Saturday, January 24, 2009
ELEGY FOR MY MOTHER
Reta May Keeler (01/11/1912 - 01/24/2004)
In your beginning was the blood and the breath,
the sharp inhalation of the carnal chaos of life.
Born 6 lb., 6 oz. in the pubescence of a century
of unprecedented carnage and creativity,
the state marked the occasion with certificate 12 05 037696.
In the unelectric world,
devoid of devices of diversion,
you flourished in family
and began your career
pushing placenta and parenthood
onto the open palm of life.
And so you earned
your Bachelor of Mom degree,
graduating into grandchildren
for the Masters of Mom,
but the world wasn't finished
with your dissertation of lineage
and great grandchildren won you
the Doctorate of Motherhood
My trees are not yet barren
because it is September,
but for you, my mother,
a cold wind swept down
with January ferocity,
liberating your soul
for post graduate work with the angels.
Your spirit is a kite tethered with umbilical love
and gentle unto the good days,
memories like random breezes tug
-- what is the wind but a woman
loving us with caressing directions.
Your life straddled two millennia.
Your children born in peacetime
bracketed the world's worst war;
so I enjoyed your memories
of the pre tek world,
of the pre penicillin world;
from pre flight to post lunar landings,
your life was grounded
graceful as a backyard garden.
I regularly visited to mine your memories,
plucking nuggets of ageless gossip.
On the weekend of your death
I meant to ask you about your first kiss
but you replied with your last three diminishing breaths,
like the ellipsed ending of a love long life sentence...
Defiant of Death Certificate 422 372 045
you will remain an unfinished poem
carried into the interstellar future
on the crest of code of dna,
forever in a state of becoming...
Friday, January 23, 2009
On May 1, 2006, the editor of the Cobourg Daily Star published a column entitled, “Exploitation, Not Entertainment.” The editor was referring to the just released movie, United 93.
This movie (not the schmaltzy sentimental slop of the tv movie entitled Flight 93) was an exceedingly astute portrayal of the doomed flight that had been hijacked by a pack of Islamaniacs on 9/11. The passengers realized their plight and attempted to take back control of the airliner. They heroically succeeded in preventing the jet reaching its intended destination, thereby preventing a greater loss of life, by causing it to crash in a Pennsylvania field.
The movie added no dramatic fictional flair. It wasn’t needed. It was a dramatic heroic tragedy as it was. The script utilized the actual dialogue that had been recorded in the cockpit, from passengers cell-phone calls to loved ones, from the control tower and from various other official recordings of personnel trying to make sense of a senseless act. The movie included many of the actual participants in the event playing themselves and repeating their own words, completely unadorned. The movie could hardly have been more authentic.
But the editor of the Cobourg Daily Star, all puffed up with sanctimonious arrogance declared the movie to be purely “exploitive.” Take a moment to let that sink in. The editor, who had not seen the movie, and asserted that they would not go to see the movie, declared far and wide that it was “exploitive.” It served no purpose than to make money. The movie and its producers were venal, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
So yes, I get it. The editor would never dream of doing anything that could be deemed as “exploitive” themselves. They would never publish anything sensationalist just for the sake of earning a few bucks extra from increased readership. Nope, not the sanctimonious editor of the estrogen dominated Cobourg Daily Star.
This brings me around to the story and photograph that the editor of Northumberland Today, the very sanctimonious editor, published on their web site, the photograph of Cobourg Police Service Sgt Mclean, who leapt out of a swooping unmarked police car and high-tailed it to take-down a deer-in-the-headlights suspect. What drama!
Forget asking any questions about the provenance of the photograph. How did the photographer get there ahead of time, to be able to park his car strategically, take his hands off the wheel, pick up his digital camera, press the button to open the lens, then press the button to take the photograph of Sgt Mclean bravely bounding towards the suspect.
The photographer was already there to eyewitness at least two unmarked police vehicles swooping into the driveway – that’s what was said in the article accompanying the photograph. After all the unmarked police cars didn’t wait there until the photographer arrived, parked and prepared to photograph before leaping out of their unmarked cars. The photographer was there ahead of time.
The suggestion that the photographer knew this take-down was going to happen and precisely where it was going to happen via a scanner is ludicrous. Biker gangs and drug gangs have access to sophisticated scanners. The Cobourg Police Service knows this. Cobourg Police Chief, Paul Sweet acknowledged this in his email to me. So here we have prima facie evidence of sloppy police procedure, of Cobourg officers transmitting drug takedown information including the address of the takedown over the radio waves for all and sundry to hear. What incredible dereliction.
But none of this matter to the editor in control of Northumberland Today. What matters most of all is to pay out cash to the photographer to get scooping rights to publish this dramatic action photo. Now, THAT is exploitation. What a sanctimonious hypocrite the editor!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Every day comes up with a surprise. The Port Hope Police are now looking in on the case of action hero, Sgt McLean of the Cobourg Police Services, the take-down artist du jour. And they sign in first shift in the morning -- bright eyed and bushy tailed.
Have the Port Hope Police been called in a independent investigators of the Keeler shit-disturbin' whistle-blower? Or did the Port Hope Police decide to do a bit of cyber-sleuthing to gloat over their Cobourg compatriot's embarrassment? Or did they look into the matter as a lesson of how not to behave with ambulance chasing photoniks? Or perhaps they looked in to see the Police Chief's elementary school level grammer and spelling, and general inability to compose a coherent sentence on the fly?
Either the Cobourg Police Services is incompetent in their radio chatter and broke professional operating procedure for drug takedowns OR they have a rogue element in the force betraying the public trust and leaking privileged info to unauthorized personnel.
We can be sure that the estrogen-run editorial staff of the Cobourg Daily Star will not look into the matter because, lets face it, they don't really care about the public trust being betrayed by a rogue element or by shabby operating procedures. They don't really care about transparency and accountability by public officials. Because they prefer to keep their sensationalist and exploitive action photonik on tap.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
One would think that whenever there is prima facie evidence of betrayal of the public trust by a taxpayer-supported organization, the news media would rise up in its self-appointed role as the watch dog for the public interest. I mean the news media brags about that role time and again. Where is the Cobourg Daily Star? Is it asking questions? Well, really, they are the beneficiary of the leak-stink. They make money. They published the photo, not for the public interest, but to make a buck, in the same manner as a supermarket tabloid, catering to the lowest common denominator.
I’ll comment on the Cobourg Daily Star’s role on my blog tomorrow, if I have time -- I'm attending an art show opening downtown Montreal. I need to rub elbows with arsty fartsies.
But Beware if you drop into my blog, the cops are watching. BTW, their IP address is 188.8.131.52. Drop in and say hi to them.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Cobourg Police Service under no circumstances provides any information on a privileged investigations to any unauthorized organization.Regarding the opening sentence, I’m not sure if Chief Sweet is referring to a plural or single investigation, nevertheless, it is simply a standard statement of policy.
I do not know specifically how the media person you refer to was able to be at the scene of our investigation. I can however state that the Cobourg Police Service did not officially release any notification to any member of the media prior.
I do know generally that a number of Media have very sophisticated devices
for monitoring our communications dispite our best efforts to avoid this. Also, there is no legislation that prohibits the monitoring of our communications. This not only applys to the Cobourg Police Service but unfortunatly most Police Services.
Once the Media is on scene they cannot obstruct police in their investigation but they also enjoy their rights also.
In the second paragraph he asserts his personal ignorance of how the media person was able to be at the scene of the takedown. I do believe Chief Sweet when he asserts that CPS “did not officially release” privileged information prior. It’s not the official release that is of concern.
The significant sentence concerns “very sophisticated devices for monitoring.” It is generally known that biker gangs, drug gangs and other unsavoury mob members have good reason to utilize the best scanner devices their laundered money can buy. CPS knows this.
A top dollar police organization knows enough not to broadcast privileged or compromising information over police radio waves. It is standard operating procedure.
The drug takedown at Campbell Street was exceedingly well planned and executed. All of this was prepared prior to the police cars hitting the street. CPS would have enough professionalism and enough sense of security about broadcasting takedown information that there would be absolutely no need for radio chatter. The most sophisticated scanner in the world would never have picked up anything about this takedown – unless, of course, CPS did not act with the utmost professionalism and security.
How stupid would it be if any CPS personnel broadcast the address of their target while in their vehicles on the way to the takedown scene? Every officer in their cruiser knew full well what the address was. Again, it is standard operating procedure.
There are two entrances to Campbell Street. It was a classic pincher operation, one marked cruiser coming in off University, the other off Darcy. They stopped in position, ready to act in the event of an escape attempt by the suspects, while two unmarked cars swooped into the driveway and we see the first officer, Sgt Mclean, running towards the suspect.
Radio communication would not be necessary unless and until something happened outside of the planned execution of the takedown. If there was an attempt by a suspect to escape there would be instant radio chatter to facilitate intervention of the escape.
With unbelievable coincidence, the photographer was already in place to witness the unmarked cars swooping into the driveway. This is according the story posted with the photograph. At 4pm the sun is well in the west, and we can see that sunshine is splashing on the face of Sgt Mclean and in the back of the head of the suspect. This places the house on the west side of Campbell Street but at the north end, according to the story, at the curve of the street. The car of the photographer was facing north across the street; note the yellow bar on the lower left of the picture and the rear frame of another car on the lower right of the frame.
The presence of the photographer in that particular location prior to the unmarked cars swooping into the driveway could well have compromised the police operation.
So to recap: CPS would not have been so unprofessional and lacking in security consciousness that they would have broadcast the location of the takedown over their radio system such that criminals using sophisticated scanners would have had advanced knowledge. This leaves only the higher probability that someone employed by CPS with access to privileged information provided advance knowledge to a private individual to be there.
The photographer has good motivation to accept such privileged information. There is money to be made from action shots. Supermarket tabloids love this sort of imagery. Some rogue CPS employee facilitates this for the aggrandizement of CPS in the public eye.
If anyone wonders why I have so easily dismissed the non-denial denial in Chief Sweet’s letter they can read page 1 and page 2 of a letter that Solicitor-General, Warren Allmand, had sent to Northumberland MP, Allan Lawrence, pertaining to an incident that happened to me many moon ago. Allmand wrote, “I have been assured by the R.C.M.P. that it is not their practice to intercept private mail . . .” This turned out not to be true and the Royal MacDonald Commission was set up a few years later to look into this and other RCMP misdeeds. Many of the documents pertaining to this can be seen here and here.
(1) They can listen to a scanner
(2) They listened to a scanner
Sentence 1 is a diversionary tactic, often utilized by sleazy politicians, notably those caught in a scandal, Watergate, adscam, etc. In journalistic circles and triangles it is known as the non-denial denial. It is utilized by those who have contempt for the reader/listener that they assume to be too stupid and/or illiterate to notice.
Sentence 1 acts like a squirt of ink from a spineless octopus to conceal its escape. It is non-transparency. The news media extol themselves as watchdogs for the public interest and demand more transparency from assorted organs. They cite the strengthening of public trust that comes from transparency of organs that serve the public.
Sentence 2 is transparently assertive. It is presented as solid fact.
Yes, a scanner can be utilized by a private individual. It's a typical tool of ambulance chasers.
Was this the case in this particular instance? Let’s assume that this was the case and examine the photograph that resulted.
The photographer has his squawkbox tuned in to the Cobourg Police band. He is just pulling out of the Tim Hortons drive-thru when he hears that there is going to be a surprise takedown on Campbell Street. The story describes that marked police cars parked several houses away, presumably out of site of the individual to be taken down.
An unmarked car “swooped into the driveway” and out popped Sgt Mclean who ran towards the suspect. The photograph indicates that the photographer was well positioned to catch Sgt Mclean running.
The photographer must have arrived at the site a moment or two before the unmarked car “swooped into the driveway.” The photographer must have learned of the address of the surprise takedown while in transit. Arriving at the takedown site, the photographer had to park at an opportune site, which must have been selected prior to the unmarked car “swooping into the driveway.” Lots of snow around, so the photographer would have been unable to slam on the brakes for a full stop, so that would have added an extra second or two to the photographer to catch the scoop of the week photo-op.
Once the photographer came to a full stop, he would have taken his hands off the wheel, reached for the digital camera, pushed the button releasing the lens, then taken the photograph of Sgt Mclean in full flight after having just swooped into the driveway.
So how many seconds would it have taken from the moment that the unmarked police car swooped in, stopped, Sgt Mclean getting out, and running towards the suspect. Note that Sgt Mclean had not yet reached the suspect – he was a car length away.
It’s quite a stretch to believe that a photographer, that obtained the address on a scanner, could drive to that address, prior to the swooping unmarked car to arrive, come to an advantageous stop, prep his camera and take a photo of Sgt Mclean in full flight.
All of this assumes that the Cobourg Police Services (CPS) who are going to conduct a drug takedown utilizing unmarked cars would be stupid enough to broadcast the address on a police band radio. After all, CPS knows full well that biker gangs, drug gangs and other criminally-inclined people also can possess scanners – so concealment of a takedown is the order of the day for CPS.
Furthermore, CPS is not a Keystone Kops organization – they know enough to encrypt their communications when it comes to drug takedowns. Perhaps the photographer is in possession of a decoding device. Hardly.
It is more likely that someone within CPS betrayed their oath of office and leaked privileged information to a private individual who has no commitment to the public at large. That oath of office is taken to strengthen public trust – it is the public that pays for this service. It should not be the role of the news media to undermine this public trust – for what? A mere sensationalist scoop? Is that all it takes for a news organ to act unethically?
Monday, January 19, 2009
What are the chances that a Northumberland Today (NT) or free lance photographer coincidentally happened upon a surprise arrest of a suspect in a residential area? Is it safe to assume that the action-photo was a mutual masturbation opportunity between the Cobourg Police and NT or a close free lancer?
Cobourg Police Sgt. Peter Mclean runs up the driveway as a suspect
was boosting a child's ATV on Friday afternoon at a Campbell Street residence in
Cobourg on Friday afternoon. Northumberland Publishers/Sun Media
The question arises as to why the Cobourg Police chose Northumberland Today rather than Northumberland News. Or did it? Do the Cobourg police have a policy regarding it’s relationship with local news organizations, especially informing private individuals outside the police department about a pending action to arrest another private individual on a criminal charge?
Can any private individual obtain the privilege of being informed ahead of time of a pending arrest of another private individual? If so, how can I apply to be included, so that I can exploit the opportunity and make a bit of money to supplement my pension. Surely the Cobourg Police Dept has a vetting process from which it selects its favourites.
Does the Cobourg Police Dept have a rotating selection process for its photo-ops? Perhaps once a week for Northumberland Today and the following week for Northumberland News, and the third week from a free lancer?
Does Cobourg Council approve of the Cobourg Police Department contacting select private individuals to provide insider knowledge of a pending arrest of another private individual?
What is the purpose of the Cobourg Police contacting private individuals to provide this insider knowledge before the suspect (presumed innocent) knows about it?
The Northumberland Today is motivated by getting a scoop, increasing sales – the noble pursuit of cash. What other reason would NT have? It is below-the-belt-exploitation, but then again, what higher morality or ethics would the paper have that it would publish a surreptitiously acquired photo of a private individual.
The Northumberland Today wanted to get their scoop out so fast that they didn’t wait to publish the names of the alleged suspects, but had no problem plastering the faces of the hapless suspects all over the internet for the entire world to see. The police executed their warrant 4pm Friday and a handful of hours later the nameless faces were up for mom, dad, relatives and friends to see.
There’s something sleazy and smelly about this sort of journalism. Perhaps that is why Northumberland Today pulled the image (which was the first image to illustrate the story) from its album roster.
I’m not referring to the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. It’s the Star of David equated to the National Socialist swastika.
The Canadian media declined to reproduce for the edification of its sensitive readers the Mohammed bomb cartoon because it offended an invulnerable majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.
The Canadian media approved the reproduction for the edification of its insensitive readers the Star of David / swastika because it offends the vulnerable minority of 14 million Jews in the world.
Something is very disproportionate here. How many editorialistas in Canada condemned Israel for its disproportionate response to the chronic launch of weapons of Hamas destruction? The same media fails to recognize the disproportionate hate propaganda on the streets of Canada in recent weeks.
Proportionality is in favour of Israel in terms of body counts and in terms of military arsenal. Proportionality is in disfavour of Israel in terms of the most important element of conflict: propaganda.
It is the unrelenting delegitimizing of Israel’s right to exist, to defend itself, the unrelenting corrosion of diminishing the horror of the holocaust, especially by individuals who belong to a people who never had a stake or experience in the depth of evil that the holocaust represents. To these shallow pernicious individuals, the holocaust is nothing more than a political epithet.
The political left is loud on issue of the disproportionality of Israel’s response to the weapons of Hamas destruction, but it is perniciously silent about the decades-long disproportionality of the United Nation’s treatment of Israel. The UN human rights system has only one standing body dedicated to a specific people – Palestinians – and the continual criticism of only one UN member state – Israel.
All members of the UN are full members of a Regional Group except Israel, in spite of the fact that the UN Charter promises the “equal rights of nations large and small.”
In 2007 the UN Human Rights formally criticized Israel on 161 occasions. That placed it in first place. (This has been going on year after year after year.) Second place was Sudan which was named 61 times, half as much as Israel. Let us note that Sudan is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the ethnic cleansing of millions, slavery, torture, etc, ad nauseam.
This chronic disproportionalism led to the anti-Semitic hate-fest in 2001 known as Durban. Stay tuned for a more violent anti-Semitic hatefest in Geneva this coming April when Son of Durban is scheduled to take place. Coming soon to the European Theatre near and dear, brownshirts wearing kafiyahs replicating kristallnacht.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Interestingly, the most popular posting is a Letter-To-The-Editor that the Cobourg Daily Star (CDS) rejected for publication. The letter was rejected on Valentine’s Day last year. Not only was it the most visited page on my blog (and continues to be), but it was the page that was visited by more non-Canadians than any other. It appears that a Pakistan news site, DESPARDES, has made a permanent link to the letter that CDS rejected.
The link is via the image below.
My posting was a response to a letter written by Jack Foote that CDS had published. Mr Foote was down on immigration and included this assertion: "certain mode[s] of female attire including the hijab, etc. will not be tolerated.”
My response was an elaborate satirical retort, which included several links to support my contention that there be a burqa fashion show. The letter was in exuberant support of diversity. The Cobourg Daily Star didn’t see it this way.
I suspect CDS was frightened of the possible response by roving gangs of Political Correctness Enforcers and the right wing religious fanatics of Islamic persuasion. There may have also been a tint of fear of having to deal with a possible complaint to the Cdn Human Rights Commission. Some months before the editorialistas of CDS explained that they declined to publish the internationally notoriously Danish cartoons of Mohammad because the news media has a “certain responsibility.” Of course, they declined to describe what that “certain responsibility” was.
The outstanding fact is that the CDS consistently indulges in cowardly behaviour in the face of the politically correct. The CDS has sunk far below the days when it was published by Foster Meharry Russell during the 1960’s. At the time, he was the only Canadian to win the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for Courage in Journalism. His newspaper office had been attacked, his home in Creighton Heights had been attacked, he was hung in effigy by disgruntled union members in a Port Hope parade.
Interestingly, the satirical fantasy of a burqa fashion show actually happened a few months later in Afghanistan. Further interestingly, my rejected letter is being visited predominantly by viewers throughout the Muslim world (ummah).
Which begs the question: What were the spineless feminist jellyfish running the Cobourg Daily Star so afraid of? Anyway, CLICK HERE for the letter that is entertaining people around the world, except in Cobourg.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Letter-to-the-editor, Cobourg Daily Star, January 8, 2009
The “Our View” editorial, “Sheer tragedy makes us rage, weep” is puerile mush. Its platform of departure was the alleged cold-blooded murder of three children by their suicidal parents. The writer asks us to “imagine how their mother will feel...” when she comes round from her own suicidal attempt. The dead father, of course, receives no measure of sympathy whatsoever. Good riddance, I suspect.
I was 14 when my father drove to a hill overlooking Cobourg, hooked a vacuum cleaner hose to the exhaust pipe and inhaled death deeply. At the funeral, I wanted, oh how I wanted, to walk up to the casket and punch his face in.
How dare he murder himself! What an incredible act of selfish, self-centred cowardice! A cop-out! My father wasn’t “man enough” to face life. Thanks for the role model, dad!
But it’s all so very different if a mother does it, if a woman kills. A mitigating excuse can always be conjured and the female-run Cobourg Daily Star swallows the hook, line and stinker of the feminist zeitgeist.
In 2003 in Canada, 862 women murdered themselves; that’s in excess of two every day of the year. In the age range 25-29, women killed themselves at the rate of 4.6 per 100,000. The rate steadily increases thereafter, peaking (more than doubling) in age range 50-54 at 10.7 per 100,000. What a depressing prospect for so many women! Just when many in their 20’s think it couldn’t get any better – it doesn’t.
The Cobourg Daily Star empathetically opines, “If this woman was depressed before, imagine how she will feel...” Then again five sentences later, “Imagine how their mother will feel...” Yes, imagine. The poor woman.
Oh, by the way, in the same year 2903 men murdered themselves – amounting to eight every day of the year. That’s 400% more than women. Who cares to imagine what any man might feel?