If Palin has nothing to hide she should have nothing to fear. Perhaps Kitty Kelly should have moved in on the other side. No such registering any complaint with Random House Canada from this corner; quite the opposite. It is still freedom of the press, or does that only apply to the right wingernuts?

That's a very good point, T.

In fact, I wonder how a photo-essay titled "Through The Window: the President's Juicy Little Daughters" would sell?

No, T, that's an illogical conclusion.

You are focusing on a false assumption; namely, that it's perfectly moral and ethical for a journalist, dedicated to smearing a particular person, to put himself into a situation where he can directly oversee and observe all their activities. You are utterly ignoring the intentions of the journalist which are well-known and public.

Your validation of this action, is 'well, it's OK. After all, it's only if the person who is being spied upon has something to HIDE, that it's a problem...and the problem is with the person who is trying to HIDE something'.

No. The problem is the morality of one person deliberately putting himself into a position where he can observe another person without their permission - and where this observation is not indifferent and objective but hostile. That's called harassment.

It's surprising that you support such an intrusion of privacy and such an agenda.

No Glen beck is not crazy (yet) but he is almost terminally goofy.

I don't know what is worse a pretensive partisan goof ball like Beck going hysteric because the Palin's neighbor is an A-hole, or the A-hole who moved in next to Palin hoping this somehow will give his concocted smear job credibility.

Please note: When leftist wind bags are smearing someone the target becomes "scary". When RINO wind bags do it their target is "creepy".

hey mr. t; your point is that female victims of aggression by crazy males must have something to hide?

I notice Random house doesn't have an email address on its contact page. HHHMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Unless I have gone blind!?!!?

T's conclusion is appropriate for the full effort of both his brain cells.

For a normal person, that conclusion has the depth of a parking lot puddle, the gravity of an Obama speech and the honesty of a Liberal Party of Canada apparatchik like Warren Kinsella.

"pretensive"

Would you like to explain that one for us, Jim?

I've updated the post, FREE.

Just called Random House, USA. They are getting drowned with calls ... Tel: (212) 782-9000

Jim

Beck's not a partisan. I don't watch his show, nor read his writings but I know that much for what it's worth.

T is correct, the journalist has every right to move where he wants. What T appears to miss(intentionally) is that nobody here will disagree with that indisputable fact.

In my view, this is analogous to yesterdays discussion regarding the cyclist. Although legally you may have the "Right" to be somewhere; if you become too bold, you may end-up dead right. IMO you are treading precariously close to crossing the "personal security line" when you choose to engage in this despicable behaviour. If- Sarah and Todd were not public figures, and someone pulled the same stunt, I'd wager that the journalist would inevitably be putting themselves at personal physical risk.

Sorry for spewing testosterone:(

Andrew Sullivan will p*ssed he didn't think of it first. I wonder if McGiniss will have him over; maybe rent him a room.

And, ... Ahem! They're called trolls for a reason. I for one have no interest in what this lurker has to say. Please ignore them.

Just unbelievable,Does Random house really condone this intrusive harrassement? Lets hear from them, shall we?

T - would you then also argue that anyone detained by the police should provide full DNA etc since if they are not guilty they would have nothing to hide? I doubt if the loony left would go for that argument!

For most of today's left-libs. it's power at any cost, toss out decency, honor, respect, and truth. I would expect the good people of Wasilla will take care of the situation. Hopefully , this asshole will need 24 hr security soon. An East-Coast urbanised POS might think he can remain anonymous. He deserves a welcoming committee.

"T - would you then also argue that anyone detained by the police should provide full DNA etc since if they are not guilty they would have nothing to hide? I doubt if the loony left would go for that argument!"

Or proof of citizenship?

My guess is, if some aging journalist moved next door to, say, David Suzuki or Al Gore to write a (presumedly negative) biography about either, the outraged views here about harassment and journalistic ethics would instantly be replaced with questions about Amazon.ca's pre-order process.

By the way, you can answer Mr. Beck's call to boycott Random House all you like, but by stirring this up, you're just handing Mr. McGinniss free publicity and guaranteed sales. Even if he loses Random House in the process, some other publisher will no doubt pick up the project, and offer him a larger advance and heftier marketing budget to boot.

No one, and that is no one other than Kate, should respond to T. Yet he continues to get attention every time he posts.

I see nothing all day but vehicles driving down the main street past my house: cars, trucks, some pulling boats, tractors, farm machinery.

What I'm saying is: there is more activity going on outside my house than there is going on inside T's brain. Ignore him.

Sarah and Todd have children who are being observed by someone whose presence is meant to be intimidating. And don't think it's not meant to be because there is no other reason for an author to move practically on top of his subject unless invited.

The Palin family must continue to live normally every day being aware that every move anyone in the house makes, and that includes the daughters, is being observed by a hawk. Try it.

"...Hopefully , this asshole will need 24 hr security soon. An East-Coast urbanised POS might think he can remain anonymous. He deserves a welcoming committee."

No, John, it's the neo-fascist Leftards that would (and do-as in the recent SEIU "visit" to a bankers home) practice goon tactics and responses, not moderate and conservative people. It's the Left that practices all the hatred, intimidation and, often, violence, which the like to accuse conservatives of.

It's moderates and conservatives who want to, you know, CONSERVE things like: decency, civility and the rule of democratic law.

Even for those who pathologically dislike the women, how can anyone not find this guys actions disturbing and an intentional act of intimidation?!?

Thanks for your moral preening and groundless hypothetical, Davenport. All very useful, I'm sure.

Of course, the fact that no journalist with an agenda against Suzuki or Gore has done what your lunatic anti-Palin buddy is doing should be instructive. I doubt it's a lesson you're willing to acknowledge, though.

No one, no one at all should have to endure this kind of scrutiny in their home.

How would T like this kind of neighbour, who would observe every move he made, what went on the barbecue, who drank what and when, mowing, gardening, playing with kids.

This guy does not have the right to hover over anyone, and he should have his ass kicked out of there right now. Then the people who rented him the house should have the same fate.

I suggest Palin buy the property and tear it down.

To answer my own question, apparently this is just all in her mind, nothing to see here...

"Has McGinniss gone to an extreme to get a story? Well, we don't have his side yet -- not that this has prevented every other media outlet from typing up Palin's Facebook post like some lost Gospel. But assuming he's rented the house near the Palins for some period of time, assuming the Palins know he's there and that he's writing a book, then what, exactly, is wrong with this?"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/sarah_palins_strange_unprofess.html

The best thing for Sarah Palin to do is to bring in the police and begin to track this legally. Harassment is a crime. She may need to develop evidence in order to get a restraining order or force the guy to move. She can also seek a civil suit against this guy and Random House. You also have to be careful how this thing is spun because this guy may be actually be making a name for himself on purpose to sell this book. Someone will publish a juicy tell-all if it makes a lot of dough - and it would - especially if you can create this kind of controversy.

If I were Todd Palin, I would lay a horrid beating on this wanker while accusing him of lude behavior around the wife and kids. I would then sue him for harassment. I think there is a case here.

I think America would applaud wildly.

Here's the interesting thing: the home address of Joe McGinnis is now public knowledge. He should look over his shoulder. Somebody might be stalking him.

Let us not forget that Random House was also the publisher of Marci MacDonalds embarrassing error riddled hit piece on Canadian Christians. Ezra had some good coverage on that.

>>if some aging journalist moved next door to, say, David Suzuki or Al Gore

Aside from the fact that both of these people live in huge estates or intentionally secluded homes that would preclude such an action, as opposed to Palin's simple middle class home, I very much doubt that anyone opposed to their agenda would stoop to such an activity. It's leftist behaviour, pure and simple.

(Email sent)

It has been brought to my attention that a Random House author (Joe McGinniss) is stalking the subject of his upcoming book. That he has rented a house with a balcony overlooking his subject's back yard...

With this in mind, I was wondering if you would share the home addresses of the key people in your corporation. Because I think they should also be stalked at their home, have their children followed to school & have their spouses photographed every time they step into their back yard.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

ET (says about T): "It's surprising that you support such an intrusion of privacy and such an agenda."
-------------------
No it's not.

I hate it when people say if you have nothing to hide.....

I say you volunteer to put your life in an open book. See how you like having anyone, and this incudes people that may not like you or agree with you and could have power over you(gov't police) and see how you like it.

You may find out how stupid the saying is.

Indiana Homez at 11:41 AM, there are laws against voyeurism and stalking. What's the difference between what this guy is doing and voyeurism and stalking?

Random House can be reached at their New York world headquarters, (212) 782-9000 ... and the direct dial 6-digit extension of Joe McGinness' editor there is: 829003. Leave a message directly in this person's voicemail.

Posted by: gellen at May 26, 2010 12:10 PM

Give up, gellen. I've tried, in vain, to get folks around these parts to ignore the (T)roll. Folks don't seem to understand the (T)roll will go away if it is starved (ignored). Some very smart people post here, but many seem all too easily susceptible to taking the (T)roll bait. Hook. Line. And, sinker.

A writer worth his salt would arrange an interview with Mrs. Palin or the people she knows, not move right next door within peering distance. This act displays anything other than professionalism and common decency.

Day 1: As I peer over the fence separating our back yards I see T, standing over the lawnmower with a puzzled expression on his pimply, pasty, puffy face. At least the sobbing has stopped. It was an hour ago that his Mother told him to get outside and mow the grass. He doesn't appear to know how to start that lawn mower thingy.

Day 2: T's lawn still isn't cut. I overhear his Mother tell him that at least he did his best so she's treting him to a happy meal at McDonald's. T stomps his feet screaming that he wants chicken nuggets with his happy meal. And a Star Wars toy. And an ice cream cone. And an Avatar DVD.

Day 3: It's late evening and I see T has returned from one of his very few trips outdoors. Looks like he's returning from the store. The bag he's carrying sudedenly rips open and the contents spill to the ground. Looks like he just picked up a copy of Tiger Beat, this month featuring the hip and cool president Obama. Also spilling from the bag appears to be a very large container of petroleum jelly, some Clearasil and a large bag of Doritos. Undoubtedly T will be up quite late tonight.

Day 28: Haven't seen T outside for almost 3 weeks now, just the continuing flicker of his computer monitor spills out from the basement window of his Mom's house while he logs into smalldeadanimals pretending to be an adult.....

Er, "lude" behaviour would involve lying around moaning that you've taken too many downers. I think the concern would be with "lewd" behaviour.

You've got to watch those damned homophones. Of course, words that sound the same can be a problem too.

Eskimo, that's way too much trouble. One word buddy:

webcam.

So T, you're good with that right? We can set up 24/7/365 live coverage of your mum's backyard tonight. Just leave her name and address with Kate, we'll do the rest.

I'm interested in this inablity to distinguish between "legal" and "moral". I guess it's no wonder, since lefties believe that all people other than themselves have no decency, intelligence or judgement, and therefore insist that every element of our lives be regulated. What Slimebag McGinness is doing is probably legal - or maybe not, stalking laws and such - but whatever, he's a louse, no offense to lice, and it is legal for us to hate him.

Louise

If you're referring to my comment that "T is correct" my answer is as follows:

The journalist hasn't yet committed any crime; therefore, as an American he has the Right to move where he wishes, even if he intends to spy. That's as much credit as I'm willing to give T, but my grander point was that his obvious revelation is not pertinent to the discussion.

As I said in my comment, I believe the whole thing is despicable.

This will all be over soon. One way or another, this guy will leave Alaska.

"and it is legal for us to hate him."

only because HE's White.

McGinniss once bid over $50,000 to have dinner with Palin (he was eventually outbid).
He also wrote a hit piece in the DailyBeast about Sarah Palin flying in planes while she was in her book tour.

Thank you black Mamba for finally saying "I'm interested in this inablity to distinguish between "legal" and "moral"."
Yes there is no law ad should be no law that prevents Creepy McCreeperson from living next door, but that doesn't mean it isn't immoral and that there shouldn't be outrage in response.

I said it on the last thread and I'll say it again, He's a Kreep!

Oh, Indy, I agree with your post @11:41. Anyway, how do you know McGinness is white? Could be Black Irish (little joke). I despise him whatever colour he turns out to be.

p.s. Since you touched on the subject, why is nothing ever made of the fact that Todd Palin has eskimo/inuit background? To my way of thinking, anyone who has a problem with the Palins is in fact a RACIST!!!

Thanks, Always Right. Yesterday I was reading some forum where in essence it was being argued: Palin is in favour of capitalism. McGinness is not breaking the law, and he's making money; therefore Palin is a hypocrite!

No. Me, I do believe in the free market. I may even believe in the legalization of drugs. This does not mean that Pablo Escobar is my hero. It is only in communist countries that That Which is Not Forbidden is Mandatory. The fact that many on the left cannot grasp this basic distinction provides disturbing insight into their motivation.

Also, this man writes hit pieces about her, bid thousands of dollars in an unsuccessful attempt to trap her into having dinner with him, showed up in Florida during her book tour, and now has left Massachusetts to move to Wasilla, Alaska to watch her from a few feet away--on his deck, allegedly with binoculars. Not only is his presence there unethical, it's sick--and certainly a cause for concern

I'm appalled at the choices Joe McGuinness and Random House have made. I think it's worth noting that there is a division between private lives and public persona. And what Black Mamba has noted, "an inability to distinguish between moral and legal." What could anyone claim to find by moving in to the house next to Kate? How often the lawn gets cut? How late at night the lights are on?

It isn't like she needs to keep a list of visitors to the Alaskan White House, she's a private citizen now, certainly something that Random House doesn't get. Clearly, I'm not fit to sit on a jury regarding the fate of Joe McGuinness' tormentors, but I know well enough to keep my private bias to myself.

If Joe McGinness lived in Canada and acted like this, journalist or not, he would be arrested for stalking.

Is this the same Joe McGuinniss who wrote The Miracle of Castel di Sangro?

That book was written by an American author who, fancying himself a footy expert after having seen first-hand the 1994 World Cup, headed off to Italy to live with and write the story of a small Abruzzo side from Castel di Sangro. At the time the club had won several promotions and were on the cusp of the ultimate promotion to Serie A.

The American author, Joe McGuinness, goes bat-shite crazy shortly after arrival and inserts himself into internal team politics and starts to tell the coach and the owners how to run the team. Embarrassingly for McGuinness he thinks that dropping the name "Alexei Lalas" confers upon him some sort of footy knowledge.

In short, the author travels to Italy to tell the story of a miracle team but in the end becomes the story himslef, the ugly and clueless American.

See the comments at Amazon.

No doubt Mr. McGinness will presently find it difficult to appear in public in Wassailia. Buying groceries may become an adventure for him.

You don't get to be Governor of a state and most popular speaker on the Tea Party tour without making some friends.

So, I'm just thinking that with lots of grimsley bears up there, say 5-10 pounds of prime cut beef, or maybe some juicy salmon, stashed in strategic areas of his yard might have an impact on this Twits lifestyle.

Not that I would ever, ever, condone this mind you.

But Safeway is having a sale on RIGHT NOW.

ebt at May 26, 2010 2:41 PM with the clever spelling correction.

I've been wondering: is ebt EBT's little boy? Clever enough!

"Er, "lude" behaviour would involve lying around moaning that you've taken too many downers. I think the concern would be with "lewd" behaviour."

Thanks for that ... I stand corrected. Actually I do like to know when I misspell words or use poor grammar. I am into self-improvement.

Lewd ... Lude ... I knew that too.

I never had the opportunity for a lot of formal education but at least I can now pass those savings onto my customers.

:0)

f Joe McGinness lived in Canada and acted like this, journalist or not, he would be arrested for stalking.
Posted by: Oz at May 26, 2010 6:06 PM

No, actually he wouldn't. He wouldn't even be bothered. We have such a case here in the Hamilton-Stoney Creek area. Peeping tom and all. Untouchable.

Defending this guy in any manner whatsoever would be an example of "textbook libertarianism". As a libertarian myself, with new anarcho-capitalism training wheels, I've become very conscious of this problem and fight it daily.

We must betimes set aside our earnest devotion to ideology and talk common sense. This guy is stalking, period. Now while the stalking offense came from radical feminism, it's a good thing.

But come to think of it, condemning this is consistent with libertarian principles: it offends the core non-aggression axiom. Considering WHY he's there, you can't but conclude that he is invading her privacy.

Oh, one more thing. I believe the libertarian would favour community/neighbour action over state action here. If you know what I mean.

Albertaclipper: "Aside from the fact that both of these people live in huge estates or intentionally secluded homes that would preclude such an action,"
===============================
or that anyone would ever catch Al Goracle mowing his own lawn.

bleetymouth - shut up.

bleet

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bleet

mouth

http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=mouth&defid=99323

While I was growing up in a small town in northern BC a "known" child molester came to town. Presumably all of the parents were warned, because I recall hearing about him and warnings about how to act around strangers despite my young age at the time. There were no police in town - that small, but not that remote to "need" them. The erstwhile molester tried to grab the son of a local logger but the boy got away. I haven't heard the name "puppet man" since then, and if what I think happened did happen then he'll never be found. Laws exist for a reason but only work when a common knowledge or interpretation are applied to them. That we were warned makes me think that he was known to police as a risk but that they "couldn't do anything until he does something". The word of a 6-to-8 year old would be unlikely to stand up in court, so the molester would likely just move on. The courts decided that the risk of him offending (or more likely re-offending) was worth more than the risk of putting a potentially innocent man behind bars.

A society of angels needs neither laws nor police. Free societies of men have to determine their own balance between personal freedom and personal security. When one's actions and history show that you are looking at others within your society as prey then I favour the safety of the innocent. Vlad the Impaler reportedly had one of the lowest crime rates in history in his land but none of us would willingly live there (and no, that wasn't a free choice of his "citizens" for their personal safety but aptly displays one extreme).

We all know this guy is a creep. Deserves to have his ass kicked into Tuesday by Todd.
That the MSM standing up for him are perverts, turncoats , mostly rodents with a slim gland.

In a sane World this stalker would get his comeuppance. In the Obama World he's the Hero of the left. The true victim, fearfullest in the pursuit of truth, by leftist nut jobs.
Sarah Palin portrayed as the hag from hell, impeding this mans rights to ogle her family if not her.
This inverted post modern Zeitgeist, has descended on the minds of many.
To the point they have no moral centers anymore. Some never did to begin with.
JMO

Hmm.... Fox News has over 45% of the cable news viewership. For some reason, they can sell ad time at a premium. Not many businesses would want the equivalent of a $2 million negative ad campaign directed at them, especially over a minor issue. Particularly when it's the politically aware and literate folks like the typical Fox News viewer.

Do you prefer the CBC? It's nice and safe, isn't it. No challenges to the grade school or high school level of understanding the world around you. (That includes teachers, though some of both students and teachers can see beyond the trees.)

Kate - sorry 'bout feeding the treasure troll, but I couldn't resist because I always get a laugh out of the wacky hair I envision on them.

bleetymouth - (why, why do I engage? Oh why? But I don't consider it troll-feeding when said troll makes an effort, however lame, to present an argument.) So..... step back, bleet. On what grounds do you defend this "journalist"? Granted that we concede his actions might be legal, why are you sticking up for Spyvideo McNightmareNeighbor? Ask yourself, bleet: What would Jesus do? Would he be moving in next door to stalk Sarah Palin's family, like some villain in an '80s made-for-TV movie?

If someone did this to, I dunno, Rahm Emmanuel or Pelosi or someone, I wouldn't have their back. Why are you backing McGinness?

Bleetymouth: - paragrph/sentence by paragrph/sentence, and then that's it from me, unless you have anything interesting to say (and you don't):

Not disputing legality.

You're sorry? Repentence is good for the soul.

He's writing a book about her. He moved in next to her in order to observe her and her family, day and night, for months on end. How would you define stalking?

Nope.

p.s. "bleet" is a better name than "mouth". "bleet" suits you; "mouth" is kind of icky, somehow. Please go back to "bleet".

I heard the former governor on the Hannity show and Hannity did a fair job of letting Sarah speak her mind. She said that work crews were putting up a fifteen foot fence to keep out prying eyes.

Saw well preserved oldie Joy Behar on the "View" (spouse has it on) dealing with the subject. Quoth Joy: "Maybe he can see Russia from his back window". A cheap jibe at Sarah of course. Then old Joy is a bit of a cheapie herself. I understand the man has booked the residence for five months only. Can one imagine the likes of him in such a climate winterwise?

Nothing like non-neighbours to call for tolerance about somebody elses neighbour.

Make of this what you will.

Ben Smith from Politico: I haven't been able to reach McGinniss, but did send an errant email to his son, the novelist Joe McGinniss Jr., who replied, "Sadly, she's [Palin]right. We tried our best to intervene, but alas, the heart wants what it wants. We can only pray for him now. He's convinced that Todd will step aside and when the time is right, he'll be there, right next door, to pick up the pieces."

Shouldn't Sarah be looking after her own neighbours?? Stalking! Gimme a break!

As for the 'stalking' allegations - no proof. Have you any?

It is, de facto, stalking:
Moving next door to the intended target of a tawdry smear book (which it WILL BE), a high profile political celebrity, loathed and despised and abused by MSM, a victim of the most egregious libels, and after probably paying a large lump sum inducement to make the house available, clearly that's all the factual info you need. This is vile invasion of privacy. Can you imagine how the typical liberal would react to somebody doing this to one of their Hollywood heroes.

Seems some are not fully aware or clear on who Palin's new neighbour really is; your average Joe he isn't.

To begin with, he is a true crime writer who likes to stir the proverbial pot until it really really stinks or hits the fan or both.

"In her book, The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm used the McGinniss-MacDonald trial to explore the problematic relationship between journalists and their subjects...."
[which received poor reviews at first, but has "since become regarded as a classic, and ranks ninety-seventh in The Modern Library's list of the twentieth century's "100 Best Works of Nonfiction". [The first sentence of her book reads:] "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible." [recommend reading her wiki page] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Malcolm

Wiki pageon McGinniss - he's already updated his page - last sentence not there yesterday when I read it:

"In 1979 he became a writer-in-residence at the L.A. Herald Examiner. Next came the McGinniss trilogy of true crime books, Fatal Vision, Blind Faith and Cruel Doubt. All three books were made into TV miniseries. His 1983 account of the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, Fatal Vision, was a best-seller. MacDonald sued McGinniss in 1984, alleging that McGinniss pretended to believe MacDonald innocent after he came to the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty, in order to continue MacDonald's cooperation with him. After a six-week civil trial that resulted in a hung jury, McGinniss's publisher's insurance company chose to settle out of court with MacDonald for an undisclosed amount...

In the 2009 McGinniss began probing the explosive rise of Alaska governor and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He published a provocative and controversial article, "Pipe Dreams," in the April 2009 issue of Conde Nast's now-defunct Portfolio[5] and in September he bid $60,101.01 on Ebay to dine with Palin. Cathy Maples of Huntsville, Alabama, won the Ebay auction with a $63,500 bid.[6][7] McGinniss rented the house next door to Palin in Wasila, Alaska,[8] prompting Palin to warn him to stay away from her children.[9]

McGinniss is working on a book about Palin,[10] tentatively titled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously, which will be published by Broadway/Random House in 2011.

"I had thought it was an inalienable right of anyone to live anywhere they please, so long as they make the rent payments."

Your stupidity and ignorance are really coming through here.........

I'd like to know how you support your claim in light of the *fact* that many communities have laws prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within certain distances of areas where children live, play, or go to school. In the Dallas area, there are at least 4 suburbs where over 90% of the residences are off-limits. (Maps were published in the Dallas Morning News.....)

So - I guess that maybe there ISN'T an "inalienable" right to live wherever you choose - even if you pay the rent.

Duh.

Stalking does not simply mean following someone; it means placing oneself in a position to observe them without their permission. The purpose is immaterial. If a man parks outside a woman's house (on a public street, legally parked...) and spends his days looking at she and her house with binoculars, it's stalking. Anti-stalking laws generally deal with behavior, not motives. McGuinness can say he is doing this for a legitimate reason - that doesn't matter. It's his behavior that matters.

And the "if there's nothing to hide" meme is just so much trash. If ALL of a family's actions were observed by someone, it would be easy to take any given one thing out of context and create an "incident". Example - there's a pool party, and folks push each other in the pool for fun. A writer can turn that into "an out of control brawl putting lives at risk of drowning." And then all of a sudden the damage is done; because a denial or explanation (no matter how true) won't be believed by many people.

No one - absolutely no one - can be observed constantly and not provide many, many cases like the aforementioned. And that's part of why stalking is illegal................

"Of course, the fact that no journalist with an agenda against Suzuki or Gore has done what your lunatic anti-Palin buddy is doing should be instructive. I doubt it's a lesson you're willing to acknowledge, though."

Just out of curiosity, which of Gore's 4 mansions or Suzuki's 2 mansions would one rent the house next door to in order to get this kind of access?

Some of the trolls are right - it is not illegal for the creep to do this, but it IS pretty risky. It doesn't take much to lodge a harassment complaint if Palin chooses to.

Does "T" stand for tit, twat, twerp or twit?

Just wondering.

I have an idea. Why don't we find out T's identity(not too difficult for techies on this forum) and then we can find out who his employer is and publish it. Then we can all contact his employer.I'm sure "T" wouldn't mind the free publicity he will get. After all, if he has done nothing wrong he won't mind, will he?

I give the guy about two months..MAX!!!

This limp-wristed metro-f#%kup will over estimate his ability to "fit in", and someone he annoys will lose patience, and have him for lunch.

How can I be sure?

The old saying "Pride Comes Before a Fall", thats how. He demonstrates an ego out of proportion to his accomplishments.
His ego is a serious weakness, and will be his undoing.I'll put money on it.

I hope someone documents HIS trials of assimilation,on a blog.

And I'm sure, the movie will be great!

I went and posted without the most important and relevant piece of info on this guy. And I erred in that it was the second last sentence not last sentence that was not posted as of yesterday or the day b4. My bad.

From Malcom's wiki page:

Malcolm's example was popular non-fiction writer Joe McGinniss, author of The Selling of the President, among others; while researching his non-fiction, true crime book Fatal Vision, McGinniss lived with the defense team of former Green Beret doctor Jeffrey MacDonald, then on trial for the 1970 murders of his two daughters and pregnant wife.

The guy will be run out of Dodge on the noon train and then complain harassment, just like any Liberal.

My wife and I were chatting on the deck tonight and we figure all the problems the "West" are facing with budgets, crime, education (or lack of) can be all traced to "F*****G Liberals" (TM). Over the years they have promised the world with other peoples money and then screwed it up over and over. When right leaning people get upset, we are accused of being intolerant, racists and bigots. It's time to stop backing down from this barrage of bullshit and call a spade a spade.

A good sign is that European Socialism is unraveling. The green initiatives are being unfunded

The guy will be run out of Dodge on the noon train and then complain harassment, just like any Liberal.

My wife and I were chatting on the deck tonight and we figure all the problems the "West" are facing with budgets, crime, education (or lack of) can be all traced to "F*****G Liberals" (TM). Over the years they have promised the world with other peoples money and then screwed it up over and over. When right leaning people get upset, we are accused of being intolerant, racists and bigots. It's time to stop backing down from this barrage of bullshit and call a spade a spade. Push back.

A good sign is that European Socialism is unraveling. The green initiatives are being de-funded because of required restraint. Locals here can't now point to Europe and claim they are more "Progressive" than those dirty Yanks. The "Green Agenda" is being exposed not only as a fraud but unaffordable.

Sorry about the double post - a slip of the mouse.

Of course anyone can live where they want, and of course anyone can report that anyone for stalking. Joe's motives are clear - he wants to paint Palin weak and mock her because she is strong and he feels threatened, as most cowards do; hence, the name of his upcoming book about Palin-Living Dangerously.

He picked the fight and soon he will be living the embarrassment of being beaten by a girl who is more of a man than he could ever be. Palin has moral moral fiber in one of her eyelashes than Joe has in his entire body.

If Joe has a right to live in peace so does Palin - she was there first. If Palin does not have a right to live in peace, and clearly she's not, then neither does Joe have the right to live in peace - which clearly he wont be.

He will eserve what he get's, except, if it means being scrape from the side of car by means of a handily located mailbox, and that accomplished, run over and left for dead.

Quid pro quo.

mouth: "I'll say this for $arah, though: she cracks the whip and you guys jump..."

As everyone who's spent any amount of time on SDA knows, readers here are independent free-thinkers to the core, immune to brainwashing by the mainstream media.

It just so happens that they agree with everything that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, who both work for MSM ratings leader Fox News, have to say.

Beck says "Stalker", we say "Stalker"! Beck says "Stalker", we say "Stalker"!

Mouth,

1) You could at least get my name right.

2) You made a global statement about an inalienable right. You didn't qualify it, but presented it as a "this ends the discussion" factoid. There isn't a universal right, as I pointed out - conditions can and do apply. That's more than a bit germaine to the discussion - it raises the legitimate question of whether or not living next dor to someone and doing things which harass them is permissible.

3) You simply brushed aside my argument, rather than actually replying. That's fine - but dodging an issue is, in my experience, an indication of lack of a position sustainable by reason and fact.

4) Since Kate (rightfully so) doesn't like flame wars, I'll discuss the matter no further.

5) hetos hwo seu da mhoisnem mthevlsse shdlount ploocmia os chum.

"p.s. Since you touched on the subject, why is nothing ever made of the fact that Todd Palin has eskimo/inuit background? To my way of thinking, anyone who has a problem with the Palin’s is in fact a RACIST!!!"

First, I did a quick Google search to make sure he was white.

To your second point, I made that very observation here during the 08' election. During that election the MSM did a massive hit-job on Alaskans describing them as hicks, unsophisticated and every other knuckle-dragging comparison they could make. I had said at the time that considering the demographics of the Alaskan people; this hit-job could be perceived as racist against Natives. Furthermore, I also noticed and mentioned the attack against seniors during this election; and have mused that I believe the culture war of the near future will be young vs old because all the old white people ruined the planet. Don't cha know.

Also, pay Bleet no mind, he is very consistent. Like all good liberals, he would prefer to wait until there is a confirmed victim before he would ever try to hinder the behaviours of any likely creep. That's why he'd have preferred to see what the cyclist would have done to the driver, as opposed to the driver taking the pre-emptive step to defend himself.

dear bleetymouth and davenport, would you dorks be so sanguine if Sean Hannity moved in next door to Nancy Pelosi with the expressed purpose of writing a scandal laden tell-all? With binoculars?

I'm thinking no.

Or how about if some nut who shows up to all her concerts and appearances moved in next to Barbara Streisand? Would that be ok?

You people are so easy.

dear The Phantom, would you SDA fanboys be so outraged if Sean Hannity moved in next door to Nancy Pelosi with the expressed purpose of writing a scandal laden tell-all? With binoculars?

I'm thinking no.

The left wing media will stop at nothing to destroy any potential threat it sees to it's liberal elite control. Related to baseless attackes on Sarah Palin, this article by CBC that was posted yesterday is a prime example.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/05/26/palin-transcanada-emails.html

Not only is the headline extremely misleading, weighing the response of your constituents when making a decision is not a sign of anxiety for your image; it shows genuine concern for the well being of the electorate, but it also implies misdeeds by a canadian fortune 500 company for doing business with the state of Alaska.

As an empoyee of TransCanada I'm extremely dismayed at the way this article was presented by the CBC.

Davenport - oblige me infinitely by reading my short post @9:48

(You know, I guess this is a cheap shot, but you troll guys are so obtuse on the concept of "stalking" that I'd almost be curious to know what your ex-girlfriends, if any, have to say on the subject.)

Dear davenport, you really are easy.

While I do think anything bad which might happen to Nancy Pelosi is well deserved, they have these things called "laws" in the USA. Under these "laws", several people have been chucked in jail for stalking Barbara Streisand. Also men have been jailed for stalking Britney Spears and what's 'er name the buffalo wing girl. Jessica Simpson, that's the one.

None of those so jailed to this point have gone as far as McGinniss, moving in next door to their target. The run-of-the-mill creepoids just shadow their targets, shower them with mail, and generally behave in a dangerously creepy and insane way.

McGinniss is breaking new ground in creepy, and he may go to jail for it really soon. Or his intended victim may take him out when he finally makes his move. It'll be a race to see which happens first.

BTW, if Sarah Palin blows a new hole in this guy's head when he finally climbs over her fence, is that going to be a problem for you? Just wondering.

"...they have these things called "laws" in the USA."

I used to think that you were one of the smarter ones around here, The Phantom, but now I'm not so sure.

Not that I'm a fan of his tactics or anything, but if Mr. McGinniss had broken any actual Alaskan stalking/criminal harassment laws (as opoosed to 'merely' overstepping certain unspoken professional lines), he'd have been charged by now. But he hasn't, so he won't. He knows that; the Palin's know that. Heck, even most of your fellow SDA'ers know that. Yet here you are, babbling on about stalker laws and justifiable homicide fantasies and Barbara Streisand (sounds like you're a bit of a doting fan yourself) as if you know something.

By the way, do you even realize that your views on this matter -- that McGinniss is a stalker, that he's personally obsessed with Ms. Palin, that he poses a physical threat to her and her family -- were created for you by Glenn Beck and Palin herself? You are literally a mouthpiece, parroting whatever narrative they've spun for you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course -- you're free to be be a mindless fanboy to whomever you like. I'd just hate for you to go around with the misperception that your opinions are your own.

Now, now Davenport, no one said physical threat. Are you kidding? With a husband like Todd Palin?

And btw, why don't you drop the "independent thinker" bullshit, heh, and give us some good examples of leftist diversity vis-a-vis opinions on Palin. Not counting Camille Paglia, a extremely rare, old style thinking lefty who's not afraid to break ranks and who would break your balls in a debate on this issue.

Moreoever, there's lots of diversity of opinion about Palin on the right. While most rightists grok her good character and great personal integrity and charm, many, including yours truly, don't favour her for high political office. Not yet, anyway.

You would garner a lot more respect here, if you wouldn't so rigidly, robotically defend the indefensible and try to rise above your personal animus for Palin and acknowledge the key principle here: her privacy has been seriously impaired. No regular commenter here needs Beck or Limbaugh to tell us what is good and decent. We like these guys because they srongly advocate views already held, in my case for decades.

I can confidently say that no regular commenter here would approve of a similar stalk of a lefty pol -- even if not technically covered by a law, which after all is an ass.

Davenport said: "I used to think that you were one of the smarter ones around here, The Phantom, but now I'm not so sure."

Oh, how sad. So, those guys who were arrested and jailed for stalking Ms. Simpson and Babs did exactly -what- different from McGinnis again?

McGinnis is deliberately trying to intimidate a public figure, and has been since Palin was announced for the '08 election. He's gone -way- beyond "'merely' overstepping certain unspoken professional lines", he'd done that before he moved in next door. That's not usually a sign of a stable personality. He's a textbook stalker because he's doing what stalkers do, not because Glen Beck says so. Glen Beck just happens to be right about it, is all.

Has it occurred to you yet that maybe Palin hasn't had this freak charged and hauled off in chains (as I'm certain she could arrange, hello, popular ex-Governor) because it would look bad on TV?

God you're a dumb ass.

"He's a textbook stalker because he's doing what stalkers do..."

For the love of God, Phantom, please go and learn something.

"You would garner a lot more respect here, if you wouldn't so rigidly, robotically defend the indefensible and try to rise above your personal animus for Palin and acknowledge the key principle here: her privacy has been seriously impaired."

Is it an invasion of privacy in a colloquial, "too close for comfort" kind of way? Sure.

Is it an invasion of privacy in any legal sense? Nope.

Would you mind explaining the distinction to The Phantom. He seems confused...

I hope this is not wasted on you, davenport:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/27/anti-palin_author_living_next_door_threatens_to_call_police_on_reporter.html

Can you say "privacy for me but not for thee?" Try.

If this guy is clever enough he can probably skate very very close to the legal line, but could you possibly drop the faux outrage and admit he's doing everything he can to be intimidating, quelling, hurtful, and generally destructive?

And is that kind of behavior what you want to be around in your life, davenport? Is it what you want your grandma to be faced with from her neighbors? Hmmn?

Question for you davenport. Would it be justice if the local Wassalia TV station camped a crew in front of his house and had live-cams follow his ass all over town, live 24/7? It'd be legal...

Oh, and by the way davenport. The VERY FIRST LINE of that link you sent me?

"A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct that recklessly places another person in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family member."

Note the phrase "in fear of". Its subjective, in the eye of the stalk-ee.

Writing hateful books about somebody, then moving in next door and watching their little kids all day off the balcony? Could fit, eh?

Thanks for the link. Its so much easier proving lefties are dorks when they help.

"Note the phrase "in fear of". Its subjective, in the eye of the stalk-ee. Writing hateful books about somebody, then moving in next door and watching their little kids all day off the balcony? Could fit, eh?"

Um, no, actually, it couldn't. Ask yourself: how much fear did Ms. Palin experience upon learning of the "stalker" lurking next door? Answer: so much that she grabbed her Blackberry and a baseball bat, locked herself and her kids in the bedroom closet, and frantically...composed a rambling Facebook entry in which she literally (if sarcastically) welcomed her new neighbour, offered to bake him a blueberry pie, and delivered a standing invitation should he ever find himself in need of a cup of sugar.

That might sound like "fear" to you, but it won't to any prosecutor or judge.

By the way, "writing hateful books"? You mean that Portfolio.com piece he wrote back in March last year? Have you even read it? It's critical, sure. But hateful? Really? You must have pretty thin skin.

And "watching their little kids all day off the balcony"? Again, no actual proof, because it never actually happened in the creepy sort of way you implying. But Palin insinuated it, Glenn Beck repeated it, and now here you are, parroting it like it's some kind of fact. Like I said -- mouthpiece. Thanks for proving my point so clearly.

"I hope this is not wasted on you, davenport..."

And can you spot the legal distinction, Phantom? The news reporter was standing on private property legally leased by McGinniss, which means McGinniss had a perfectly legal right to (threaten to) kick him off. Had the news reporter moved in next door, on the other hand, McGinniss would have no legal recourse to shoo him away, in the same way that Palin currently does not.

"Would it be justice if the local Wassalia TV station camped a crew in front of his house and had live-cams follow his ass all over town, live 24/7? It'd be legal..."

Absolutely it'd be legal. And if you mean "justice" in the cosmic/poetic sense, then yeah, I'd agree with you. Obviously, it goes without saying that McGinniss is being a total d*ck for doing what he's doing, but then he has a perfectly legal right to do so. I'm just defending that right to be an annoying blowhard against your inane accusations. You, the self-declared lover of individual rights and the rule of law, are the one who'd rather see him put in jail.

And while we're talking about defending legal privacy rights, let's not forget that, so far, only one party has posted a picture online of the other party standing on the deck of their own private residence, and only one party has publicly accused the other of criminal acts and intentions.

Some friendly advice, Phantom: please stop. You're only embarassing yourself by acting like you possess any understanding of the law.

"Note the phrase "in fear of". Its subjective, in the eye of the stalk-ee. Writing hateful books about somebody, then moving in next door and watching their little kids all day off the balcony? Could fit, eh?"

Um, no, actually, it couldn't. Ask yourself: how much fear did Ms. Palin experience upon learning of the "stalker" lurking next door? Answer: so much that she grabbed her Blackberry and a baseball bat, locked herself and her kids in the bedroom closet, and frantically...composed a rambling Facebook entry in which she literally (if sarcastically) welcomed her new neighbour, offered to bake him a blueberry pie, and delivered a standing invitation should he ever find himself in need of a cup of sugar.

That might sound like "fear" to you, but it won't to any prosecutor or judge.

By the way, "writing hateful books"? You mean that Portfolio.com piece he wrote back in March last year? Have you even read it? It's critical, sure. But hateful? Really? You must have pretty thin skin.

And "watching their little kids all day off the balcony"? Again, no actual proof, because it never actually happened in the creepy sort of way you implying. But Palin insinuated it, Glenn Beck repeated it, and now here you are, parroting it like it's some kind of fact. Like I said -- mouthpiece. Thanks for proving my point so clearly.

"I hope this is not wasted on you, davenport..."

And can you spot the legal distinction, Phantom? The news reporter was standing on private property legally leased by McGinniss, which means McGinniss had a perfectly legal right to (threaten to) kick him off. Had the news reporter moved in next door, on the other hand, McGinniss would have no legal recourse to shoo him away, in the same way that Palin currently does not.

"Would it be justice if the local Wassalia TV station camped a crew in front of his house and had live-cams follow his ass all over town, live 24/7? It'd be legal..."

Absolutely it'd be legal, if they only followed him around public spaces and camped out on the city side of the property line. And if you mean "justice" in the cosmic/poetic sense, then yeah, it sort of would be. It goes without saying that McGinniss is being a mischievous arse for doing what he's doing, but most people recognize his legal right to do so. You, a self-declared champion of individual rights and the rule of law, seem to be among the few who thinks he should be put in jail.

And while we're talking about defending legal privacy rights, let's not forget that, so far, only one party has posted a picture online of the other party standing on the deck of their own private residence, and only one party has publicly accused the other of criminal acts and intentions.

Davenport: I think you're right that it's not illegal. We have agreement here.
However, we really should try to distinguish between law (natural law) and legislation. Law in the former sense was NOT handed down to us by rulers -- it arose over eons of custom and tradition., i.e., was culturally derived.

So, clearly, while you're probably right in that his behaviour does not infringe upon any legislative law, it clearly does break natural law; you can hear natural law in action when people respond, naturally and instinctively with common sense phrases like: "It's creepy". Remember this guy didn't end up there by happenstance. He moved across the continent and probably offered a large lump sum enducement to get that rental for the express purposes of writing a SMEAR BOOK. Again, legal. But CREEPY.

And we both know that you wouldn't defend this were a member of your family subjected to this kind of intense monitoring/spying.

Palin says, apparently, that she needs to keep her windows closed. You know what, my wife constantly lectures me about my BOOMING VOICE -- tells me she can hear me on the phone in the house when she's in the back yard.

"Remember this guy didn't end up there by happenstance. He moved across the continent and probably offered a large lump sum enducement to get that rental for the express purposes of writing a SMEAR BOOK. Again, legal. But CREEPY."

True, he does violate some kind of "natural law," if by that you mean society's unspoken norms regarding civility, mutual respect, good neighbourliness, etc. But while it's a total d--k move on McGinniss's part, I don't think it's "creepy" in a deranged or menacing stalker sort of way. Seems more calculated and self-serving than that. Can we agree on "a--holey"?

From what I've read, he's been in the process of writing this book for some time, apparently even before this next-door rental scheme became an option. So I'm guessing what happened was this: he was planning to do some more interviews with Wasilla residents for his book (he'd already been up there before to do some initial interviews), he needed a place to stay up there for a few months, he found out that the house next to the Palin's was available, and he couldn't resist the idea of living next door to the subject of his book. I don't think he was ever planning to spy on them through the windows; he probably just thought it'd be a memorable, gimmicky experience to be neighbours for a while. And to be fair, a lake-front house is a pretty nice rental quite apart from everything else.

"And we both know that you wouldn't defend this were a member of your family subjected to this kind of intense monitoring/spying."

Also true. I can understand the Palin's offence at their new neighbour's antics, though I think she slightly undercuts her own arguments about personal privacy and crossing lines of civilized conduct by posting HIS photo online and implying that he's some kind of sexual pervert.

In any case, stirring up The Phantom is half the fun of visiting SDA. You wouldn't deny an old lady a bit of fun, would you?

I love how you trolls come on here and claim how people have the right to live wherever they like, do whatever they like, say whatever they like and etc. -when it suits your argument-. Otherwise, not so much.

I'm sure a sufficiently motivated prosecutor would have an interpretation different from yours. People in the USA have certainly been convicted of stalking for doing less than this.

In fact, as we know from previous popular cases people have been successfully sued for looking at somebody funny, going out on a bad date, all kinds of ludicrous things.

Huh? T? and others think it is OK to spy on someone? Really?

So the Stalker laws are unconstitutional? What about the guy that spied on the ESPN woman? Just how far should this go?

Random House should be ashamed. So, what the "free to do anything" crowd is saying, is it is perfectly ok to spy on someones home? Are you kidding?

Anything about Private Property in America that matters anymore?

The Palins now must always close their windows for privacy and be led to live a life of fear of what this idiot is trying to accomplish.

Stalkers do this kind of trash thinking all the time. And yes, Palin or someone took a photo of the perverted man sleezily looking over their fence. So would I. She's not doing it daily to prowl and peek into his life though is she?

She had to show what this scum was doing. Eventually, someone is going to get hurt on either side of this equation as the stakes get higher and higher in this taudry game.

Joshua, that's the thing isn't it? According to the trolls, you're free to do anything you like -to a conservative-. But you're not free to protest Gay Pride parades, lewd tv shows, insane tax and spend government or crushing econazi regulations like our friggin Niagara Escarpment Commision.

We're all supposed to just shut up and get on with paying for davenport's TTC pass and T's mum's welfare check.

Oh Phantom, still shifting the goalposts, still confusing the law.

"But you're not free to protest Gay Pride parades, lewd tv shows, insane tax and spend government or crushing econazi regulations like our friggin Niagara Escarpment Commision."

Sure you are. Protest all you want. Just make sure you have a reasonable argument behind your shouting, and expect counter-protests. And if you lose, don't cry "victim" at the hands of left-wing cabals in the media, universities, and/or government. It's because your argument sucked, and reasonable people didn't buy it.

"I'm sure a sufficiently motivated prosecutor would have an interpretation different from yours. People in the USA have certainly been convicted of stalking for doing less than this. In fact, as we know from previous popular cases people have been successfully sued for looking at somebody funny."

And now you're mixing up criminal and civil law. This just keeps getting better and better.

davenport, you're having the typical difficulty with reading comprehension that plagues Lefties everywhere on the interwebs.

The "convicted of stalking" part is a separate datum from "successfully sued". There is no confusion. She has a criminal case, and she also has a civil case.

But this is entirely beside the point. The point is if I, the scaryviolent right wing paranoid Phantom, wrote a bunch of articles slagging -you-, and then attempted by various stratagems to trap -you- into a one-on-one for who knows what purpose, and then finally moved in next door to -you- for the purposes of writing an entire book slagging -you-, and started sitting on the balcony watching -you- AND YOUR KIDS with a pair of binoculars...

...and I'm twice your size because Sarah Palin is a chick don't forget...

... you're saying you'd be perfectly cool with that and I'd have every right in the world to do that, and its all completely fine. That's your point.

And my friend, you're f-ing lying. We both know that if even half of that that happened to you, you'd be on the phone to your lawyer for a restraining order so quick the line would melt.

Liar liar, pants on fire.