Mike Brock: February 2008 Archives

They post comments like this on blogs:


Yes, after going through my IP logs and with some research assistance from Kate McMillan, I tracked down Don's true identity, after his posted this comment on my blog.

The commenter's real name is Don Beemer.  He has a blog here. [Update: Link no longer works]  He is the Vice President of the Liberal Party of Canada in Manitoba's executive.

He's also a vice president of Jory Capital Inc.  His employment at the firm was one of the first things confirmed by this quick search on my server:

[localhost:~]$ nslookup 205.200.75.197
Server: 192.168.250.1
Address: 192.168.250.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
197.75.200.205.in-addr.arpa name = mail.jorycapital.com.

Don seems to have quite a long involvement in politics.  This site here says he was a loyal Chretienite.

He's also been (or still is), treasurer for the Better Business Bureau Manitoba.

Lots of great life accomplishments, Don. I mean, it's surprising that you've come this far, given your apparent maturity.

Update (March 4, 2007)

Don Beemer called me today, to graciously apologize.  He took responsibility for his words.  That was big of him, and I appreciate that.  I accept his apology and hope people remember that the internet is not anonymous.  You can be held accountable for your words, and you should be held accountable.  

Don also invited me out for a beer the next time I'm out in Winnipeg.  I may take him up on that offer.

Questions

| | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)
As I posted yesterday, Mike Duffy, of CTV, claims that Chuck Cadman told him in confidentiality, that he would never vote against the budget for personal reasons related to his life insurance.

The Liberal's who are going out of their way to hold Chuck Cadman up on a pedestal, as the greatest MP to ever live, are basically saying that Chuck Cadman is a liar without calling him a liar.

If the Liberal's are right, and Cadman was bribed by the Conservative's, then Chuck Cadman is, in fact: a liar.  You can't get around this fact.

Today, Chuck Cadman's daughter, Jodi Cadman says that her father confided in her about the million dollar insurance offer, backing up her mother's story.  She said that her father could not talk about the bribe publicly "while he was alive". Why?

Why couldn't he talk about it publicly while he was alive?  He didn't do anything wrong.  If Dona Cadman is to be believed, he threw two men out of an office trying to bribe him.

I know this is really insensitive, and all that, but: why should we believe anything that they are saying?

Today, Liberal's are convinced that Harper's mentioning of "financial considerations" in the Tom Zytaruk tape, proves that the Conservative's offered Cadman a million dollars; another one of those great leaps of logic.  But I'm not sure that Conservatives ever denied that they would try to help out in the event that there was an election.  He was offered an uncontested riding, and told that if he would like to join the party, they could help him financially in the event of an election, if there were "financial issues" for Cadman going into an election.

That's what Harper more or less alluded to in the tape, and in he PMO press statement on Wednesday.

There's another possibility to all of this: that Cadman himself didn't consider it a bribe, but rather an "open door invitation" to come back to the party, with financial assistance in the event of an election.  Maybe he was angry by this, because of how the party had treated him years earlier.  

Maybe Dona and Jodi Cadman's perception of the story were ultimately different from Chuck's own view on it.

Not to mention that the million-dollar insurance policy is so implausible, considering there isn't a single insurance underwriter in the country that would award a policy to a man dying of cancer.

Also, the burden of proof is not on the Conservatives to prove they didn't bribe Cadman.  The burden of proof is on their accusers to prove they did.

Update (my comment at Unambiguously Ambidextrous): 

"I think my post may have been worded poorly. I don't necessarily think that the Cadman's are lying. But none of this makes sense.

Watching Mike Duffy Live today, I believe that his daughter is probably telling the truth. However, could Cadman have been miscommunicating to his family, the specifics.

By his daughters own admission in the interview today, she says that he only really told her a few sentences on the subject and nothing more.

She seems to accept there could be some kind of misunderstanding as to what took place. She described her own understanding of it as "gray".

I guess my post took such a hard-line, as a reaction to the way the Liberal's are running with this."
Steve Janke appears to have noticed something that I didn't: Jason Cherniak either has access to IntraParl, the Parliament of Canada's intranet, or some insider leaked him information on Valentin Erikson.

I'm not exactly sure on the relationship between Jason and the hill.  I know he is the president of a riding association in Ontario.  I know he's like, the Liberal's top-blogger guy.  But Im pretty sure he doesn't work on the hill.

If not, then why did he have a screenshot from IntraParl on his blog?

intraparl_2.jpg

Care to explain?

Umm...

| | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (0)
From Mike Duffy Live, CTV Newsnet, February 28:

Mike Duffy: "Can I share something with you, which I haven't shared publicly until now?  ... And that is in private conversations with me, Chuck Cadman told me, that there was no way he was going to vote against the Martin government, because he was concerned of the potential impact it might have on the insurance settlement for his wife Dona.  In other words: if he died while a sitting MP, Chuck told me, 'that would double or virtually double the payout to his widow' and he didn't 'dare take a risk forcing an election', even if he was confident of being elected, for fear of some legal hassle involving an insurance payout ..."


Afternoon Notes

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

On Chuck...

I'm believing the Chuck Cadman bribery story less and less.  I don't want to call Dona Cadman a liar, or even the late Chuck a liar, because I have no right to do so, but I am incredibly suspicious of the story.

Chuck Cadman actually struck me as an honorable guy, who would have certainly brought this to the media's attention.  But Chuck Cadman himself, told Mike Duffy in a television interview, the only thing the Conservatives offered him was the ability to return to the party with an uncontested riding in the next election.  He never mentioned a one-million-dollar insurance policy.

In fact, his wife is the only one to have ever mentioned it.  She is the only one who can testify to it. She claims she heard it second hand from Chuck.  

I won't call her a liar, but I also wouldn't be inclined to pass judgement on the Conservatives at this point either. 

On Warren Kinsella's website...

It appears that Warren Kinsella's website was genuinely hit with a denial of service attack.  You know, Warren's position on things piss me off.  I'm sure I piss him off.  But you know what also pisses me off?  People who use their computer skills as weapons.

If some conservative-leaning dipshit hacker did this, I want nothing to do with him/her.  In fact, if I knew who they were, I'd forward their contact details to Warren in a split second (CC'd to the police).

On the same bent, I think it's awfully inappropriate for Warren in assume that Kate McMillan is somehow, albeit indirectly, responsible.  

For a lawyer who likes to threaten libel suits against bloggers on a regular basis, Warren Kinsella holds no bars in suggesting that Kate McMillan is a nazi with nicknames like KKKate, etc.

Update: Just deleted a comment from this post, that was just a personal attack on Dona Cadman.  Normally, I don't moderate comments, but if you want to attack someone in that way, then at least have the guts to post with your real name. 

Cadman Bribed?

| | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
This is clearly going to be the political story for the next few days at least, so I thought I'd get out in front of it.

If Chuck Cadman was bribed by the Conservative's to vote a certain way, then that is an inexcusable criminal offense.  It really is.  

But here's what I don't get about all this: Stephen Harper casually admitted to the meeting at the time, and the PMO even released a statement on Wednesday confirming the meeting, and Dona Cadman, Chuck's widow, is now running for the Conservative party!

It just seems like there is something missing in all this.  

Harper said they offered to financial accommodate Cadman, so he didn't have to worry about an election, if he came over to the Conservative Party.  

That's the important crux of this, that would indicate criminality or not.  If the Conservative or a representative of the Conservatives were offering a bribe for him to vote against the Liberal government, then that would be illegal. But if they were trying to coerce him to defect to the party, even though you could argue it amounts to the same thing, it would be a completely different matte as a question of lawr; it wouldn't be criminal at all.  Unethical, perhaps. Not criminal.
  
Now Stephen Harper is a pretty smart guy.  Someone like Harper would know how serious bribing an MP, especially a dying MP would be, so the fact he admitted to this meeting so casually makes me think that maybe something happened that: 1. Stephen Harper honestly doesn't know about, or 2. something has been taken out of context.

Dona Cadman, who is making the allegation, is also running for the Conservative Party, and she seems to be quite casual about the whole ordeal too. 

... and if Chuck Cadman was bribed, and he was pissed off about it, why didn't he go to the media bout it?

I just don't get it.  Blanks need filling.

Update: Thinking more about this... "a million dollar life insurance policy".  Not to sound too crass, but what insurance company hands out a million dollar life insurance policy to someone dying of cancer?  And the Conservative Party certainly couldn't afford to just throw a million dollars at him without it going unnoticed.  
Erickson+attack.png

The above image was taken from this post at Jason Cherniak's website. I took a screenshot of his blog, just in case it's removed.

The image posted appears to come from Valentin Erikson, a parliamentary staffer with the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately there are two very peculiar elements in this "evidence".  

The first, is only the first name is highlighted blue as a hotlink to his facebook profile.  Facebook highlights the entire name in messages posted.  I'm too lazy to post a screenshot of that right now, but you can go look for yourself.

The second, is the time: 19:32am.  This makes no sense. 19:32 would be PM.  

If I had to guess, somebody captured the HTML from facebook, modified it, and then took a screenshot of it.  

Unfortunately they did a very sloppy job.

Jason Cherniak asks:

What are the Conservatives going to do about this?

Umm, let's see:  hire Mr. Erikson a lawyer, and file a libel claim?

Update: Kate points out that the siege on the Estonian embassy was in April 2007.  The comment was dated November of 2006, which completes the triangle of mistruth surrounding this ordeal.

Update 2: Jason Cherniak says he's "gone back to the source of the image for clarification".   So at least we know now that Jason doesn't check his sources when it comes to smearing political opponents.  He's also fine with people calling opponents of Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, Nazi sympathizers, by the way.

Update 3: Jason's source "Marcus" has had an inconvenient hard drive crash, and therefore, further evidence is "missing".   He admits to editing the time stamp (why the hell would you do this?), but fails to explain the anomaly with the hyperlink (the last name is solid black).

Update 4: Jason expands on the previous explanation he offered from Marcus, which still cannot be substantiated.  On a side note:  I have been doing digging throughout Facebook and can find no evidence whatsoever that Valentin even logged into Facebook on February 20th 2008.  There is no activity on his profile on that day, nor can I find activity from him on that day elsewhere.

You see, Jason is going to continue to publish this material simply on his friend's word, despite all the doubt which has been cast around it.  Jason feels that this is an acceptable level of proof to support attributing a quote to someone, who denies saying it.

If I were Jason, I would retract the post pending real evidence.  Marcus also needs to admit to fudging this "evidence" and apologize, or show us the meat.  Giving us a dog-ate-my-homework story is not going to cut it, when it comes to character assassination and the accusation of impropriety on the part of someone, which could cost someone their job.

Update 5: APOLOGY AND RETRACTION

Jason Cherniak Issued the following statement on his blog:

Over the past few days I have written extremely critical comments about a Parliamentary staffer named Valentin Erikson. I now realize that my posts were based on factual inaccuracies, and my comments weren't fair. I have therefore taken down my blog posts on the subject.

Besides retracting my statements, I would like to offer my sincere apology to Mr. Erikson for any embarrassment I have caused him.
It's an unfortunate twist of history that started on September 11th 2001, that brings us to this day.  

America has always been our greatest ally, our friends, and in some cases, part of our family.  But today this is less and less the case.  

I am not a fan of George W. Bush.  Sure, I am right-wing as all hell.  But Bush has been a president of incompetence, security expediency at the expense of human rights and due process, and put the US government finances into such disarray, that a recession is bound to be disastrous to the US treasury.  It's an elephant in the room that nobody in the US acknowledges exists, except for a few unheard warnings from people like Alan Greenspan and a senator or two.

What Canadian conservatives need to learn to understand, is that America doesn't like you, either.  You're an outsider.  You represent another vector of potential threat to America, economically and otherwise.

I am a big supporter of NAFTA, and free trade in general.  But both American Democrats and Republicans are increasingly eyeing a withdrawal from the agreement.   

Despite my disdain for Bush, his administration has represented one of the last remaining political beachheads for free trade and fair immigration in the US. It's fight which is slowly being lost. 

Many Americans are now eminently aware that the Canadian economy is outperforming the American economy.  And they're increasingly coming to the conclusion that we're getting rich off their backs.  It's a false perception, but with increasingly isolationist leanings in the US, it's a perception that both Democrat and Republican politicians are moving in to capitalize on.

Americans are now only our friends in name only.   They don't care about us.  If you tell an American that they depend on Canada for electricity, oil, and natural gas, they'll tell you they need to reduce their dependency on us, then.  

Even the Harper government realizes this new reality.  It's why the Harper government has failed to shore up closer ties with the US; US interests are increasingly becoming divergent than our own: the US does not want free trade, they want trade which favors them.

These are very sad times for me, as someone who has spent a great deal of my life living in the United States, and always being the lone pro-American in the room.  But it's time to face reality: America may not be evil, they may have good intentions, but they just don't care about you.  Especially not anymore.

Some Republican congressmen even want to build a wall along the 49th parallel, similar to one proposed along the southern Mexican border. A far cry from the friendship building of the Ronald Reagan era.

So when Canadian conservatives go out of their way to support American republicans, remember this.   Remember that they'll take your support, thank you for it, and then slap an import tariff in your face.

A bit of personal experience with the new America: when I was hired at my current job, which is an American company, I had to travel to the United States for my orientation.  The US immigration agent at the border questioned me as such:

Agent: Citizenship?

Me: Canadian.

Agent: Where are you going today?

Me: North Carolina.

Agent: Why?

Me: I have just been hired by XXXXX and I am going for a two day orientation.

(I produce a letter from my employer, along with relevant documentation)

Agent: Where do you physically work?

Me: In Toronto.

Agent: So this company has offices in Toronto?

Me: Yes.

Agent: I don't understand why the orientation can't be done in Toronto, then.

Me: Well, that's just how the company does it.

Agent: What exactly will this orientation consist of?

Me: Understanding company policies, such an insider trading rules, etc.

Agent: It just doesn't make any sense to me that you should have to travel to the United States for this.  If this company wants to do business in Canada, then it should do business in Canada.  

(Angrily hands documentation back to me)

Agent: Alright.  

(Gestures for me to go, clearly agitated)

This was a pretty unnerving experience.  I had a similar one recently on a business trip to the United Sates.   When I used to live in the US and travel back and forth, back before 9/11, I never had experiences like this.

It's certainly not isolated to me.   I have heard stories of people who commute to the US on a daily basis from places like Windsor, now regularly being hassled by border agents in similar aggressive and rude ways.

It underscores the importance of what is happening in the US, and the perception of their allies, as nothing more than friends of convenience.

For Canada's own economic security, we need to strongly focus on broadening our economic horizons with other countries.  And soon.

I don't say this out of spite.  I say it out of practicality.  I hope that one day we return to a time where the US and Canada will once again be moving closer together, not apart.  But as the saying goes: we need to be looking out for number one.

Budget 2008

| | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (1)
Here's my post-budget analysis: Stephane Dion is a flake. Jack Layton is a turd. Gilles Duceppe is a dork.  



I've been tagged.

Share six non-important things/habits/quirks about yourself.

1) I serially sleep-in and hate morning more than anything else in life.

2) I drink far too much coffee.

3) I talk to my cat.

4) For some reason when I get really excited, I like to touch the back of my head.  I've never really understood my compulsion for doing that.

5) I spend way too much money on electronic gadgets I don't need.

6) I like to shower in the dark.

Tagging:

If you're not familiar with the Mark Lemire case, and Richard Warman lawsuit against Ezra Levant, then start here.

...

Since the evidence in the affidavit from the Mark Lemire case is difficult for the layman to understand, I thought I would bring my technical expertise to bear to help people parse what the gist of the evidence is. So, I created an infographic:

lemire-evidence-thumbnail.png

Judge for yourself.

Disclaimer: I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the evidence, by which I compiled this inforgraphic.  However, the evidence in question, was submitted as a sworn affidavit, by a third-party expert witness.  

Warman Emerges

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
Richard Warman has named Ezra Levant in a libel claim. Ezra is going to fight, but he's going to need both moral and financial support to see this through.

This time Mr. Warman will need to respond to evidence that seems to suggest he was planting evidence at websites he in turn prosecuted before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  

Warman, in official transcripts, appears to have contradicted himself under oath.  More curiously, the Human Rights Tribunal seemingly obtained records from Rogers Communications, which were never disclosed, and the HRT simply tossed aside the whole issue as immaterial.  Was it immaterial?   If it was, then why weren't the records made public, or made available to the respondents in the case?

These are questions that Ezra will put to Warman in a real court of law. 

Sarah and I have pledged some modest financial support for Ezra, and will continue to do so as we can afford it.  If you can afford it, and these issues are important to you, then I hope you can donate too.

Habeas Corpus

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)
People who know me, who've read about my stances on fighting Islamic fascism, and fighting to defend liberty may not be aware of my position on the Canadian Government's use of security certificates: I am positively a naysayer. 

Brought in by the Liberal Party as part of the anti-terrorism legislation passed after the September 11th attacks, these certificates are issued by the Solicitor General of Canada, and have the effect of detaining indefinitely, foreign nationals living in Canada, without charge.

The justification for the use of this system is sound in and of itself; detain foreign nationals, for whom our intelligence agencies have reason to believe represent a threat to national security.   

The real effect of the security certificates however, is to lower the burden on law enforcement, remove the principle of habeas corpus from the process, and detain the individuals for as long is necessary to collect evidence to prosecute the case.

Certainly the use of security certificates is restricted to non-citizens, and some would say that the presence of non-citizens in Canada is a matter of privilege (agreed), and therefore due process does not apply (no-agree).

Today, the government has finally released the basis for the use of security certificates against five foreign nationals.  

In the case of four of the detained, it would seem that the suspicion of conspiracy is tied with real criminal action.  But in the case of the fifth man, now free on house arrest, Mohamed Harkat, the entire basis for his detention was entirely hinged on hearsay.  His name was allegedly mentioned by Ahmed Ressam, in interrogations with US authorities.  And I say allegedly, because even CSIS acknowledges they have no recorded proof that Ahmed Ressam ever uttered his name.

As much as what CSIS tells me about Harkat makes me suspicious of his motives, one must  sit back and be reasonable and ask one self if: maybe-some-guy-said-to-some-US-guy-that-some-terrorist-guy-said-something is justification for indefinite detention?

Could it be justification for deportation? Almost definitely.  In fact, I would argue, that it would have been far more appropriate for Canadian authorities to revoke his status in Canada on the grounds of "national security concerns" and deport him.

I know even this won't satisfy the bleeding hearts out there who don't even believe terrorism really exists (it's a Machevallian CIA plot, you know), but it's more than appropriate to apply high security standards to immigration process.

I must admit though: I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that CSIS is a complete incompetent organization.  

If I were working Harkat's case at CSIS, with reason to believe he was part of a sleeper cell, I'd setup a tight surveillance network around Harkat to collect real evidence of his involvement with a terrorist organization, especially to help track down other members of the network.  

I just don't see what having him detained on the hearsay of some other captured terrorist, for whom we have little to no reason to believe, is a productive approach to combatting terrorism.

The free speech movement in this country has recently been galvanized by the encroachments on our liberty by Human Rights Commissions.  We must also remember that legal due process is an important part of our liberty.  It is another safeguard against fascist tendencies of ideologues.

If we believe in our system, our democracy, then surely we don't throw it away in the name of public safety, because I contend that the threat of tyranny is far more ominous to me than any terrorist organization.
For the third time over the past few months, Jason Cherniak moderated-away my criticism in his blogs comment section, in response to this ridiculous post.

In my comment, I pointed out that most website designers (and advertisers) rely on stock imagery of people, places and things, licensed from a third-party such as Getty Images or Corbis

The woman who appears at the porn site, and in Conservative advertising is certain to have come from one of these sources.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone took the time, that they found that the image was from one of the two mentioned sources.
I will be a guest panelist on the Michael Coren Show on CTS this coming Monday to talk about various news items.

Check you local listings.
I figured that if I was going to do some serious blogging, I should have a serious blog.  So effectively immediately, I am discontinuing all posts at the old place, and starting here at the new place.

Although I posses the technical competence to import over all my old posts to this new blog, I have decided to start fresh.

I will keep my old blog up indefinitely so people can continue to reference my archives.

I'll be working over the next few days to get the template a little more customized and homey.  MovableType is much easier to work with, so hopefully this will be a little more fun.