Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The story behind Gomery (10): Interactions with Mulroneyites

I had my first direct "contact" with Mr. Pat MacAdam on September 22, 2004, when I published my (partial) report online. He was among the three dozen journalists or news organizations that received my email announcement.

 

However, of all those MSM people who got the tip, nobody asked me any questions. In my subsequent interactions with Mr. MacAdam, neither of us mentioned the email.

 

Notwithstanding my email notice, Mr. MacAdam gave me conflicting impressions as to his knowledge of my story. On one hand, he asked me several times, as if he kept forgetting, what my story is about. On the other hand, he appeared to not only know my story, but also to have his own source of information.

 

I only met him once on March 17. He was the only journalist who actually met me, despite all my effort to have my story published.

 

Back-and-forth before the meeting

 

The first time I called him was on December 22, 2004. We talked for a couple of minutes. He did not ask me many questions about my story. Indeed, he asked only one question in that regard. (I replied that I was harassed by certain individuals who had connections to the Liberals, as I always did in a short answer, to him or to anyone else.) He did ask me where I came from and whether I was a Canadian citizen. – Of course, my citizenship application is part of my problems with the government. – At the end of the conversation, he said he would call me back the following day for us to "get together". Overall, the conversation was positive and he was apparently glad that I called.

 

However, he left me a message the next day, saying that he had already written his (weekly) columns for the next few weeks and he would ask his colleague at Ottawa Sun, Mr. Earl McRae to contact me. (I got a voice mail on the day I initiated contact with him after I realized that it was not very reliable for the homeless shelter to take telephone messages for me. So I could only receive phone messages, not phone calls, at my number.)

 

However, nobody contacted me during the holiday period, and into the middle of January. I was a little disappointed and not sure if Mr. MacAdam or Mr. McRae was really serious about doing my story.

 

On January 5, I published the Summary of connections to Cecilia Zhang case on my blog. There was no new information in that summary. I simply made the connections between my experience and the Cecilia Zhang case plain for all to see. As a result, I was attacked by MSM. For example, all three national newspapers chose exactly the same front page pictures on January 6 in an attempt to bully me and to signal to me that they were united. Despite the attack, I tried to let people know about my story through the Internet, but with little effect.

 

Still hoping that he could help me, I called Mr. MacAdam again on January 17, 2005. He sounded surprised, and indeed, annoyed that Mr. McRae had not contacted me. He said he would talk to Mr. McRae. The following day, Mr. McRae called me and left me with both his work and cell phone numbers for me to call him back. (It turned out that he did not give me the correct work number.)

 

When I called him back on his cell phone, Mr. McRae told me that he was quite busy with other assignments but would like to keep in touch with me, possibly the following week. He did not ask me what my story is all about. Actually, in my dealings with him, he never asked.

 

In the early morning of Monday, January 24, I posted another major blog about my experience with MSM. In the afternoon, I called Mr. McRae. This time he sounded extremely friendly and enthusiastic about doing my story and told me to wait for his call "in a couple of days". He also asked me a couple of times where I stayed. It was a strange question as it did not appear to have a lot of relevance to my story. (Since I have told Mr. MacAdam the phone number of the shelter before, they must have known I stayed in the homeless shelter. Or, they may have their own source of information.) My impression was that he was hinting to me that I should disclose that information on my blog so that the Chretinites could not claim that I was one of the Mulroneyites. -- Who would stay in a homeless shelter to conspire against Chretien?

 

However, Mr. McRae did not call me for the rest of the week. On Saturday, January 29, I called him again. He told me directly that he was not interested in my story any more. I was surprised and disappointed. But he said that he might be able to meet me the following week. Although he did not explain why he was not interested in doing my story, he complained, using some expletives, about the "business", without getting into details. At the time, I thought he was complaining about his work as a journalist. Later, I realized that he was angry at the Chretienites' political move to try to use my story in their campaign against Judge Gomery.

 

In discussing a time to meet the following week, I told him that I was thinking of going back to the Parliament Hill to resume fasting and protest because the House would come back after the winter break. He sounded surprised and did not speak for a brief second. In the end, we did not fix a time to meet.

 

On Tuesday, February 1, I called him three times but was not able to speak to him, either at work or over his cell phone. In one call, I could hear him swear at the phone as if his phone was broken. However, from my end, I could not detect any technical difficulties. In another call, I could hear him repeating a word and the best I could make out was "blog". I got the feeling that he wanted me keep blogging. (That's why for that week, I blogged ever day until I fell sick.) I also felt he did not want to talk to me so I stopped calling him.

 

Later, as I reflected on his dramatic change of attitude toward doing my story, I had to conclude that the Mulroneyites got scared away. Or, they did not think it was worth their fight with the Chretienites or Liberals over Gomery inquiry or my story.

 

The meeting

 

I believe Mr. MacAdam's willingness to meet me was prompted by my March 11 blog, in which I announced that I had stopped fasting, which is my way of protesting.

 

I first published my blog through an email at 9:08PM Eastern Time (ET). As is usually the case, it did not immediately show up on my blog. (I had so many problems with Blogger that I got used to them.)

 

At 9:15PM ET, I manually repeated the uploading of my blog.

 

About 15 minutes later, Mr. MacAdam called and left me a message in which he expressed his willingness to meet me.

 

(It is now apparent to me that Mr. MacAdam or Mr. McRae did not like my fasting and protesting. However, I am quite puzzled as to how he knew the contents of my blog without visiting it, just like so many other journalists did.)

 

I got his message the next day and called him back in the afternoon. He asked me again what the nature of my problem was. I told him again that I had some problems with certain individuals who had connections to the government and the ruling Liberal Party. He told me that either he or Mr. McRae would work with me and he needed to talk to Mr. McRae first.

 

On Monday evening, March 14, I called him to follow up. He changed his mind again. He said Mr. McRae was going to work with me because he did not do "court stuff" or "investigative stuff". He asked me to call him the following evening and he would tell me where and when I would meet with Mr. McRae. (It's a bit strange that he would not let me arrange the meeting with Mr. McRae myself. But I did not question him.)

 

Tuesday evening, I called him as scheduled. This time he did not mention Mr. McRae at all. Instead, he asked me upfront if I had any "paper work" with respect to my grievances. I told him that I did (of course). Then he asked me what my ultimate goal was in my lawsuit. I simply said that I wanted my life back. He then suggested that we meet on Thursday. We fixed the time (10 o'clock in the morning) for him to come to my shelter.

 

The following is a brief description of the meeting, mostly taking place in his car:

 

(1)    After we briefly introduced ourselves, he asked me why I came to Ottawa. I had not expected this question. I told him that I came here to protest. "To protest?!" he sounded unpleasantly surprised.

(2)    On our way to his car, he followed up by asking why I came to Ottawa to protest, and "Can't you do it in BC?" I explained that I had problems with the federal government, rather than the provincial one.

(3)    After we got into his car, he asked me what my story is all about. As I remembered telling him before, I said so. He became quite serious and said: "No, you haven't [told me about it]." So I repeated that I was harassed by certain individuals who had connections to the Liberals. I also mentioned that I had prepared a disc for him, with documents on it, since he had asked about them in our previous conversation.

(4)    He nodded when I mentioned the disc, but did not ask for it right away. Instead, he spent quite some time talking about a Chinese friend of his, who practiced Traditional Chinese Medicine in Ottawa. (I believe he wrote about this friend of his in his February 20 column.) As we were sitting in his car, he did not look at me while telling me the story and I did not get any chance to ask questions. I do remember that towards the end of his story, he said that they became friends and went out dinning together after he "defected". The word was quite unusual. It was one of the reasons that I was not impressed after the meeting as I reflected on it.

(5)    After talking about his friend, he said: "Oh, I got side-tracked." Then we chatted about the shelter I stayed. He asked me such questions as "Are there a lot of drunks in the shelter?" To me it was such an obvious question. I guess he was referring to his column before Christmas, titled "Juggling a career and the bottle."

(6)    He brought up the topic of Air India as the verdict was in the news that day. He told me that he was working for Mr. Mulroney when Air India bombing occurred and said regrettably: "We screwed up [the aftermath/investigation]". – Later, when I reflected on this, I don't know how to make of it. Was he offering an apology in my current situation with respect to Cecilia Zhang and me, i.e., that it was merely a screw-up? Or, was he suggesting that [big] screw-ups do happen?

(7)    He talked about the fact that there are a lot of minorities in BC. In particular, he spoke about a suburban Vancouver riding with 40 percent minority population. He then repeated: "40 percent!" and uttered an expletive.

(8)    He suggested that he knows about the existence of picture(s) surreptitiously taken of me while I was inside my apartment. But I don't like the way he said it. – He suggested in exactly the same way as the first person, who came by the order of the defendants named in my lawsuit, did to me in spring 2003. -- In fact, if not for the good-will accumulated over many months' reading his columns, I would have considered his suggestion bad-taste and bullying.

(9)    At the end of our meeting, he took my disc and said that he would call me. I thanked him for coming to meet me and left his car.

 

Back-and-forth after the meeting

 

The more I reflected on our meeting, the less impressed I became. Since he accepted my disc, I decided to wait and see.

 

In the first Ottawa Sun column he wrote after our meeting, he reported the good news. I believe this was the reason that other journalists thought that I had raised a white flag.

 

March 20: Pat MacAdam (Ottawa Sun)

 

"Fun times with Finlay" (Title of the column)

 

"Finlay MacDonald was one of few who made life in political backrooms rewarding – and fun." (Opening paragraph)

 

"Finlay MacDonald's style, class and sense of humour made him charming to work with." (Caption of photo)

 

In his next column, however, the news became not so good. I guess he sensed my disappointment because I had not called him for more than a week.

 

March 27: Pat MacAdam (Ottawa Sun)

 

The title of his column "The anatomy of horror" was in reference to this sentence of mine in my Summary of connections to Cecilia Zhang case.

 

"This … raised the horrifying possibility of the government's involvement in Cecilia Zhang's abduction and murder." 

 

He appeared to use Ernst Zundel's story as an example and urged the MSM to ignore me, i.e., not to crack nuts any more. (Indeed, he had a valid point. It was probably his cheering-on when I was blog-competing with Warren Kinsella that drew so much attention and interest from other journalists.)

 

In early April, Jean Brault testimony at the Gomery was leaked on the Internet and there was talk of an imminent election. Now that the worse part of the Adscam had come out, maybe, I thought, he would be keener to do my story to further put pressure on the Liberals. So I called him on Tuesday April 5. However, I was told that he had not had a chance to read my documents on the disc due to a medical condition. He asked me to call him back on Sunday.

 

On Sunday April 10, he opened his weekly column with this mantra:

 

My mantra these days is: Stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious…

 

As I explained before, he was essentially urging other pundits, Liberal or Conservative, to not crack nuts about my story thus increase the chance to trigger an election or make my story an election issue. And, when I called him on that day, I got his voice mail after the first ring. It happened many times over the next few days when I tried to talk to him.

 

I almost lost hope on him. The last two calls I made to him was at the end of April.

They were prompted by my reading his April 24 column "Go for the jugular, and do it now", which appeared to be giving good advice to the Conservatives. In my first call on April 25, I was told that he was to give my disc to another reporter. On Friday April 29, I called him to follow up. Apparently he was not very enthusiastic about receiving my call. When I asked for the number of the reporter to whom he had given my disc, he declined to give it to me and said he would follow up on my behalf. But I never heard from him again.


Sunday, June 26, 2005

The story behind Gomery (9): MSM cracking my March 1 blog

My March 1 entry, in which the expletives were edited out on March 5, is linked here. The original entry was posted around 11:00PM ET via the following email:

From: Jim Yu jyu1@sfu.ca

To: jyu1.xxxxx@blogger.com

Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:42:49 -0800

Subject: Shit, this is worse than the colds

With virtually no sympotoms(sic), I skin-tested positive for TB (tuberculosis) last week. Now I am waiting for chest X-way(sic) result.

I can tell you all about the context and "inside stories". But do you really fucking care?


Note that I used some expletives and/or cuss words, which, according to David Herle when he was with Don Newman at the Liberal Convention, ruined the good humour of my blog. (Yes, I think David Herle read my blog, too!)

Apparently, my destitution is the Mr. Kinsella's joy.

March 2, 2005 - Bits and pieces, this and that:

  • Kings of Leon tonight! Yee-haw! Attending with Lorne and Charlie. If anyone wants to pop by and purchase Labatt brewskies for us, we will be the trio on the south side of the Opera House on Queen East, wearing baseball caps and hollering along to 'California Waiting.'
  • I'm hearing from my Ottawa spies that Brian Mulroney's press secretary, Gregory Weston, is bragging that he intends to make the Gomery Pyle Circus his hobby horse for the next while. "I'm going to get [insert bad words describing Chretien folks here]," said Greggie, to no one in particular. Doing his master's bidding, I s'pose. (Next up: getting one of his fellow Mulroneyite employees to take a swing at me!)
  • Let's see: this morning's Post has seven editorials against Paul Martin's decision on Missile "Defence," two torqued front-page stories, plus one nasty editorial cartoon - and not a word, not one, representing the other point of view. I feel my fingers twitching, and moving towards a keyboard, folks! You know what this means, don't you?
  • I'm driving up to the Liberal convention in Ottawa, so - after a laborious scientific process overseen by www.warrenkinsella.com's accounting firm - I have selected The Latest World's Greatest Driving Song. It's 'Nowhere Again' by the Secret Machines. Check it out and don't drive too fast!


Adam Radwanski was pretty much the same. The following is from his March 2 blog:

Mama's boys

My favourite part of yesterday's interview (to be worked into a piece in Friday's Post) with the alarmingly baby-faced Kings of Leon? The revelation that the reason expletives are blanked out of the lyrics on the liner notes is that their mom (or at least the mom of all but guitarist Matthew, who's a cousin) cries when they use cuss words.

If I were a girl, I'm pretty sure I'd find that adorable.

The story behind Gomery (8): MSM Nuts-cracking in early February

Next, let's take a look some of the nuts-cracking stuff out of MSM in early February.

The original nuts

The original nuts came from my blog entries of February 1 and February 2. In them you'll find the following key words or phrases: scare, laugh, ahem, etc.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2005

Does this scare you?

A Gmail account. With 1GB file space! Holy cow, that's almost like another hard drive for my laptop.

Don't laugh.

Just imagine this: I could send each and every subscriber of National Post an email with links to my blog and website.

Does it scare you? Yeah, I know.

POSTED BY JIM YU AT 7:26 PM



And February 2:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 02, 2005

C.L.S. vs. C.L.D.

Since I posted my last wordy document, reading newspapers has been making me laugh too much. -- How did I laugh? Oh, mon, I just wish you were there. -- We are definitely making progress.

Anyway. Here is something for you to laugh about.

Given the progress we made, some of the competitive spirit coming out of the Liberal camp deserves special commendation. Therefore, I am announcing - Ahem - the following rank awards:

Chief Liberal Squirrel (C.L.S.) to Warren Kinsella for the most squirrelish behavior, i.e., taking down his earlier blogs.

Chief Liberal Donut (C.L.D.) to Margaret Wente for the most donut-like behavior, i.e., crying for political doctors.

(Mr. Kinsella also cried for doctors last week, albeit doctors with a slightly different trait. This donut-like behavior, it should be noted, was quite unseemly for a squirrel, even a pervert one.)

POSTED BY JIM YU AT 7:57 PM

MSM Nuts-cracking

The next day, on the comment page (A14) of the National Post, three of the four articles made references to my blogs. (The other one was written by a former president of another country.)

Don Martin wrote:

The economies of, ahem, scale saved taxpayer $200,000 per year in operating expenses….

William Watson wrote:

The Swiss Navy used to be a joke, as oxymoronic as, say, Saskatchewan becoming a maritime province. Well, you can stop laughing. (Opening paragraph)

Adam Radwanski wrote:

For doing the liberal thing, rather than the Liberal thing, the government deserves the respect if not the approval of its opponents.

Mr. Radwanski was making a reference to my mistake in confusing Liberal with liberal in my second major blog posted about a week before. It's interesting to note that this Martin-friendly column drew praise from Warren Kinsella.

At the mean time on the Globe and Mail, I found that Lawrence Martin's column was entitled

It's been 10 years since the big scare.


Note that my blogs were posted around 11:00PM Eastern Time in the evening. It looked like those pundits were staying up so that they could crack a nut or two before their deadlines. However, the mystery is I don't know how they read my blog as my record says that none of them visited it.

My reply

Now that so many pundits were reading and cracking nuts off my blogs, I felt compelled to at least acknowledge their efforts. However, writing is not my cup of tea. So instead of responding to them individually, I wrote a summary:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2005

Untitled

For some people, money is not everything.

For others, apparently, it's just too hard for them to understand.

(Thank you all and good night.)

POSTED BY JIM YU AT 8:00 PM


Pat MacAdam wrote a Sunday column on February 6 entitled "A slumber more sweet than toil". Thanks, eh?

The story behind Gomery (7): MSM Nuts-cracking in early January

The origin

On January 5, I published the summary of connections to Cecilia Zhang case on my blog.

There was no new information in the summary. All the facts could be found in my reports or earlier blogs. The summary simply made the connection plain for people to see.

Of course, MSM had the opportunity to read my report last September and based on their reaction, they were already convinced of the connections.

Still, they attacked me for putting up the summary.

Immediate attack

The next day, all three national newspapers, Globe and Mail, National Post and Toronto Star, chose the same photo (link added 08/19/2005) for their respective front pages. The photo came from the same photographer, of the same agency and with exact the same original. Indeed, there were at least 16 photos taken by this Getty Images photographer at that particular Tsunami event. So ask yourself: What's the chance of the same photo being chosen independently if the three newspapers did not talk to each other?

As I have said before, MSM did this in order to bully me, and signal to me that they were united.

Margaret Wente's column on the same day, which was advertised on Globe's front page throw, confirmed their bullying message, i.e., that they knew of the existence of my pictures taken surenptiously by cameras installed inside my apartment.

In the afternoon of January 7, while walking pass a TV, I overheard a TV announcer say "Canada united …" about the upcoming Tsunami memorial service.

More nuts-cracking

On Tuesday, January 11, pundits seemed to have a different strategy for nuts-cracking. This time, most of them chose to crack the credibility nut.

Margaret Wente said some of the mentally disabled have to be locked up in institutions in her column titled "When cruelty becomes official policy".

John Ivison was presumably on Missile Defence, a favorite topic of the pundits to make insinuating attack against me.

If we assume Russon [the reporter] did not simply imagine the exchange with the American Ambassador, it appears that Cellucci believes a deal is imminent and Canada will sign on.


Jeffrey Simpson
wrote about attitudes:

The flag stunt was denounced as an insult almost everywhere outside Newfoundland. If anything, the stunt hardened attitudes against Newfoundland, and those attitudes will do the province no good in the future.

Why did he pick the attitude nut? – I need another blog to explain.

In the afternoon, Tom Axworthy appeared on CBC Politics program. In his commentary, he sheepishly used the phrase "hard-headedness" in apparent reference to my blog last November 3.

Light-headedness

Woke up feeling a little dizzy this morning. Light-headedness is said to be one of the symptoms of prolonged fast.

I am hoping it was a one-time event.


[To be continued.]

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

MSM conspiracy of silence

Early this morning, an email like the following one was sent to selected MSM journalists including Margaret Wente, Don Newman, John Ivision, Adam Radwanski, William Watson, Andrew Coyne and Don Martin.

UPDATE June 9: Similar emails were sent to Susan Delacourt and Greg Weston this morning.

So far, nobody has responded. Not a single one of them.

I am writing a blog called "The story behind Gomery inquiry" . It's about how Ottawa's political establishments influence the mainstream media (MSM) to protect their interests in the context of Sponsorship scandal and Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up.

I believe that not only do you know me and my story, you also made references in your newspaper columns and/or blog. As such, you are part of my story.

Do you have any comments? If so, please let me know.

Jim Yu


Do you think there is a MSM conspiracy of silence?

I think the answer is obvious.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Stupidity in the news

After I imitated, on May 29, Pat MacAdam's mantra in which he prayed that stupidity is not contagious, not surprisingly, stupidity continues to be in the news.
  1. Tuesday May 31. Warren Kinsella in his blog: "Isn't that, without exception, one of the stupidest f---ing things you have ever witnessed?"
  2. Tuesday May 31. William Watson on National Post: "If it were still the economy, stupid, Canadian governments would be laughing all the way to the ballot box."
  3. Friday June 3. Susan Delacourt on CBC Politics program. I lost counts how many times she said stupid. -- You can still review the video on Politics homepage before Don Newman pulls it off, soon.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

The story behind Gomery (6): "Us does not want an election, stupid"

To help you understand the origin of this journalistic nut, stupidity, I need to explain the circumstances surrounding my March 11 blog.

As a student of English language, I am always fascinated by words or phrases with multiple meanings. For example, I disclosed, for the first time, that there was an important connection between my case and Cecilia Zhang case in my blog on August 15, 2004.

Competing headlines

Granted, it's not easy to be a news producer, especially when there are competing headlines on the same day.

Of course, moving the date to compete is another matter.

I'm not trying to be self-important, but I will do my part to promote the Olympic Spirit.

There are indeed three cases of "moving the date to compete" that I wanted to tell in the blog:
  1. Bourque NewsWatch;
  2. Warren Kinsella;
  3. The motive for the abduction of Cecilia Zhang, which the police failed to provide.

The most important meaning was, of course, the last one, which was also the one most pundits failed to grapple with right away. For example, it took Mr. Warren Kinsella four days to respond. Follow this link to read his August 19 blog.

[The ever-so-wise Jim Travers saw it right away, of course. -- Edited June 11.]

"Liberals ape the Olympian follies" (Title of Jim Travers' column, August 17, 2004)

"Along with being odious, comparisons are usually misleading and sometimes simply mischievous. Nevertheless, the parallels between the spectacle unfolding in Athens and our very own ruling party are too delicious to resist." (Opening paragraph)
As for my March 11 blog, there were also three meanings that I wished to convey.
  1. It was not easy to fast.
  2. It was not easy to stop fasting.
  3. It was not an easy decision to stop fasting.
Indeed, I struggled for a whole week to come to my decision before eating a (big) lunch that day.
Having explained in my blog why it was not easy for me to stop fasting, let me explain my considerations for stopping fasting:
  1. My health was in a very precarious state at that time. I came down to 150 pounds and lost almost 20% of my weight. My immune system was very week as evidenced by the constant colds I caught. And what's worse, I was about to embark on a TB treatment.
  2. What was especially dispiriting for me was the realization that nobody cared what I had gone through, ever since October 20, 2004, the first day of my fast.
  3. I got this feeling that the Chretienites had been trying to use my story to crash Gomery inquiry if I kept on fighting to bring my story to light, although I do not know how it might have played out by those pros.
Again, for journalists, with only very rare exceptions, they failed to see the second meaning, let along the third one.

Those would be the same journalists who bullied me and smeared my reputation on our national newspapers, using shady information obtained through illegal means. Having known me so well, they should have been able to judge me correctly. -- I guess their problem was that they tended to use their experiences to judge other people's character.

Let's take a look at the reactions from MSM.

Within minutes: Pat MacAdam

Mr. Pat MacAdam phoned me within half an hour of my posting the blog, saying that he would like to meet me. We later met on March 17.


March 20: Pat MacAdam (Ottawa Sun)

"Fun times with Finlay" (Title of the column)

"Finlay MacDonald was one of few who made life in political backrooms rewarding ? and fun." (Opening paragraph)

"Finlay MacDonald's style, class and sense of humour made him charming to work with." (Caption of photo)
I don't know why Mr. MacAdam reported the good news. I was not impressed at all after our meeting (another blog entry to come), although I was very polite to him as I would be to anyone who was in a position to help get my story published.

However, some journalists immediately concluded that I had "sold my soul", or that I did not have a character.

March 21: Adam Radwanski (www.adamradwanski.com)

"Look who hasn't sold his soul..." (Title of the blog)

March 23: Andrew Coyne (National Post)

"Amid balloons, a white flag" (Title of the column)

March 24: William Watson (National Post)

"[R]acism is a hard problem. We at the National Post are actually against racism. We want people judged, not by the colour of their skin, not even by the content of their character, character being so hard to judge, but by the calibre of their contribution."

March 24: John Ivison (National Post)

"Martin offered an awkward wave before turning tail and ?. It must have been like this on the Long March, although Mao was probably more relenting than Martin."

April 1: Adam Radwanski (National Post)

"Toronto's imaginary crime wave" (Title of the column)

Mr. Radwanski was so convinced that I had given up that he even went on to consul his colleagues on the way to deal with their conscience.

It is worth noting that, between the time I published my report last September and the lifting of publication ban for Brault testimony, he only wrote one column which was mildly positive on the Conservatives. (He mongered the fear of the prospect of the Conservatives in power withing hours of the publishing of my partial report on September 22, 2004.) However, during the several weeks when the Liberals were in crisis in April and May, he suddenly warmed up to the Conservatives until, of course, the Liberals won the crucial confidence vote on May 19, using all sorts of unethical, even allegedly criminal tactics.

That said so much of the convictions with which Mr. Radwanski wrote his columns, which is, not very much.

It was the testimony of Jean Brault at Gomery in early April that changed the political landscape because of the possibility of an imminent fall of the Martin Liberal government.

April 2: Jim Travers (Toronto Star)

"For more than 30 years, Robert Stanfield has been consistently viewed as the best prime minister Canada never had. That deliciously ambiguous title role could soon belong to Paul Martin." (Opening paragraph)
[Memo to Jim Travers: Ambiguity is in the eyes of beholder.]

April 4: Norman Spector (Globe and Mail)

"Mr. Harper's principal problem is that he's brighter than most of the journalists who cover him, and he doesn't always find it easy to hide it. Mr. Martin is, too, but you'll never hear him criticizing the media publicly. In private, Mr. Martin has perfected the strategy of seducing journalists by asking for advice and feigning interest."
[Memo to Norman Spector: Please, I am not brighter. I am just not good at explaining details.]


[Considering that pompousness is such an unforgivable sin as reminded lately by this twin of foes, Pat MacAdam and Warren Kinsella (June 10), I feel absolutely ashamed by having quoted Jim Travers and Norman Spector. -- Edited June 11.]

April 9: Peter C. Newman (National Post)

"Mr. Martin's first priority must be to isolate himself from his ethically challenged predecessor. The PM's most incomprehensible -- OK, stupid -- act was to stand before his caucus and cheer Jean Chr?tien's childish performance before Judge Gomery. It was, after all, a Martin-led coup d'etat that allowed the former finance minister to grab power in the first place."

April 9: Andrew Coyne (National Post)

"Thanks to Jean Brault, a great many things have become clearer. It is now clear, for example --assuming his testimony is to be believed -- that we have been governed for more than a decade by a criminal organization....

Some other points of clarity:..."

April 10: Pat MacAdam (Ottawa Sun)

"My mantra these days is: Stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious ?" (Opening paragraph)

MacAdam is very nervous of the prospect of an election. Why is that?


Update June 20:

The following quotes from the columns of John Ivison and Greg Weston were apparently in reference to my story. These pundits were afraid that in case of an election, my story would break and thus expose the darkness of Canadian MSM. Their reference of "picture" and "no clothes on" was intended to bully me.

April 6, 2005: John Ivison (National Post)

"Stephen Harper looked yesterday like he was having as much fun as it's possible to have in politics while keeping your clothes on."

April 5, 2005: Greg Weston (Ottawa Sun)

"Election isn't the only way out" (Title of the column)

"Unless Paul Martin and Stephen Harper has a sudden urge to commit political suicide, or someone has pictures that include a goat, there will be no call to the polls anytime soon."


The story behind Gomery (5): Chretienites' actions

In the previous part of the story (Part 4), I recorded some of Jean Chretien's words at the Gomery inquiry. In this blog, we will take a look at Chretienites' actions.

Incidentally, the latest development, that Mr. Chretien decided to drop the bid to oust Judge Gomery, took place on Monday, a day after I posted the following blog.

Sunday, May 29, 2005
My mantra
My mantra these days is: Don't lose your capability to feel angry, don't lose your capability to feel angry, don't lose your capability to feel angry ...
posted by Jim Yu at 8:20 AM
As MSM journalists can tell, this blog is an imitation of the opening paragraph of Pat MacAdam's column in Ottawa Sun on April 10.

"My mantra these days is: Stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious, stupidity is not contagious…"
Why was this paragraph significant? Because it basically says, in Canadian punditry terms, "us does not want an election" . – Of course, to translate it for you would require me to write a separate blog entry. -- But my intention was also made clear by my imitation: This story is about Ottawa's "political class", which, not surprisingly, PM Paul Martin defended on Thursday during a Liberal fundraising event.

"And we didn't do it so that a group of people could tarnish the reputation of our party and cause people to lose confidence in our country's political class." (Paul Martin, June 2, 2005)
Anyway, Chretien's legal maneuver to oust Judge Gomery, which started in January, seemed to be in lock steps with my blogging activities.

To see this, you need to scan my blog to know that my entries are generally short, clean, and modest, among other things you may say about them (I am not good at describing things). So my long blogs on January 5 and January 24, as well as the original one on March 1, are either significant or out of the ordinary.

Let me explain.

First of all, on January 5, I posted the summary of Cecilia Zhang cover-up . The summary made my argument about Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up more obvious, in case people did not read my report thoroughly. (For MSM, this is unnecessary because they had known it since last summer.)

On January 11, the first day of Gomery hearing this year, Chretien's people announced that they might ask him to step down and made a representation before the Judge.

Secondly, on January 24, I posted another long entry on my blog detailing my experience with MSM that also went to the heart of my story, i.e., it's about racism and bigotry. The next day, Chretien's Gomery strategy started to show teeth. You just need to read Kinsella's blog to see that he was conjuring up a vast conspiracy headed by Mulroney and included, according to him, Judge Gomery, Bernard Roy, Norman Spector, Greg Weston, Jim Travers, etc. Because of the perceived cheering of my blog by Mulroneyite Pat MacAdam, Kinsella somehow included me into that conspiracy too.

Thus we saw the start of the famous Spector-Kinsella Blog War I the next day. Chretien's lawyers formally asked Judge Gomery to step down on January 31.

Thirdly, on March 1, I posted an entry which was quite out of ordinary because I used a couple of cuss words.

From: Jim Yu jyu1@sfu.ca
To: jyu1.#####@blogger.com
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:42:49 -0800
Subject: S---, this is worse than the colds
With virtually no sympotoms(sic), I skin-tested positive for TB (tuberculosis) last week. Now I am waiting for chest X-way(sic) result.
I can tell you all about the context and "inside stories". But do you really f---ing care?
This was the only time I used expletives in my blog and I later edited them out. Chretienites sensed my extreme frustration and desperation and thought my story would break soon. So they filed paper two days later on behalf of Chretien with Federal Court of Canada to formally launch their legal case against Judge Gomery.

Although we may never know how the Chretienites might have proceeded with their Mulroney conspiracy theory had I not stopped fasting (another entry is needed on this one), the bottom line is this: Once my story breaks, this Martin government is going to fall. And I firmly believe my assessment in Martin's motive to call the Gomery inquiry and went on a "mad-as-hell" tour of the country over the Sponsorship scandal.

Once a politician, always a politician. If Chretienits can turn golf balls into politics, they sure can politicize my story, although I am not sure what their legal or communication arguments would have been.

So, what to make of the latest development of Chrétien's legal maneuver, i.e., to drop his bid? The way I see it, Mr. Jean Chretien does not really have any balls after all. – The last one he showed off in front of Judge Gomery, rumor has it, came from the in-law of his former assistant Warren Kinsella.

Meanwhile, this note will partially explain my slow pace...

This week, as I spent time organizing the vast amount of materials to prepare for the story, many times I had to stop, shake my head and ask myself: "Is it really necessary to include him or her in my story?"

It's really depressing to look at the behaviors of the creme de la creme of Canada journalism.

Take, for example, William Watson. Besides being a columnist for CanWest newspapers, isn't he a professor, too? As a Chinese, it's in my genes to respect a teacher. And I am going to expose him cracking nuts? Gosh, this is awful.

Greg Weston. I used to have high hope for him to eventually help me with publishing my story, most because he wrote pointed columns for the Conservatives. – I mean, if the Ottawa Bureau of the Sun newspaper chain would not help me, who would? -- But I can't believe the kinds of nuts he has been cracking lately. I feel really bad to have to write a profile on him.

And then there is Andrew Coyne, most of whose columns I enjoyed reading. They are always intelligent, persuasive, with the right character. Read his take on integrity:

"Integrity, whether in countries or individuals, depends not only on the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but on the conviction that right and wrong matter, that it matters whether you do the right thing or the wrong thing." (National Post, February 9, 2005)
Bravo! Do words like these not make you think that he is just the kind of journalist we need? But, unfortunately, he engaged in sporadic nuts-cracking, too. Why was that?

Oh, Pat MacAdam, of course. You know, he has been batting for me through his weekly column since last summer. When I was blogging with Warren Kinsella, he cheered me on from the sidelines. When I was down, he encouraged. And now I have to reveal what was behind his change of attitude toward me? It's awful, indeed.

Don Newman. I feel bad to have to mention him here. I mean, isn't he a member of the Order of Canada? And doesn't he always wear good suits? I really wish I didn't have to do this.

However, MSM is an integral part of my story. As such, I will have to do this and in fact, will need to create a (or, maybe two) seperate blog just to profile them.

Are there good guys in Canadian MSM? Of course, there are. But they are in the minority and I don't believe their lives have been easy.

Final words of clarity: Due to the lack of better expression, I use the phrase "nuts-cracking" here to describe journalists' behavior of intentionally making a reference to my story. Of course, the real issue is: Have they abandoned their journalistic duty when they knowingly ignored my story, and that of Cecilia Zhang's? If so, why?

Update 01/10/2006: Hyperlinks to William Watson and Don Newman added.

About this blog

I know I have disappointed you. -- Another week has gone by and I have not finished the writing of the story.

But they already saw it's coming. So here is the description of this blog, to be added under the blog title.

How Ottawa's political establishments influence the mainstream media (MSM) to protect their interests in the context of Sponsorship scandal and Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up, a story experienced by a jobless immigrant without privacy.

The good news is that I have made some progress this week. So I will post them first and see the reaction.

via Norman Spector

After I reminded myself today to not lose my capability to feel angry, http://jyu1.blogspot.com/2005/05/my-mantra.html

I heard

(1) Andrew Coyne says that I am journalists' common enemy; http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/05/blog-post_29.php

(2) Warren Kinsella says that Gomery will be no more; http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings_may05.htm

(3) Adam Radwanski says this is my lucky week. http://www.adamradwanski.com/blog.html

I like the last one as I really hope I will be able to fill in the blank for you this week.

Jim Yu Homepage 05.29.05 - 8:21 pm #

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The story behind Gomery (4): Chretien's words

Some quotes from fomer prime minister Jean Chretien's testimony at Gomery on or around February 8, 2005 and why they caught my eye.

++++++++++

  1. February 7, 2005. When chased by reporters about his upcoming appearance at Gomery, Chretien joked: "you're missing me, eh?"
  2. December 26, 2004. "Have you been missing me?" is the title of my blog.

++++++++++

  1. February 8, 2005. "To call them Westmont cheap -- it would be an oxymoron", Chretien avenges Gomery for his "small-town cheap" comment.
  2. August 23, 2004. "Moron vs. Mormon" is the title of my blog which, by the way, sent Kinsella packing.
  3. July 19, 2004. "Boy, is that Matt Drudge guy ever an asshole. What a moron." Kinsella blogged on the day after I emailed him, among other journalists, my 2nd release titled "Stolen Election".

++++++++++

  1. February 8, 2005. "I was not going to sin by not acting", Chretien testified.
  2. February 7, 2005. "Sorry, I sinned!" is the title of my blog.
  3. February 10, 2005. To be a tough guy is never having to say sorry. -- Margaret Wente commented in her column on the Globe.

++++++++++

  1. February 8, 2005. "And even now, I don't listen to the news before going to bed, it's the best way to ensure a good night's sleep." Chretien testified.
  2. Since last summer. I have disclosed, on many occasions, that sleeping is my major problem because of what's going on in my life.

++++++++++

  1. February 8, 2005. "If you don't have any money and it's raining in your house, you still call in the plumber," Chretien testified.
  2. February 3, 2005. "For some people, money is not everything. For others, apparently, it's just too hard for them to understand." I blogged.

The story behind Gomery (3)

In the early morning of Monday, January 24, I posted another major entry on my blog. This entry goes to the heart of my story and tells people what my story is all about, i.e., racism and bigotry.

Mulroneyites

In the afternoon, I called Mr. McRae. He sounded completely different from the previous week. He was extremely friendly and excited about working on my story, saying that he was going to call me "in a couple of days" for us to meet. I guess my morning blog helped.

(He did ask me a strange question a couple of times: Where did I stay? As I had told MacAdam my number at the homeless shelter before, my sense was that he knew it already. In retrospect, he was simply suggesting that I should make that information public on my blog.)

Of course, he did not call me back. This is because, as I now know, the immediate reactions from the Chretien camp. (In MacAdam's January 30 column, "public enemy No. 1" was the catch phrase. I later understand that Mulroney was often referred to as Chretien's public enemy No.1, or vice versa.)

Chretienites

Warren Kinsella's attack on me was immediate. See the first of his many blog entries on January 25 with a picture whose meaning I have described here. (Indeed, his blogging activities on that single day were probably heavier than those of the previous week combined.)

The next day, he started a "blog war" with Norman Spector, whose blog I read very often, and who was labeled by Kinsella as a "Mulroney crony".

Also on the next day, lawyers for Jean Chretien called on Judge John Gomery to step down. It was immediately in the news.

It's also interesting to note that Kinsella unilaterally declared a truce with Paul Martin in his January 26 blog. He was apparently disappointed when Martin decided to support Gomery in dealing with Chretien's challenge, which was a no-brainer politically. See Kinsella's January 28 blog entry for his disappointment. In terms of dealing with me, I guess Martin does not need Kinsella as he has the whole MSM in his palms.

MSM

MSM immediately jumped on me again, to defend their political master Paul Martin. Without any help, I fought alone, as reflected in my early February blogs. Detailed may be added later. But the following were examples.

For example, I made mistakes in my abovementioned blog in the usage of Liberal and liberal. In his February 3 column on National Post, Adam Radwanski writes: "For doing the liberal thing, rather than the Liberal thing, the government deserves the respect if not the approval of its opponents." Well, I was embarrassed. (See also Kinsella's January 28 blog entry about Claire Hoy, "nemesis of Liberals and liberals everywhere". – Also, Kinsella appeared to imitate my (bad) writing style of using brackets.)

Another example. After this major blog, I sent out many emails to editors of smaller community newspapers. Kinsella appeared to know that. See his January 30 blog entry where the hyperlink pointed to a news organization to which I sent an email.

The story behind Gomery (2)

I was quite depressed over the Christmas period and did not blog much until January 5 when I put up the summary of the connections to Cecilia Zhang case on my blog.

MSM

This significant blogging activity of mine resulted in immediate MSM's attacks. Those attacks include letting me know about my exposed pictures. Stalking me online, as well as letting me know that I was stalked online, is also a form of bullying. I have written about those here.

Of course, Warren Kinsella was part of the attack, as I alluded to in the same entry. In addition, on January 7, he warned website owners in his blog about the legal risk of running a comment section. (Adam Radwanski blogged about Toronto's imagined lawlessness on January 6.) Their writings were in response to my posting comments on a few Cecilia Zhang-related websites in order to generate interest in my blog, right after posting the summary. (I told you I am without privacy!)

Chretienites and Gomery

On Tuesday January 11, - the first day of Gomery inquiry after the Christmas, - Jean Chretien's lawyer David Scott "made a surprise appearance at the hearing" to object to newspaper interviews Gomery gave before Christmas. Scott also said that he's considering asking Justice John Gomery to step down.

Kinsella appeared at the hearing later that month and continued his attack on Judge Gomery in his blog.

Mulroneyites

On January 17, I called MacAdam again. He sounded surprised and upset that McRae had not contacted me. He said he was going to talk to McRae.

The following day, McRae called and left me a message. When I called him back, he did not sound very enthusiastic about writing my story. But he did not even ask me what my story was all about. It appeared that he already knew about my story.

He asked me to call him back the following week. I sensed that I needed to write another major summary, which I did.

The story behind Gomery (1)

The Parliament went to an early recess on December 14, 2004. On that day, I went into the visitor gallery and throw my protest flyers onto the House floor.

I am not proud of that incident, as I said before. To understand why I did it, you’ll have to read my previous blog entry.

My plan then was to go back to Vancouver and I knew I would not have the financial resources to come back to Ottawa again to protest. But on December 17, I met a concerned citizen who showed his willingness to help me. I met him again the following Monday to tell him about my story. Since he had to persuade some other people to help me, I decided to stay in Ottawa to hear back from him. (In the end, I did not get any help from him.)

Mulroneyites

While waiting in Ottawa, I read Pat MacAdam’s December 20 column, Christmas on the battlefield, in which he quoted Bobbie Burns: “The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft a-gley”. I took it that he wanted me to stay in Ottawa. (If you read my blog, you’ll find that I like to use quote to make a point.) On December 22, I called Pat MacAdam for the first time.

(When I looked back, both his October 17, 2004 and November 21 columns appeared to call me to go to Ottawa.)

Our conversation only lasted for a couple of minutes. He did not ask many questions about my story. He asked where I came from and whether I got my citizenship. (It appeared that he knew about my problem, which was not entirely surprising if he had already read my report or had his own source of information.) He said he was going to call me back the next day for us to “get together”.

I was quite hopeful. However, the next day, he called to say that he had already written his columns for the next few weeks and he would have his colleague Earl McRae to follow up on my story.

Nobody called me for the next few weeks. I was a bit disappointed.

Gomery and Chretienites

Judge Gomery gave media interviews and made some controversial comments, which immediately draw criticisms from Chretienites, particularly from Warren Kinsella. See his blog for more details.

MSM

After successfully burying my story despite my daily protest in the cold weather on Parliament Hill, the MSM is all gleeful. Details might be added later.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Spectators at the blog competition

There were spectators at my blog competition with Warren Kinsella last summer. But I only noticed those pundits who made it known through their writings that they were watching the competition.

Among them, the most consistent one was Pat MacAdam, a columnist for Ottawa Sun. At the time of writing my report last fall, however, I did not think it was relevant enough to include his writings in it.

According to his August 15, 2004 column, MacAdam was "once dubbed Brian Mulroney's 'personal terrorist' and 'hit man'".

Mr. MacAdam cheered me on while I was blogging with Warren Kinsella.

  1. On August 10, about three weeks into my blog competition with Warren Kinsella, I published an excerpt of my report about a harassing phone call I received. In MacAdam's August 15 column, he wrote about an incident where politicians were involved in making prank phone calls, and, in effect, gave my story credibility.
  2. I am not sure if he wrote on August 22 as I do not have the record.
  3. Warren Kinsella soon noticed Pat MacAdam's "nostalgic acts".

"August 23, 2004 - Charlie, Lorne and me saw Stiff Little Fingers last night at Lee's. What a disappointment! The guy who wrote something as life-altering (to me, anyway) 'Alternative Ulster' pausing in the middle of 'Suspect Device,' the greatest political song in the history of the world, to introduce the band, like a Vegas nostalgia act?! God, it was awful.

We can't easily remain revolutionaries when we're in our fifties with kids and mortgages, of course, but it would have been nice to see at least some acknowledgement of what once was. Am I wrong?"
(Kinsella)

However, MacAdam continued his "nostalgic acts" by recalling many of his early experience with Brian Mulroney in his next two columns on August 29 and September 5. And Kinsella had the following blog entry.

"September 4, 2004 - Twenty years!

Twenty years ago today, I said goodbye to my Ottawa friends - many of them working at polling stations - and flew back to start law school, the next day, at the University of Calgary. My Dad picked me up at the airport, and we listened to CBC Radio in the car as John Turner conceded defeat. "The people are always right," he said, and in that, he was telling the truth.

Brian Mulroney won a huge majority, and I started classes the next day. Twenty years ago!

Did I just make a few of you feel old?"
(Kinsella)

  1. On September 7 and 8, I blogged about some of the police bullying incidents I experienced. In his September 12 column, Riders on the storm, Pat MacAdam recounts his experience traveling in a storm when police pointed guns at him. The title has a metaphorical meaning of the political storm surrounding the first minister's conference on health care, as also picked up by Pierre Bourque in his news site.
  2. On September 19, he recalls racial problems in sports. A very positive article on racism.
  3. After the first minister's conference, I was quite depressed. MacAdam's next columns were quite up-lifting of spirit to read. His September 26 column was about The Sixties revolution and his October 3 column was about native soldiers at war. I guess that was exactly what I need -- some fighting spirit.
  4. On October 7, I started a 48-hour hunger strike at Simon Fraser University and I blogged quite a lot - and good ones, I might add - during those two days. It's my way of fighting back. On October 10, MacAdam started his column with "A phoenix can rise from the ashes -- time and time again."

I could go on with a couple of more. But you got the idea. However, it never occurred to me that I should take advantage of Pat MacAdam. I knew that Kinsella and MacAdam belong to different political parties. I just did not want to get into partisan politics.

My story is about racism and bigotry. And I am confident that my facts and logic along would convince journalists to make my story public. That's why for the two times I came to Ottawa - once on October 19 and once on November 23 - I did not even try to contact Mr. MacAdam immediately. In fact, I only got his phone number and called him for the first time on December 22, 2004. And we did not end up meeting with each other until March 17, 2005.

And that would be the story behind Gomery inquiry. But it was a "conspiracy" mostly conjured up in Kinsella's mind anyways. He knew that all along when he influenced MSM media to make sure nobody would report my story and in the end I would have to go to MacAdam for help.

(Sorry, I am too tired to finish it today.)


Dignity is in the news

After writing my previous entry with dignity last Wednesday, not surprisingly, it is in the news.
  1. Thursday. Scott Reid attacking Conservatives: "Have they no dignity?" -- That's funny, Scott. Really funny.
  2. Friday. CBC Radio news: "...Parliament came to an undignified halt today..." -- That's pathetic, CBC. Really pathetic.
  3. Saturday. Rex Murphy on the Globe compares politics with literature and concludes that "at least literature allows for a little dignity." -- That's, um, that takes a memo to respond.