Thursday, December 14, 2006

Back after being hacked

The Downtown Eastside Enquirer appears to have became the victim of a hacker over the past week.

At first the hacker deleted the description of the blog, altered some of the settings, and deleted a couple of postings, including one entitled McFailure. The hacker also published a copy of a posting that had been stored under Draft.

The Enquirer responded by restoring the deleted material.

Then the hacker struck again. This time deleting the entire blog!

This hacking came after a Carnegie Board member twice verbally attacked a homeless Carnegie member whom he suspected was behind the blog. The Board member also verbally attacked a friend of the suspected blogger. The suspected blogger was again verbally attacked, twice, by a leftie activist who sometimes comes to the Downtown Eastside. Then Carnegie staff persons, one a CUPE member and the other a BCTF member, who had been criticized on the blog for repeatedly locking doors to publicly funded services, arranged to have the suspected blogger barred for a day from the Carnegie Learning Centre. (They would later upgrade the barring to a permanent one.)

Although Carnegie has for several months been blocking community access to the Downtown Eastside Enquirer on their computers, censorship has been stepped up over the past few days. Blogging capability -- access to -- has been completely blocked on several Carnegie computers. As a final effort to deter publication of the Downtown Eastside Enquirer, the suspected blogger was barred for life from the Carnegie Learning Centre by Ethel Whitty, the Director of Carnegie appointed by the City of Vancouver, and Lucy Alderson, a teacher and BCTF member. Alderson told him that he was barred for allegedly contributing to the Downtown Eastside Enquirer.

But despite setbacks, the Downtown Eastside Enquirer has, as Arnold would say, "cum bock".

Canada is not yet China.

[Most of the original postings will be restored over the next couple of days.]


dag said...

It's good to see a reliable source of information about the state of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Too often what passes for news in the Eastside is propaganda meant to drum up support for another grant provided to the self-appointed guardians of the poor. If those who pay taxes could actually see the result of the money they so often willingly give to the state to ameliorate Human suffereing, they might become not merely critical but outreaged by the misuse of their money and the time it takes from their private lives to earn the money others so glibly demand more of.

The Leftist clique who live on grant money are no different from those who live on welfare payments, to my mind, they are simply more aggressive and more sophisticated in their panhandling. Rather than sitting on a sidewalk complaining they are hungrey they stand in city Hall meetings claiming others are hungry and that the elitists of the Left should receive milllions of dollars to save "the poor" from the system. Good grief, look at the death toll on the Lower East Side that the elitists have created by their "help." Welfare people dependent on handouts from the minders who dole out tax-payer money are desperate for real work but instead are roped into a state of dependency and false consciousness, thinking themselves victims of society rather than as potential contributors to their own lives. I think of the Lord of the Rings, the character Grima Worm Tongue who has whispered into the ear of the king that the king is old and feeble and worthless, and till nearly the end the king believes it. But such is not the case. That line only benefits Wormtongue.

It is irresponsible to support dependency on minders who take from the public and take first for themselves while later buying votes and attendence at rallies with the tax money so many give so freely without knowing where the money goes, thinking they have done some good thing for the downtrodden, those who are actually under the heal of the Left.

Reliablde Sources, I like your work, and I'm sure that those in the greater community, once they see it here and elsewhere will aalso come to question the nature of the grant-driven Left. Once people have a clear sense of the tragedy of the minders' agenda perhaps the city will again return to a normal state of life for all, not this phantasy of Left minders taking and taking and taking for themselves and dropping crumbs for "the poor" as if they are doing some great thing. Things are worse thanks to the "help" the Left provides to this city's underclass. Please continue showing us just what goes on in such places of darkness as the Carnegie Library. Then perhaps this nightmare of poverty and crime will come to an end and people can return to being responsible for themselves and happier for it.

Anonymous said...

Having watched the Carnegie in action I have no doubt about the veracity of your reports of the Carnegie staff trying to censor your blog. It is inconceivable that they get away with this nonsense. And yet so many of them denounce your efforts to remain anonymous. Take a look at the last issue of the Carnegie Newsletter and the reasons to protect your identity are obvious. They have no idea what free speech is all about. I was going to suggest contacting the BC Civil Liberties Association until I read Jamie Lee Hamilton's recent blog which outs the BC Civil Liberties group as poverty pimps with it's connections to DERA, APC, and the Portland Housing Society. Good luck staying afloat in this quagmire.

reliable sources said...

“…false consciousness, thinking themselves victims of society rather than as potential contributors to their own lives.”

I highlighted this line from your comment because I wanted to read it a few times and make a point of remembering it.

I had been thinking of the term “false consciousness” in relation to the practice by well paid workers who flock to Carnegie and the DTES of encouraging underclass people to view them as their “community”. Underclass people buy into it too. Anybody criticizing staff people risks being portrayed as disloyal to the community, as being less than community-minded.

The previous Director Michael Clague took this false consciousness to an extreme; he would put posters up around the Carnegie Centre referring to the “Carnegie family”. Underclass people could be abused and even barred from the building without due process, but ultimately they were expected to maintain loyalty to the Carnegie as it was their family and he was Dad.

reliable sources said...


You write, “They have no idea what free speech is all about.”

The one person at Carnegie who you would think would have a handle on free speech is current Board member and former Vancouver Sun reporter, Bob Sarti. Sarti has been hurling insults at the suspected blogger in front of witnesses inside the Carnegie Centre. And Sarti is credited in the Carnegie newsletter for being the “unsung hero” who “verified” the identity of the blogger – a homeless guy who is not the blogger. Sarti has created the David Milgaard of the blogosphere.

A scary thought: for 30 years we were relying on Sarti for the news.

Anonymous said...

It's really sad that you're allowing another human being to take the fall for the postings on this blog. While you hide behind your anonimity an innocent homeless man is being blamed and punished for the shit that you create. If you truly cared about this person you would identify yourself to clear things up so his computer privledges will be restored. You don't care who you hurt. You're angry, bitter and very selfish.

Anonymous said...

At least Bob Sarti puts his name to what he writes.That's more than I can say for you.

reliable sources said...


You wrote: "At least Bob Sarti puts his name to what he writes.That's more than I can say for you."

And it's more than I can say for you.

You're wrong about Bob Sarti. Sarti has written for years under pseudonyms in the Carnegie newsletter, even after he retired as a Vancouver Sun reporter.

Anonymous said...

Why are you allowing an innocent person to take the fall for you and your blog? I posted a comment yesterday suggesting that you come clean about who you are so the innocent man being blamed for your words could have his computer priviledges restored at Carnegie. You would rather have an innocent person be punished for what you're doing rather than taking on the responsibility for your words and the fallout it has created. You claim that your right to free speech is being violated and yet you feel you can censor me and deny me my right to speak freely and be posted on your blog. Why wouldn't you post my original comment? Are you scared it might plant a seed in someone's head that you're a complete asshole who doesn't give a damn who he/she hurts? Your anonimity is now hurting an innocent person but you don't give a shit. Grow the fuck up!!! This blog has no creditibility. It's one mugsling after another with no journalistic integrity whatsoever. The DTES gets enough shit from outsiders but you feed into this US vs Then mentality by creating these petty labels and divisions among people in the community. You come across as an angry bitter human being who can't come to terms with that fact that life isn't going good for you. You've criticized everyone from the Sally Ann to UGM to Carnegie to Insite. What the fuck is the matter with you!!? Do people need to be fucked up on drugs, homeless and on welfare to fit your definition of what a Downtown Eastsider is? I have no problem with people being drug addicts, homeless or on welfare but you seem to think that these are the things that define what a Downtown Eastsider is. Quite frankly you're really out of touch with what it means to belong to the community. Your attempts at being anti establishment are laughable at best. I can't believe you criticize orgainzations that help the poor and feed them when nobody else cares. I doubt you'll post this because you're the type of person who can dish it out but can't take it. Happy New year you fucking loser!!!!

reliable sources said...

Your wrote: "It's really sad that you're allowing another human being to take the fall for the postings on this blog. While you hide behind your anonimity (sic) an innocent homeless man is being blamed and punished...."

The homeless man has actually been expressing an opinion on this topic to Carnegie members. He advises that anyone blogging avoid exposing themselves to "this vengeful crowd" at this time. It is his position that "this crowd must be monitored".

The underlying problem at Carnegie and on the Downtown Eastide of retaliation against individuals who dare to publish facts and opinions not conducive to maximizing grants to the poverty industry must be addressed. Switching pop up targets in front of a vengeful crowd is not the solution.

reliable sources said...

You wrote: " feel you can censor me...."

You have not been censored. I just saw your message this afternoon, along with others.

You also wrote: "Do people need to be fucked up on drugs, homeless and on welfare to fit your definition of what a Downtown Eastsider is?"

No, that's not my definition. That's the definition the poverty industry uses to maximize funding, a fact that is pointed out on the blog. There is no grant money in normal and poverty pimps know that.

If you had read the blog, you would be aware that in the posting "CBC duped about Downtown Eastside homeless", I criticized the tendency of people linked to the grant industry to present people as homeless when they aren't. I pointed out that the CBC was led to believe that the cast of a Carnegie theatre production was "mainly homeless and low income people" when there was actually just one homeless person in it, a man who is homeless by choice.

But take a more recent example. A representative of the DTES Women's Centre has been in the media seeking grant money to keep the Women's Centre open at night to give women a place to sleep. She told the media that she had driven around the DTES and in 2 hours had counted over 70 women sleeping in doorways. This is a gross exaggeration, an outright lie actually. Everyone on the DTES who has been asked, including women who go to the Women's Centre, has acknowledged that it is not anywhere close to being accurate.

Kevin, a man who has been homeless for 6 months (he sleeps near Terminal & Main) and shortly before that was homeless for a
1 1/2 year period, was told about the claim the Women's Centre rep had made. A faint smile came over his face and he said, "That's a stretch".

When Kevin was told that the Women's Centre rep was making this statement in order to get a grant, he said, "Oh then it's a good lie." With that comment, he managed to sum up the attitude of poverty pimps who feel they are justified in exaggerating to get a grant because it is for a good cause.

Kevin was quick to point out that he does occasionally see a homeless woman, something that he says was more rare a few years back. "It's disgusting," he says. But he admits that in the last few years, he has seen no more than 10 homeless women.

And these homeless women are not sleeping in doorways where they can be conveniently counted by a grant applicant from the Women's Centre. Kevin says that homeless women "are not obvious." Like homeless men, he says, they tend to find sleeping spots where they are hidden from view.

Guess what? The rep at the Women's Centre just landed an $80,000 grant to house homeless women. And guess who phoned the Women's Centre for the story? The CBC, which seems to stand for Can't Bother Checking.

Anonymous said...


What kind of moral incompetent blames you because some scumbag mob is scapegoating a homeless guy who they think has the temerity to speak out against them? It really boggles the mind how fallen some people are.

It's inconceivable to me that in this day and age people who operate on public funds can think themselves beyond accountability and transparency, that it's ok to shut a blogger down and harrass him and kick him out of Carnegie. And clearly, they know that if there were transparency in Carnegie operations they would be in trouble, hence the attempt to shut you down, instead of responding with logic and evidence to any misrepresentation on your part.

I can't believe what I am reading in the latest Carnegie newsletter; well I can believe it after reading your blog - this newsletter tends to confirm your picture of the mindset at Carnegie. I laugh at one d.leC. who writes:

Some people get off by intentionally stirring up malicious shit: some truth exaggerated by a flair for fiction; thus creating their own drama. Do you need to create ousiders so that you can justify yourself as a politically correct insider?... Perhaps you could fork over some funds for such slander.
Those of us who have struggled for adequate housing need to continue to fight with and for those without. Are you in or are you out?

Talk about a resentful and logically incoherent diatribe. First you are accused of being an "insider" which you are obviously not, and then after being blamed for thinking in insider/outsider terms (but who doesn't think in these terms - in fact, it is the essence of our humanity to think in these terms and only those caught up in a certain postmodern fantasy world believe otherwise), this hysterical person calls on you to protect the fold against outsiders, or pay the tribute that is somehow this person's due in life.

And this fold is one clearly self-defined by its getting (not enough, of course...) public moneys, as if it were a right without any obligations or responsibilities attached. I know it's tough being (relatively) poor, but... what about moral poverty? anyway, wherever one is on the status hierarchy, it's no excuse for having the kind of contempt of accountability that this person displays. No doubt their resentment is fierce - watch out and keep your friends informed of what's going on.


reliable sources said...


I thought your point was interesting about people having a natural inclination to think in insider/outsider terms, and only those living in postmodernist fantasia deny that.

reliable sources said...


You're right about their resentment being fierce.

Recently, Carnegie staff had a meeting in which they discussed tracking down the blogger. One staffperson said they had a relative at CSIS whom they were going to call. Imagine that -- using the expertise of secret police to shut down free speech on Google blogger. That's China.

When I read the article you're referring to, I wondered who d.leC was. This person wrote, "I have no need to hide behind anonymity", then signed with initials only. Then in an article on the next page, Paul Taylor referred to "Diane LeClaire's cogent criticism" of the blogger.

When I read the articles that these people write, I notice two things: one that's scary and one that's comforting. It's scary to see how little commitment they have to the right to freedom of expression when it could interfere with the grant culture in which they live. It is comforting to see that they aren't as intelligent as I had once thought.

Anonymous said...

"You're right about their resentment being fierce."

Can you tell me what it is I am resenting you for? I had no idea that objecting to your blog meant I resented you. Your assertion that I resent you in any way is more laughable than your lame ass attempts at being anti- establishment. *laughs hysterically* Damn this is too funny!!!

"When I read the articles that these people write, I notice two things: one that's scary and one that's comforting. It's scary to see how little commitment they have to the right to freedom of expression when it could interfere with the grant culture in which they live."

Grant culture in which who lives? I live? I have never in my life applied for a grant. I wouldn't know a grant application if one jumped up and bit me. So much for you and your ASSumptions. Little do you know about me. You just assume that anyone who opposes your blog is part of the Carnegie establishment. Wrong again!

Your friend anonymous called me a "moral incompetent" in response to that I would like to say that you and this person are morally bankrupt.

"It really boggles the mind how fallen some people are."

You fallen as far as anyone can go. Your moral compass points in a multitude of directions at one time. You lack a soul and a conscience. I'm still laughing at your assumption that I resent you.

"It's scary to see how little commitment they have to the right to freedom of expression..."

Would you post any of this blog if your had to use your real name? I doubt it. You hide behind anonimity and that's what pisses me off. Jamie Hamilton is a shining example of what a blogger is. She's willing to put out what she believes to be the truth and she stands by her words with her real name. She's willing to stand by her convictions no matter what the cost. You should take some lessons from her.

reliable sources said...

You write: "You hide behind anonimity ...." Then you sign, anonymous.
Enough said.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing wrong with anonymity if it is used responsibly, with intellectual and ethical honesty. But some people can't stand to respond to truth claims with anything other than ad hominem (the logical fallacy of attacking the person, not his argument), which is really all the anonymous commenter above offers.

As for denying her resentment: everyone is resentful but not everyone is willing to admit it and honestly explore the delusional qualtities of all our resentment. Not everyone wants to embrace humility and acknowledge the fallibility that their, and everyone's, resentment entails.

The idea that we don't resent those with whom we engage in critical debate about what is true and sacred is either simply naive, ignorant of basic anthropology, or simply dishonest. The truth is we do resent our political opponents, and often our friends, and we have to work to respond to them with the humility and respect they deserve, in recognition of our own fallibility. Overcoming or avoiding resentment is not something that comes naturally. It can only be done when we admit that it is inevitable and necessary in the first place, a fundamental part of a humanity that fundamentally orients itself around common centres of sacred attention and desire. We resent those whom we feel are alienating us from what is true and sacred, which is anyone who makes a claim on a sacred centre, a calim with which we differ, whether this centre be Carnegie, the Catholic Church, or the real secret behind Kentucky Fried Chicken.