. Needed to be made public so iggy could attempt to have his clean image. However, there has been no love lost between iggy and volpe. Let's remember it was the riding of papineau that made the accusations against volpe. Papineau's executive is suppporting iggy. Iggy must really be afraid of Rae to use his well placed connections, to have this published. I thought the liberal party was going to stay nutreal, but I see it is the martin take over all over again. This time it is iggy instead of paul and tom allison as karl littler. www.dliberal2005.blogspot.com

Posted by: davenportliberal at September 29, 2006 08:23 PM (BjOjj)

6 The only good thing to happen to the Liberal Party recently is that Hety (crosses are burning) Fry dropped out. Now they are left with a thief, an NDP turncoat and an alien. What more could the Conservatives ask for!

Posted by: Dinofly at September 29, 2006 09:57 PM (A/RmO)

7 The Liberal Party of Canada have demonstrated a commitment to the rule of the mob, rather than due process under law, with this example. How can any Canadian see that crowd as fit to govern this country except under the continuing influence of corruption and ignorance?

Posted by: Paul O at September 30, 2006 02:18 AM (isLIk)

8 Do any of these irregularities and this infighting surprise anyone? We're talking about the Liebrano$$, after all...

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at September 30, 2006 07:42 AM (pZ3uE)

9 the mafia is back in if you vote liberal any liberal mikey does not like it and niether should YOU

Posted by: red fox at September 30, 2006 02:08 PM (XOp2T)

10 the mafia is back in if you vote liberal any liberal. mikey does not like it and niether should YOU

Posted by: red fox at September 30, 2006 02:08 PM (XOp2T)

11 Could care less who'll be the Liberal leader. Would not vote for those bastards anyway.

Posted by: Palo at September 30, 2006 07:51 PM (/CGWY)

12 I have 40 years of proven Court documents and other proven documents describing what the Desmarais' and theis Associates did to me and to this Whole Country. Can you help me disseminate this information? Paul Macciocchi

Posted by: Paul Macciocchi at September 30, 2006 11:31 PM (YVasF)

13 Volpe is the poster boy for Liberal arrogance and venality

Posted by: neo at October 01, 2006 12:45 AM (lqTMk)

14 "...Volpe is the poster boy for Liberal arrogance and venality..." AND the never-ending stream of $450/@Pizza that Giovanni and his pals like to, as Joe so delicately once put it, "slide a few down!" aiy Choooch! est molto dolce commedia!

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 02, 2006 02:23 PM (LrN8Z)

15 Aiy!! Dis Joey "da slider" is soitenly not good for da image of all us hard-woikin' Paisans. U'know what I mean? fuggeddabowdit. . . . wudda chooch.

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 02, 2006 02:27 PM (LrN8Z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Liberal Party to Joe Volpe: Cough up twenty grand, or you're history!

Joe Volpe has 30 days to pay a fine of $20,000 to the Liberal Party, or he is disqualified!

Update: Joe Volpe to Liberal party: Screw you!

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:38 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

1 A Lieberal caught being corrupt? Impossible!

Posted by: Cardstonkid at September 29, 2006 03:44 PM (6WJci)

2 After all the Adscam vote buying revelations in the Gomery Commission Report, this is the best the Volpe campaign can come up with, more finessing of campaign finances? First it was kiddie CONtributions, now this. Puhlease! Absolutely hopeless, and bereft of common decency or sense. But hey, dead people should be able to vote!! Yoh JC!! We need a little resurrection over here, so they can mark their X by the LIEberal candidates name.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at September 29, 2006 04:02 PM (uGAAp)

3 "the panel found no evidence to suggest that Mr. Volpe or his senior campaign workers had actual knowledge of the wrongful purchase of memberships" SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL??? Ignatieff gets off with no investigation despite SERIOUS issues of signing up members at business addresses in Brampton-Springdale (National Chair Ruby Dhalla's riding and restaurant owned by riding VP) and Volpe gets reprimanded. See here: http://www.dliberal2005.blogspot.com/ Biased corrupt party.

Posted by: amwar dat at September 29, 2006 04:04 PM (Hea/3)

4 What a pathetic bunch of losers. Pay the desperate Party a "fine" and your sins are pardoned. It is to laugh. He should get together with Gags and maybe they could both be pardoned at the same cleansing ceremony. After all they both have cited they are being picked on because of their Italian heritage.Shameful.Pathetic. Desperate.

Posted by: Biddy at September 29, 2006 04:05 PM (8REJA)

5 How about this for a fundraising scheme? Federal party wants to raise funds by circumventing federal political contribution laws. Line up big contributor -- tell him it's not a contribution but a "fine". Gotta hand it to the LPC for raising dough creatively...

Posted by: Old Jute at September 29, 2006 04:28 PM (ocOr3)

6 This is just so freakin' awesome. I just hope he pays the fine and keeps this comedy of errors going!

Posted by: Chris at September 29, 2006 05:22 PM (2gl40)

7 This clown's starting to acquire the pallor and reek of a ZOMBIE...mebbe thas why he gets donations from dead folks. Someone should sharpen up a wooden stake for this guy, or track down the Lone Ranger with his SILVER BULLETS....

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at September 30, 2006 10:32 AM (Y1ykG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rumour of troubles for Joe Volpe

National Newswatch is following a rumour that the Liberal Party is about to pull the plug on Joe Volpe's leadership campaign.

As in soon. As in today.

If true, why? The problem with the donations from minors is well in the past. Was the recent problem with recruitments enough, then, to push him out?

On its own, I'm not so sure. I do wonder, however, if it has to do with the StopIggy website. I figured that the party had to know who handed the membership list to Marsha Akman. If it was Volpe, then the recent trouble with his recruitment could very well have been the last straw.

Recruiting irregularities can be blamed on low-level campaign workers. But the membership list could only come from the highest levels of the campaign organization. That would give the Liberal Party the ammunition needed to take out Volpe's troubled campaign. It would also provide the party a shield against possible legal action by Volpe. You sue us over pulling the plug on your campaign, and we'll sue you over leaking the membership list.

Update: A highly placed Liberal tells me I'm wrong on this one. Volpe did not help out StopIggy. Back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

The full text of the Tory memo evaluating the Liberal leadership hopefuls

An internal Tory memo by strategist Doug Finley was leaked this week, just ahead of the selection of Liberal Party delegates for the leadership convention. It contained an evaluation of each of the candidates from the point of view of being potential opponents. Major media outlets carried summaries of the memo's contents, and in response, some people have suggested the memo was a fiction, intended to somehow influence the delegate selection process.

Well, I've got the actual memo. Decide for yourself.

Update: This leaked memo suggests that the Finley memo was not leaked on purpose.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 5 kb.

Stephen Harper gets hostile at the Francophonie

That Israelis as well as Lebanese civilians suffered as a result of the recent fighting is an obvious fact. Stephen Harper mentioned that fact at a meeting of the Francophonie, and as a result, more negotiations are underway. Presumably the rest of the membership of this French-speaking analog to the Commonwealth is working on how to hide this obvious fact in such a way as to slip it by Canada.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 4 kb.

Support the Troops

Support the troops today and wear red. Angry in the Great White North will be sporting a red theme in honour of our troops.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:21 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Have you heard the latest? I am now listening to the Lowell Green show on cfra Ottawa...Tim Horton is banning it's employees from wearing red on Fridays in SUPPORT OF OUR TROOPS...Tim Horton made a BIG deal of opening a shop in a war zone! And yet IN CANADA WE CANNOT HONOUR OUR TROOPS?

Posted by: Helen Hollingsworth at September 29, 2006 09:57 AM (mrcoZ)

2 ...figures Ottawa, gotta be poltically correct and pamper Quebec which opposes any war at all. Remember they generous support in WW2...

Posted by: tomax7 at September 29, 2006 12:03 PM (jHhd0)

3 "...figures Ottawa, gotta be poltically [sic] correct and pamper Quebec which opposes any war at all. Remember they [sic] generous support in WW2..." Yeah, those Royal 22nd Regiment shirkers were such slugs, weren't they?( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_22e_R%C3%A9giment )

Posted by: mike at September 29, 2006 01:07 PM (oQmui)

4 Can somebody explain to me what the phrase "Support our troops" actually means? I contend that it's one of those vacuous statements that, on its own, is agreeable to everyone and hence devoid of any real meaning or utility, except when it's exploited for the purposes of jingoism. Like holding a public "Support our Troops" rally.

Posted by: A at September 29, 2006 03:04 PM (YK2nB)

5 A, As an ex-serviceman, I can tell you for a fact that even noticing their existence -much less their sacrifice is a good start. This country has been screwing her servicemen and women since the late (Trudeau/Hellyer) 60's. The 90's alone are a legacy of shame for not only the government (yes, both liberal and conservative) but for the press and the Canadian people. We sent those people to the former Yugoslavia yet we refused to support them. Exchanging body armour at the airport because there wasn't enough to go around ? Ridiculous rules of engagement that prevented them from protecting themselves ? Worn out CRAP for armoured vehicles ? So few people in the forces that they'd just get back from one hellhole and they were sent to another. Untrained reservists -who shouldn't have been there, but they were so shorthanded that ground commanders were told to use them wherever they could. Medak Pocket: The largest battle (at the time) fought by Canadian troops since the Korean War. Fought and won by our guys. The press was there. Why the fuck wasn't it reported ??? Did the press honestly think that we wouldn't find it newsworthy ?? Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the fact that your beloved Liberal government was in the process of cutting their budget yet again, could it ? This whole country -including you, including me, including anyone who wasn't serving at the time owes a huge apology to our armed forces -because we LET the government do that to our guys. Canadians babble on about how proud they are that our soldiers are "peacekeepers" (a term alsways loathed by our soldiers) but they can't be bothered to learn exactly what our soldiers do. The information is out there now. Read a book or two about it. If you care. And that just scratches the surface of how deplorably our troops were treated. Now they've been sent -by democratically elected governments- Liberal and Conservative- to Afghanistan. Those people out there in harm's way are Canadians. Why the hell shouldn't we be supporting them !?!? Prior to now I had a lot of respect for you as a leftist who at least was capable of reason. What the hell is wrong with you ? Sorry for the rant folks. Sore point.

Posted by: up north at September 29, 2006 06:47 PM (CzPhF)

6 Up North: I see your point, I really do. And whether you believe me or not, I'd first like to make it clear that I have great respect for our veterans and the current men and women in uniform. What I take issue with isn't our troops, or the idea of supporting our troops, but with others hijacking that idea for their own political/jingoistic purposes. One example is making the troops synonymous with the mission (i.e., expressions of doubt about Canada's military role in Afghanistan being greeted with knee-jerk accusations that one isn't supporting the soldiers on the ground). Also, exploiting the phrase "support our troops"--and here again I mean the literal phrase, not the idea behind it--is the worst kind of political rhetoric, because it's usually uttered carelessly as a throw-away soundbite, without any action to back it up. It smacks of banality, whether it's said by a politician in a media scrum, printed on a ribbon attached to someone's car antenna, spashed on a banner atop a blog, or silkscreened onto a t-shirt and sold for profit. What does it mean, really, for me to go out and publicly declare that I support our troops, maybe buy a coffee mug saying so, if that's as far as I'm willing to go with it? As you note, it'll boost morale over in Afghanistan for a little while, which is nice, but at the end of the day, our soldiers are still undermanned, underequipped, and undertrained. The only difference is that we, back home, having made our little "support the troops" efforts, can pat ourselves on the back and sleep a little easier at night.

Posted by: A at September 30, 2006 02:48 AM (0pX37)

7 Up North: I see your point, I really do. And whether you believe me or not, I'd first like to make it clear that I have great respect for our veterans and the current men and women in uniform. What I take issue with isn't our troops, or the idea of supporting our troops, but with others hijacking that idea for their own political/jingoistic purposes. One example is making the troops synonymous with the mission (i.e., expressions of doubt about Canada's military role in Afghanistan being greeted with knee-jerk accusations that one isn't supporting the soldiers on the ground). It's a cheap way to short-circuit an otherwise crucial discussion. Also, exploiting the phrase "support our troops"--and here again I mean the literal phrase, not the idea behind it--is the worst kind of political rhetoric, because it's so often uttered carelessly as a throw-away soundbite, without any action to back it up. It smacks of banality, whether it's said by a politician in a media scrum, printed on a ribbon attached to someone's car antenna, spashed on a banner atop a blog, or silkscreened onto a t-shirt and sold for profit. What does it mean, really, for me to go out and publicly declare that I support our troops, maybe buy a coffee mug saying so, if that's as far as I'm willing to go with it? As you note, it'll boost morale over in Afghanistan for a little while, which is nice, but at the end of the day, our soldiers are still undermanned, underequipped, and undertrained. The only difference is that we, back home, having made our little "support the troops" efforts, can pat ourselves on the back and sleep a little easier at night.

Posted by: A at September 30, 2006 02:53 AM (0pX37)

8 OK A, you make a point as well. This sure as hell isn't WWII where EVERYBODY was affected and had to make some sacrifice -even if it meant putting up with food and gasoline rationing. I'll tell you though, the more of those little ribbons, t-shirts (and yes, selling them for profit is tasteless) coffee mugs, whatever, the happier I am. a) It sends -as you noted- a message to our troops that we're behind them. That is a nice novelty if nothing else. b) It sends a message to the Taliban that we are behind our troops (you no doubt remember their take on Canadians) which actually makes them LESS of a juicy target. c) North Americans tend to be herd animals. As a general rule, we think what we're told to think. If we flood the country with half as much info about our troops as we do about Paris Hilton, it might actually make a difference. Maybe we'll stop hearing all about "Harper's war" and other ridiculous bullshit that serves no purpose but to divide us. Speaking of Mr Harper, you'll note he is trying to rebuild the armed services. He is attacked continually for that -as he was, in the run-up to the 2004 election (remember that goofy ad that so many obviously bought into ?). We are in a fight that started for us on Sept 11 2001. I read an editorial recently in the Chronical Journal that actually suggested that Canada should have "looked the other way" after that attack happened. 'Look the other way'. You seem like a reasonable guy. Convince me (and no, I'm NOT a reasonable guy) that that statement is anything other than outright despicable cowardice. It embarrasses and enrages me that there are Canadians that think that way (this DEFINITELY ain't WWII) I don't necessarily agree with the way it's being fought (frankly I wouldn't be nearly as nice as NATO is trying to be) but they're doing what their country sent them to do and doing it the way they're told to do it. To not support them in any way possible -even if it's just a sticker on your car- is to betray them. And we've done that far too many times already.

Posted by: up north at September 30, 2006 10:11 PM (l+D7i)

9 Question the mission all you want, just do it in private, behind closed doors. Once the questioning hits the street, the questioning of the mission is no longer mere questioning, it is transformed into support for the enemy of our troops. Sort of similar to the old WWII principle behind "Loose lips sink ships." If we expect our Troops to function, no questions asked, our doing anything other than that, truly constitutes "lack of support" for our personnel in harm's way. Imagine your own reaction to daily reports from "Cave X-aQ 18654r0467-3745ii~12" stating that there are factions questioning the Taliban hierarchy, questioning why their troops are out there fighting those infidels, while mothers worry about clean underwear for their hero when he finally gets offed and heads out to collect his 72 virgins. etc etc. Warm your heart? You betcha!! We're all part of the "supply line" and if/whenever we quaver, question, doubt -- those "walking point" are rendered vulnerable. QUESTION: How many of our personnel died in Bosnia? What adverse reaction was manifested in Canada and the media at that time? Were there arguments about flag lowerings? tarmac services? honouring the deceased? Were there tabloid style banner headlines? Did anyone other than the Canadians of Serbian origin march in protest of the death and destruction in Bosnia? How many of the deaths suffered by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan can be directly attributed to inferior equipment, provided by an uncaring nation? Think that these questions have one set of answers because the Bosnia gig and others like it were all carried out under a Liberal Government? Think that the answers to the foregoing questions might have proved different had the government of the day been Conservative?? Why do you think that might have been the case?

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 01, 2006 03:31 AM (Q/ANj)

10 up north:We are in a fight that started for us on Sept 11 2001. I read an editorial recently in the Chronical Journal that actually suggested that Canada should have "looked the other way" after that attack happened...You seem like a reasonable guy. Convince me (and no, I'm NOT a reasonable guy) that that statement is anything other than outright despicable cowardice. Not having read the editorial, I can't really comment specifically on whether or not it's an expression of cowardice (perhaps you could copy/paste the column here). I don't think that Canada should have looked the other way, though I'm glad we stayed out of the distraction that is Iraq and focused instead on helping to rebuild Afghanistan. Whether our current mission is sufficiently balanced between military force and humanitarian aid/reconstruction is an open question (and one that I suspect we may not reach agreement on). TangoJuliette: Question the mission all you want, just do it in private, behind closed doors. Once the questioning hits the street, the questioning of the mission is no longer mere questioning, it is transformed into support for the enemy of our troops. Sort of similar to the old WWII principle behind "Loose lips sink ships." The 'loose lips sink ships' principle was based on the premise that soldiers who carelessly devulge military info--particular when writing letters back home, or if captured in battle--may put themselves or their comrades in harm's way. It was a matter of security, and had nothing to do with "questioning the mission" or "supporting the enemy." The ostensible purpose of the "war on terror" is to preserve and export the freedom to publicly question anything, including the legitimacy or scope of military missions, and indeed for some (but not I), the integrity and honour of our troops. What you propose--shutting up and falling in line--is the antithesis of everything that our troops are fighting for.

Posted by: A at October 01, 2006 06:44 PM (0pX37)

11 A, finding that editorial now would involve sifting through weeks of the Chronicle Journal. Please don't make me do that (I find it an odious rag). It seems we are approximately on the same page anyways. Wonders never cease eh ? "What you propose--shutting up and falling in line--is the antithesis of everything that our troops are fighting for." I'll take the liberty of answering for TJ here. It's not so much a case of "shut up and fall in line" as it is "shhhh -you can get people killed !" The Taliban are well aware of how divided this country is on the war in Afghanistan. They like that fact. They've announced their intention to target Canadian soldiers specifically, in order to lower support for the mission. I DO have a link for that if you need to see it. The harsh fact is that while yes, you do have the right to free speech, if you exercise that right by opening protesting the war in Afghanistan then you literally add to the dangers facing the people who exist to protect your right to free speech (nice catch-22 there). You, I believe, would care about that fact. Unfortunately, far far far too many of our countrymen and women would not. By asking people to keep it strictly in the family (ie: behind closed doors) it isn't an attempt to stifle dissent, it's an attempt to lessen the risk to our troops. THAT is part of supporting the troops -if not the mission- and it is the very least we can do. Never let it be said that Canadians do not do the very least possible when it comes to supporting the troops.

Posted by: up north at October 01, 2006 09:50 PM (OV4CN)

12 The best way to support the troops is to bring them home and quit fighting America`s imperialistic war

Posted by: Rick at October 02, 2006 07:39 PM (pdf5D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 28, 2006

John Mark Karr, Marc Dutroux, Karla Homolka

Three pedophiles who benefited from police incompetence. In the case of Belgium's Marc Dutroux, more children died before he was finally recaptured. In the case of Canada's Karla Homolka, she was given a light sentence as a result of an unnecessary plea bargain. In the case of America's John Mark Karr, he is likely to go free very soon, the charges against him dismissed.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:16 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1371 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Yeah, and Zaccardelli's probably going to only get a slap on the wrist too. And yes, i really cheesed off. http://www.thiscanada.com/2006/09/28/zaccardelli-must-go/

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at September 28, 2006 07:21 PM (TfPle)

2 ...while I hope they have a change of heart (repent) while they still walk on this earth, what awaits them after death is not a pleasant thought. There will be justice. Why not now? Freedom of choice. As a society we've chosen to be neutered towards crime. Social programming from birth. Government will look after you, minorities are always the victum, and men are neanderthal dunder heads. Oh yeah, and Conservative minded folks are scary.

Posted by: tomax7 at September 28, 2006 11:43 PM (jHhd0)

3 Two things have always puzzled me about Karla's slap on the wrist. The first is the one Steve mentioned above: Marion Boyd's meddling that had so terrorized crown attorneys with her mantra that all men were bad and all women were good. Guess who gave Boyd the job and free rein to do her damage: Bob Rae, that's who. Secondly, any criminal worth his or her salt knows that if you tell really big lies as part of a plea bargain, the deal is off. We were bombarded with the even bigger lie that if the crown reneged on the deal it could never get any future deals. Pure bullcrap as Glenn Beck would say. One bit of proof: when Law and Order did an episode on Karla they changed the ending so that she was given a much stiffer sentence. They couldn't believe that our crown attorneys could be so clueless and stupid.

Posted by: Tom in Mississauga at September 29, 2006 05:01 AM (W52zx)

4 C'mon Steve, did you actually think the police solved crimes through clever investigative procedures. That's only on CSI, Law and Order et al. Actual police work now is convincing people to rat out others through coercion, fear or reward. Officers go to public schools explaining to children what their parents and neighbours might be doing that the police would be interested in. When someone is charged with an offence, the loopholes, deals and protection afforded them usually results in minimal punishment at best.

Posted by: rick at September 29, 2006 07:26 AM (qe9Nn)

5 Do the "best and brightest" seek out boring jobs that pay, at maximum,$65,000 per year?

Posted by: dmorris at September 29, 2006 08:22 AM (iNlUz)

6 The folks in Ottawa must sleep well at night knowing that the main bungler of the Homolka case is now their chief of police. Only in government can incompetence get rewarded. First Bevan then Boniface...

Posted by: at September 29, 2006 09:48 AM (x4k8S)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

John Mark Karr: Luckiest pervert in history, or getting a helping hand?

John Mark Karr is going to walk free. It's playing out just as I expected. But the coincidences are mounting and I can't help but think there is yet another layer to this story.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:03 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1266 words, total size 8 kb.

September 27, 2006

Re-evaluating Marsha Akman

Marsha Akman was revealed to be the name behind the website StopIggy.com, dedicated to stopping Michael Ignatieff from becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Based on some discussions with Liberal insiders, the feeling was that Marsha Akman was not really behind the website, but that her name was being used to divert attention behind the real website authors.

I've been doing more research on Akman, and I'm reconsidering the viability of that theory.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

September 26, 2006

Ken Dryden's website hacked

Ken Dryden's website is down for the count. Still offline at the time of writing, it was felled by a hacker named TamTurk. But before the conspiracy theories start flying, TamTurk does not work for any other Liberal leadership campaign. Ken Dryden was just unlucky.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 4 kb.

The Liberal Party Choice: Two outsiders -- the one with ideas the one without

Quite the choice for the Liberal Party.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:26 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I remember when Rae was premier of Ontario. He didn't have any ideas (or agenda) then either. He also successfully showed that he didn't have leadership.

Posted by: Mike F at September 26, 2006 11:35 AM (CzDNz)

2 Mike.. On the other hand you have a guy (Iggy) who even some Liberals think is a Harper wannabe...

Posted by: at September 26, 2006 12:00 PM (zMnsO)

3 "On the other hand you have a guy (Iggy) who even some Liberals think is a Harper wannabe..." Well now dude, that would be about 10 steps up now wouldn't it!!!

Posted by: Rick at September 26, 2006 12:19 PM (b/eoi)

4 Ooooooh - the evil right. I'm surprised our anonymous friend didn't raise the spectre of Bush. Maybe he/she is saving that tired nugget for a rebuttal... Isn't that what passes for a zinger nowadays - you don't have to critique an idea on merit - just draw a Bush analogy! Given that the old-time Librano$ still wear that sense of entitlement proudly, they could do worse than a new transfusion of outsiders. Well, except for Volpe - given his supporters, any hope for transfusion is well, DEAD.... I'm glad Volpe is still aboard - all this Liberal poo-flinging needs some comic relief.

Posted by: at September 26, 2006 12:51 PM (x4k8S)

5 Actually, Rae, DID have an agenda in 1990 -- the Agenda for People, his campaign platform. But he never expected to have to implement it because he never expected to get elected, which I believe he admitted in his memoirs.

Posted by: Joan Tintor at September 26, 2006 01:58 PM (dNLUH)

6 Joan: Rae admits the same in this same Macleans article: that the biggest difference for him was not between the NDP and the Liberal Parties, but rather between the Opposition and Government benches, where he found that he had to start thinking in terms of implementation.

Posted by: Paul O at September 26, 2006 02:49 PM (isLIk)

7 Why are'nt MANY of these clowns now attempting to run their Cosa Nostra operation from behind bars? Like Al Capone, or John Gotti? Stealing millions that could have gone for some sheeples cancer medicine instead, deserves charges of MANSLAUGHTER...unfortunatelt tho', it seems the Police force has been bought and paid for, by the White Collar Mafia.

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at September 26, 2006 02:58 PM (Y1ykG)

8 Rae an outsider? I don't think so. He's you-know-who's pick. Won't it be grand if Volpe turns out to be the king maker?

Posted by: beaten down taxpayer at September 26, 2006 03:56 PM (325EP)

9 Please, please please... let it be Bob Rae.

Posted by: neo at September 26, 2006 05:27 PM (wlcdO)

10 I've always liked Bob Rae as a person while distrusting his political ideas: He is simply too willing to believe the "this will fix it" line of anyone who comes along.

Posted by: jw at September 27, 2006 04:32 AM (Lozdz)

11 It strikes me that Rae would likely be another Jimmy Carter, or Paul Martin. The big question about Ignatieff is whether he has the political and leadership skills to apply his vision pragmatically and effectively. He certainly has not demonstrated these skills, although he might possess them.

Posted by: murray at September 27, 2006 10:18 AM (dw9A3)

12 I don't know why the vacancy of Liberal vision is such a revelation to those watching the current lot of hopefuls spew their vacuoud hollow rhetoric,....I have seen the Libral political cartel as being an a-moral, ethicless, visionless entity from the first year of the Chretien regime...they consistantly stole and repackaged Reform policies....other than their policy plagearism, the LPC was/is nothing more than a political "brokerage" cartel/regime which proposed to tender patronage for power...little beyond this consumes their thinking...this is why they seem so fragmented on policy direction or national vision and of necessity fall back on the out moded ossified Trudeaupian ideal....which has proven to be a false and usurped paradigm. The current lot of limp undefined Liberal leadership droids have nothing to offer Canada going forward except rehashing all the old Liberal policies that have proven out to be utter social failures....they also have no unique policy directions that define them....the current "package" of policy and leader they intend to go to the polls with is not definitive nor does it show they have learned WHY Canadians have put them in opposition benches.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at September 28, 2006 10:40 AM (sdMWv)

13 What about Raes HUGE original idea? Uniting the Left through a NDP/Liberal merger. ( which I think would actually kill the liberals and leader to a Harper majority)

Posted by: Kevin Richard at September 30, 2006 10:05 PM (hb/GP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 25, 2006

StopIggy.com revealed? Peeling back the layers

This blog announced the identity of the person behind the Michael Ignatieff anti-campaign website, StopIggy.com. It was Marsha Akman, Liberal Party activist and a member of the party's women's commission.

Well, the truth is likely more complicated. It reads like a spy novel.

Update: Re-considering Marsha Akman's role in this.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:27 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1281 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Nice work on this. But I think it's bigger than just StopIggy. Some campaign, maybe more than one, is using their list for some serious bare knuckle politics.

Posted by: Winnipeg Liberal at September 26, 2006 12:36 AM (EkDmn)

2 Janke, you should have your own detective reality show. It'd be a hit.

Posted by: Warren K at September 26, 2006 07:51 AM (0fM5W)

3 September 14, 2006 - Based on my acquisition of some more interesting emails from StÃƒÂ©phane Dion campaign workers, suspicion continues to mount as to whether the Dion leadership team in British Columbia has a level of access to membership lists that the other campaigns do not. To refresh everyone's memory, two days ago I was told by Regional Returning Officer for BC Kim Haakstaad that Dion campaign worker David Gruber was mistaken when he wrote in an email that he believed that: "all the leadership campaigns have access to the numbers and email addresses in the Party database." This was preceded by president of the Liberal Party of Canada (BC) Jamie Elmhirst's claim that: "[n]o leadership camps have been provided this information from our office, which was emphatically and categorically stated in the meeting." Yet, I have just been contacted by another person who received a mass email encouraging Liberal members to become StÃƒÂ©phane Dion delegates. In this instance, the sender from the Dion campaign was Marlene Brayne, who is the former riding president for Delta-Richmond East. When this individual contacted Ms. Brayne as to how exactly she acquired his/her email address, this was her response: "From: Marlene Brayne To: _______ _________ Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Stephane Dion Campaign in Delta--Richmond East Hi _______, Each of the leadership candidates received a copy of the membership lists. It is from this list that your email was obtained. I do hope that you will come out on September 29, 5 - 10 pm at the Richmond Nature Park (corner of No. 5 Rd and Westminister Hwy) to vote for Mr. Dion, for Leader and myself for delegate to go to the convention in Montreal. Thank you so much, Marlene You can keep up with all of the Liberal events by checking the website www.lpcbc.com" This is the second Dion supporter that has claimed that they received a copy of the membership list complete with email addresses. Yet, as I described in the abovelinked post, "ALL lists that have been provided to the leadership camps thus far have included NO EMAIL ADDRESSES." Now since all party officials are denying the accuracy of both Gruber and Brayne's accounts, I turn my questioning directly to Dion's campaign, and more specifically, national campaign director Mark Marissen. Namely, do you have special access membership emails, or are your two campaign workers mentioned above (plus the several riding contacts whose emails I also have in my possession) just ill informed? Here's hoping Mr. Marrissen, or someone from the Dion campaign, will contact me and offer a response. ...- http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html

Posted by: maz2 at September 26, 2006 08:02 AM (8GlkB)

4 Ah yes, the doctored list used to show who might be leaking info. This is a version of the infamous Canary Trap used by the CIA. I love it! The Liberal leadership contest is now a Tom Clancy novel.

Posted by: Ron at September 26, 2006 09:45 AM (DMNja)

5 Volpe's ghosts: Dead men tell tales. Ask Macbeth. ...- Paul Wells | On the substantial cost of being a moron So two boys were waiting outside Joe VolpeÂ’s news conference today, dressed in ghostly white sheets, one with a HalloweÂ’en mask, carrying a sign that says Â“VolpeÂ’s Got Spirits.Â” Get it? Memberswhip cards to dead Liberals, yuck yuck yuck. So the cameras got their pictures and the pack followed Volpe and his tormenters to the Confederation Building, and then we turned on the boys in sheets and set about figuring out who they are and which rival campaign they work for. One of the little boys (they were in their early 20s; IÂ’m referring to their mental age) got away with little trouble. Several reporters, photographers and cameramen followed the other for several blocks. He shook visibly from fear, all the way, and well he should: if we had found out who sent him to do his anonymous work, it might well have stopped that personÂ’s leadership campaign in its tracks. So letÂ’s sum up. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at September 26, 2006 10:07 AM (5Ukse)

6 This gets stranger and stranger. As a partisan, card-carrying Conservative, I would be really hoping that the guilty campaign is victorious but for one thing --- such a thing would NOT be a good thing for democracy in Canada. The Leader of the Opposition should, like the Leader of the Government (as is the case right now imho), live up to the highest possible ethical standards.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at September 26, 2006 11:47 AM (Uagor)

7 AM, to squeeze a pun from Paul Wells, isn't it an oxy-moron to suggest that the leader of the Liberalparty would - or could - have the highest ethical standards?

Posted by: Rick at September 26, 2006 12:09 PM (Kd8BO)

8 We get the list from party ftp site. therefore there is no seeding.

Posted by: in the know at September 26, 2006 02:39 PM (HNLSR)

9 What has David Herle been up to lately????

Posted by: anonymous at September 26, 2006 08:44 PM (tyzJl)

10 They are burning membership lists in BC. As we speak. Looks good on NDP Bob.

Posted by: KKKfiberal at September 27, 2006 12:12 AM (1+Lce)

11 Actually, this membership list thing sounds more and more like the Yes, Minsiter episode "The Bed of Nails", where Hacker/Humphrey end up jockeying with the PMO, and both parties have tried to turn public opinion against the other through well-timed leaks. Each is trying to force the others hand by threatening a leak inquiry, and neither actually wants the truth to come out. I have a feeling that ALL the main (and less than main) candidates have sold their respective lists to each other, and that publicly acting against one will mean that said campaign would be unafraid to air dirty laundry in return. This could get interesting.

Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child at September 27, 2006 03:30 AM (ukn0y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

StopIggy.com revealed

The fighting in the Liberal leadership campagin is getting dirty, and Michael Ignatieff is the target. So I decide to see what the most famous Michael Ignatieff anklebiter has to say, when I see that the website mysteriously disappeared (not really). But in doing so, she has revealed herself. StopIggy is Marsha Akman, Liberal Party activist and a member of the party's women's commission.

Question: Are you seeing StopIggy.com? Have I been banned?

Update: I can access the site via Internet Explorer but not through Firefox -- still reports "disabled". Odd.

Update: Or is the truth behind StopIggy.com far more complicated?

Update: Re-considering Marsha Akman's role in this.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:00 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1044 words, total size 8 kb.

1 hmmmm... I can see the "stopiggy" cache being added to the liberalmemberships site...

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 25, 2006 01:08 PM (bMbTG)

2 It's ok for women's commission members to be supporting candidates. It is just a branch of the party like the youth wing, or aboriginal commission. it is not to be confused with the commissions set up with the red-ribbon panel.

Posted by: at September 25, 2006 01:09 PM (4uCT6)

3 This is no surprise. The stopiggy vote will go to Bob Rae(IMHO). I think it will now be a 2 way race between Pinko Bobby and Iggy. Poor Mr. Dion..

Posted by: David at September 25, 2006 01:12 PM (zMnsO)

4 In other Liberal Leadership news, the sound of champagne corks were heard popping in the PMO this morning.

Posted by: neo at September 25, 2006 01:15 PM (IhyrH)

5 Chamnpagne corks popping in the morning? Don't tell me our moonbat-filled LOYAL opposition has driven poor Harper to take a few swigs before Question Period

Posted by: Matt at September 25, 2006 01:45 PM (CbkEn)

6 Both of your links for the website work for me...

Posted by: Bruce at September 25, 2006 03:25 PM (mu8bz)

7 steve, i can access stopiggy.com just fine... if you have a static ip, maybe she's filtering you out. **************** it's amazing how many of the moonbat bloggers lock down their comments section, so they can only post the ones they like. i say, even a crackpot like matt (above) should be able to speak his mind. that's the real meaning of democracy.

Posted by: neo at September 25, 2006 03:27 PM (ShbpG)

8 I can see StopIggy just fine.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at September 25, 2006 03:28 PM (F47cQ)

9 I can see StopIggy just fine here on the left coast

Posted by: hoser joe at September 25, 2006 03:35 PM (1dKxB)

10 The website comes up just fine for me. I tried it a couple of times to be sure.

Posted by: OnTory-O at September 25, 2006 03:36 PM (vZGih)

11 I can see stopiggy.com, I also tried a couple of times to be sure.

Posted by: Selma at September 25, 2006 03:39 PM (ifUn9)

12 "So who is more honest...the one that signed fewer dead people?" Thanks for that one Steve.. Classic...with Libs it is always moral relativism...now it's coming back at'em!!

Posted by: Vicki at September 25, 2006 03:43 PM (a+pli)

13 Steve, I can get to the stopiggy website just fine from here in scenic, downtown Aylmer (ON), the centre of the universe (after Left Elbow, Sask). Using Amtelecom which subs to Allstream.

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at September 25, 2006 03:46 PM (TfPle)

14 I too can see the site. Perhaps the airing of the laundry should be done in private - one of these folks is going to win - why give the electorate one more reason NOT to vote Liberal? The Conservatives and NDP should be taking image captures of all these sites and bring them up come election time. You would think the Librano$ would take heed of the most important messages from their The Godfather playbook - never show dissension within the ranks of The Family...

Posted by: at September 25, 2006 04:10 PM (x4k8S)

15 I too can see the site. Perhaps the airing of the laundry should be done in private - one of these folks is going to win - why give the electorate one more reason NOT to vote Liberal? The Conservatives and NDP should be taking image captures of all these sites and bring them up come election time. You would think the Librano$ would take heed of the most important messages from their The Godfather playbook - never show dissent within the ranks of The Family...

Posted by: at September 25, 2006 04:10 PM (x4k8S)

16 oops - sorry about that last double post - thought I caught it in time...

Posted by: at September 25, 2006 04:11 PM (x4k8S)

17 Yes, it would appear as though you've been banned. So much for freedom of the press.

Posted by: Twolane at September 25, 2006 04:14 PM (1AJjd)

18 Yea I can still see it.. funny, all the reasons she's spouting off are exactly the kind of reasons that might give the Liberal party a fighting chance next election... now that Harper has proven to not be "scary" You'd think the more centerist votes they could get would be important. oh well happy for conservatives if the liberals content themselves fighting with the NDP for the 1/3 extreme left votes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. besides from what I can tell just choosing Bob Rae guarentees the conservatives dominance of Ontario...

Posted by: Sierra at September 25, 2006 04:18 PM (CHE53)

19 I just clicked on the link, and I can see the site, no problem.

Posted by: Werner Patels at September 25, 2006 04:20 PM (/V2m6)

20 I can see the site no problem.

Posted by: Bagadonitz at September 25, 2006 04:51 PM (/okQB)

21 Haha, I see it clear as day.

Posted by: Olaf at September 25, 2006 04:54 PM (oDVcs)

22 As of 4:00 PM Mountain time on 25 Sep, I got through no problem to Stop Iggy.

Posted by: Guest at September 25, 2006 05:10 PM (qUA2o)

23 just got in no problem. Maybe you have been iggied at stopiggy....

Posted by: at September 25, 2006 05:33 PM (zMnsO)

24 Maybe it's Kismet...

Posted by: Selma at September 25, 2006 05:40 PM (ifUn9)

25 I'm using Firefox (1.5.0.7; javascript disabled) and I got through to the site no problem. Opera (latest released version) worked fine too. Great blog, Steve. Holmwood

Posted by: Holmwood at September 25, 2006 05:47 PM (yssK7)

26 stopiggy displays okay for me using Firefox/1.5 ("Deer Park") on (Debian "Sid") Linux. Banned from a protest site? Now that would be funny. Have you tried flushing your browser & DNS caches?

Posted by: Paul O at September 25, 2006 05:50 PM (isLIk)

27 Well, it looks like www.stopiggy.com does not work for me (says the site is temporarily unavailable) BUT just "stopiggy.com" works (without the "www" prefix). That might explain the discrepancies.

Posted by: JW at September 25, 2006 06:30 PM (uU0hH)

28 That is really weird, JW. I get through WITH the "www" prefix, and NOT without.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at September 25, 2006 07:43 PM (Uagor)

29 Anonymous said... She wasn't the only owner of that site: "Shawn Jackson, a Toronto man in whose name the website was registered, said he was trying to take his name off the registration because he only helped get the site online. ''I didn't really make it, somebody else is responsible for the content,'' he said, though he declined to name anyone." http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=fce6c772-c2d4-4815-9ba2-987a173f6915&k=10183 The other issue was who sent out the mailing using the new member list that was only given to the leadership campaigns. Story isn't done. ...- http://curiouslyliberal.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-marsha-akman-responsible-for-stop.html

Posted by: maz2 at September 25, 2006 07:50 PM (TXYhz)

30 it works for me (using firefox).

Posted by: Mike F at September 25, 2006 07:56 PM (wfQ94)

31 I can see the site with or without the 'www' prefix, on IE, Firefox, and Safari. Steve, since you can view it on IE, I'm guessing you haven't been banned. Seems like you've jumped the gun (yet again). Why, by the way, did your mind go immediately to "Have I been banned?" What would be the purpose? There's no comment section on StopIggy, so it's not like the webmaster there was trying to keep out trolls. And in this day and age, trying to stop a specific person from accessing a public site through static IP blocking would be rather naive and pointless, no? I worry you're getting a bit big for your britches...

Posted by: A at September 25, 2006 10:44 PM (YK2nB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

158kb generated in CPU 0.0396, elapsed 0.1059 seconds.
111 queries taking 0.0788 seconds, 440 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11854
Files: 28
Bytes: 140.0M
CPU Time: 11:00
Queries: 1036012

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

September 30, 2006

September 29, 2006

September 28, 2006

September 27, 2006

September 26, 2006

September 25, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds