sda2.jpg

November 23, 2005

Flagging A Poll: Welcome CTV Viewers!

For visitors from CTV's coverage tonight on the Raise A Flag poll debacle, you can view a copy of the original results page as they appeared on the website here, and the comments thread in which readers of SDA got into the act to prove the poll result was "unaffected by votes" here.


UPDATE - now on Youtube

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation blog has picked up this story as well.

On the surface, it seems like a silly little story - until one understands that poll was never intended to record public opinion, but to influence it.

That's a little more serious.

Though, admittedly, watching the provincial premier in front of the tv cameras sputtering about blogs and declaring that "small dead animals doesn't speak for the people of Saskatchewan" was pretty darned funny.

(No kidding, Lorne - the poll results were already rigged by the time I drew attention to it here.)

Calvert said the poll will be back up once a "security fence" has been developed. He's right about one thing - he doesn't know about blogs.

Oh... we are so going to own this thing.

(As an aside, perhaps this helps illustrate how having the SGEU a "voting block" on your side can help push your favourite choice over the top.)

Updates

Heh.
CBC : "Online prankster foils gov't poll"...

CKOM radio just played a clip of Calvert claiming someone "hacked" into the system and added 1000 votes... I wonder if he has any appreciation for how much cluelessness his handlers have confessed to. Do they not realize every 12 year old on the planet knows how to delete cookies to vote on any online poll as often as they wish?

From the comments this observation from "Altruistic" on the premier's suggestion that the website was "hacked"...

I'm just back from the USA having worked there in the computer field for the last several years. My specialty was website programming, domain management, e- commerce, network security and system administration. I suppose I can thank Calvert's lack of understanding for why I am unemployed in Saskatchewan. Attract high- tech industry? Judging by this latest incident, they don't even know what high-tech industry is!

To top it off I interviewed with the company in Regina (whose headquarters are in Texas) that designs the Sask government software BEFORE I was hired on in the USA and I wouldn't touch their technology with a ten foot pole. Remember that whole land titles software scam - over budget past due. I interviewed for that and ran like mad when I found out what they were doing. So again Saskatchewan continues the time-honored tradition of exporting people who excel in their profession.

Anyway, I wonder if the Calvert government would consent to a third party security audit if their computer system was hacked. Get the forensics guys in there right away to find out what happened. After all, someone may have stole our personal information and suscepted the whole province to identity theft. Who knows what OTHER problems a hacker caused besides this poll situation. It would be irresponsible to think they stopped at petty mischief when there is a mound of gold in the government computers for them to profit from. If nothing else, their website programmer and system admin need to be fired for allowing such an obviously blatant oversight to cause a province-wide security scandal.

Knowing this Mr. Calvert, I suggets you refrain from sprinkling the media with terminology such as "hack." There are many of us out there who know what we are doing. You may want to consider hiring someone to help you spin what has happened. Failing that, just call it what it really is, "incompetence."
I'm sure that's a term Sakatchewan residents are familiar with, particularly in reference to their government.


Ouch.


Posted by Kate at November 23, 2005 7:11 PM
TrackBacks

Canadian blogosphere rising from Magic Statistics
Last week Kate McMillan of small dead animals exposed a Saskatchewan government online poll as a fraud. She hit a nerve, apparently; she was then attacked by Minister of Learning (say what?) Andrew Thomson. A member of the opposition defended her in ... [Read More]

Tracked on November 27, 2005 6:03 PM

Comments

Just saw the story...way to go kate!!

Posted by: Harold at November 23, 2005 7:16 PM

In my opinion it is not the ONLY poll set up to do just that: Influence and not record.

Posted by: Snowbunnie at November 23, 2005 7:19 PM

Didn't know the word "BLLLLOG" could be uttered with as much contempt as Calvert was able to muster. Watching him squirm was delightful!

Posted by: kdl at November 23, 2005 7:33 PM

That was rich. But I think his discomfort with the situation had more to do with him being unfamiliar with computers than anything else.

Posted by: david maclean at November 23, 2005 7:56 PM

If anyone can find an online clip of this, I'd appreciate it. (It may run again after the 11:00 CTV national news, but that's just a guess).

Posted by: Kate at November 23, 2005 8:06 PM

make the socialist bastard squirm Kate, just make him squirm.

He looks like such a foooooooooool !!

Posted by: Fred at November 23, 2005 8:15 PM

He sure did look like a fool. I've never seen a Premier look like such a complete idiot before and I remember Tommy Douglas. He probably wasn't briefed about this begore the press hit on him and there'll be a major reaming when he gets back to the office.

RJM

Posted by: RJM at November 23, 2005 8:21 PM

Keifer Sutherland can kiss my big old butt too. He and his commie grandpa. But isn't it just the way it should be when the CBC runs a popularity contest to see who is the greatest Canadian and comes up with the second biggest commie we've ever produced. Trudeau was the biggest and most destructive.
Help me Rhonda ... this country is sick. No medicare can cure it either.

Posted by: Duke at November 23, 2005 8:27 PM

sorry, it took awhile. A "security fence" . . aka to the rest of the world as a firewall ??

Posted by: Fred at November 23, 2005 8:30 PM

Even more important, this shows that Calvert's advisors, his political party and anyone within his professional circle of influence don't know what blogging is. They's never heard about it. They don't talk about it and they certainly can't fathom the value of blogging. Let's be honest, every 11th grader in the province with a hotmail account has a blog. Politicians usually are one step behind but in Saskatchewan they are continuing the tradition of being 20 years behind.

I wonder if Calvert and his pals have ever heard of a newspaper?

Posted by: Altruistic at November 23, 2005 8:31 PM

That may be my misquote - may have said "security wall". Working from memory, which may be sketchy as I was laughing pretty hard while he was talking...

Posted by: Kate at November 23, 2005 8:35 PM

Good on ya' Kate! You really are one of my favourite bloggers in the whole wide world.

Posted by: MisterPundit at November 23, 2005 8:56 PM

From that CBC article :

"[Calvert] added he doesn't trust anything called "Small Dead Animals" especially when it encourages people to vote "no"."

Sure, let's trust the NDP instead! After all, they only rig online polls. What's wrong with that?

We got Calvert's "truth to power" right here at Small Dead Animals. Suck on it, Mr. Politician.

Posted by: MisterPundit at November 23, 2005 9:04 PM

If the CBC had another poll, I betcha Wendy Mesley & Kate here would have to split the winnings...

Kate: YOU THE BLOGGER!

Posted by: Josef at November 23, 2005 9:12 PM

Oh and "Premier" Calvert - an Internet poll will never be scientific.

Only by calling people on the phone - or better still door-belling them - can you get a genuine poll.

Posted by: Josef at November 23, 2005 9:16 PM

What I can't believe is the bull-crap coverage the CBC website gave this. What are they the mouthpiece for the Calvert government? - 'the reason the poll was frozen at 90-10 was because of the tampering sda did.'

Talk about shooting the messenger - the poll was rigged well before the fine folks from SDA flooded it with No votes.

I've said it before...Despicable.

Posted by: sooz at November 23, 2005 9:25 PM

If these clowns are willing to lie over such a seemingly trivial poll such as this, what more important matters are they lying about?

Posted by: Virgil at November 23, 2005 9:32 PM

Kate, you are a certified Canadian pajamahid - I say that with the greatest respect. I mean, if American politicians (and fawning/enabling media) can't deal with being taken on by the blogs, how are socialist Canadian politicians and their running-dog media lackeys going to handle it? Not going to be pretty. Fight the power, girlfriend.

Posted by: Meg Q at November 23, 2005 9:34 PM

"CKOM radio just played a clip of Calvert claiming someone "hacked" into the system and added 1000 votes..."

That weak-assed excuse is a slap in the face to people from my generation who actually know stuff about computers. Calvert's h6xx0r fantasy is absurd and won't play outside of Estevan.

Let's just clear the air and send in a forensic audit team to examine the version control system.

Most web applications use code repositories, Visual SourceSafe and WinCVS are two examples. What happens is that when you make changes to a webpage, it is timestamped. There is a paper trail which will either confirm or deny that The Sakatchewan Government just used public money to fake a poll; let's see it.

Additionally, hacking is illegal; if someone just busted in to a government site then surely Mr. Calvert has evidence of this and will pursue the matter with the RCMP. Of course, an alternative explanation is that Mr. Calvert's government just told a whopper. Or maybe Mr. Calvert is using techincal terms like "hack" that are beyond his technical understanding.

In any case, a forensic audit might help clear matters.

Posted by: Anonalogue at November 23, 2005 9:36 PM

Way cool! You the best!

Posted by: Darcey at November 23, 2005 9:40 PM

"Calvert said that is not what happened.

He added he doesn't trust anything called "Small Dead Animals" especially when it encourages people to vote "no".

Kate, buddy, congrats. When you make such a fool of such a dufus you know you are on right track.

Keep up the GREAT work . . you are important to a lot of us out here.

Thnx +++++

Posted by: Fred at November 23, 2005 9:42 PM

"Do you think Saskatchewan deserves a fair Energy Accord?"
That was the question. On the surface, it seems like a rather dumb question, sort of like asking someone if they like cold beer on a hot day.
But you have to remember who is asking the question.
It's the NDP, after all.
Those are the guys who believe fairness is having someone who works for the government take home much more money than someone in the private sector who does the same job.
Like the liqour store employee vs the 7/11 clerk.
Or taxing the ass off of us unwashed peons so that the chosen ones in the public sector can live the good life.

So maybe in their feeble minds, it was a legitimate question.
Maybe we're giving them too much credit.

Posted by: Virgil at November 23, 2005 9:49 PM

Hacked! What does it say for the security of Saskatchewan government websites?

(I hope they have that question ready in the Leg. should it come up... )

Posted by: Kate at November 23, 2005 9:50 PM

I tried to find some other sources for this story by googling, however, I got no hits. Where can I find eitehr the video or audio link for this?

Posted by: Mike at November 23, 2005 9:51 PM

OT,

Gee is the Globe and Mail campaigning for the libs? Go to their web page right now. At the top headline "Trusts Poised to Soar" boasting the Libs 11th hour switch on Income trusts

And what of the Motion to bring down a sitting government? Go down the page about 11 or 12 lines in smaller print. Not really that important I guess.

Posted by: jeff at November 23, 2005 9:53 PM

I think the Premier was trying to say
that his advisors are hacks.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 10:04 PM

"I wonder if he has any appreciation for how much cluelessness his handlers have confessed to."

And I wonder if he has any appreciation of SDA's traffic. Every time you link to me it's good for close to a thousand unique visitors. The sudden surge in votes simply reflects your site's popularity.

Posted by: Sean at November 23, 2005 10:14 PM

Kate's bulldozer link to me at the Western Standard gave me almost as many hits as there are people who will vote for the Premier of Saskatchewan in the next election.

Wait a minute.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 10:16 PM

"Most web applications use code repositories, Visual SourceSafe and WinCVS are two examples."

It could be that they're just using an old version of FrontPage. I did some consulting for the Alta Govt last year and you'd be *amazed* at what some parts of their Web infrastructure have been built with.

Posted by: Sean at November 23, 2005 10:18 PM

Way to go Kate. Is there anyway you can set it up so that the next time Commie Calvert opens his yap on this subject,somebody can hand deliver him a copy of "Internet for Dummies" in the House???

Posted by: Justthinkin at November 23, 2005 10:24 PM

"Online prankster foils government poll"

How misleading. It makes it sound like you interfered with a legitimate poll before taking off on your skateboard. Oh well. As someone notorious -- maybe Oscar Wilde -- once said "I don't read my reviews, I weigh them."

Way to go, Kate! Looks like this one's not quite finished yet...

Posted by: EBD at November 23, 2005 10:36 PM

Awesome Kate.

And wow, is that CBC article misleading! It says that "At one point, according to the Saskatchewan blog site, Small Dead Animals (www.smalldeadanimals.com), 77 per cent of the votes said "no" and 23 per cent said "yes"."

You never said that... it was Virgil in the comments at 9:28 PM who said that. That would be like saying that if Star published a letter to the editor supporting banning abortions, the Star is pro-life.

Anyways, good job on showing how out-of-touch Calvert is.

Posted by: Shabbadoo at November 23, 2005 10:51 PM

"A culvert is a covered structure that conveys a flow under a road, railroad or other obstruction. Culverts are mainly used to divert stream or rainfall runoff to prevent erosion or flooding on highways."

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 10:52 PM

http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/fawlty_towers/fawlty_towers.jsp

I've finally figured out what this scramble at the legislature reminds me of.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 11:04 PM

'Oh my God... You do look like me!' - first words from a very startled John Cleese

http://www.cleese.co.uk/

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 11:12 PM

I'm just back from the USA having worked there in the computer field for the last several years. My specialty was website programming, domain management, e-commerce, network security and system administration. I suppose I can thank Calvert's lack of understanding for why I am unemployed in Saskatchewan. Attract high-tech industry? Judging by this latest incident, they don't even know what high-tech industry is!

To top it off I interviewed with the company in Regina (whose headquarters are in Texas) that designs the Sask government software BEFORE I was hired on in the USA and I wouldn't touch their technology with a ten foot pole. Remember that whole land titles software scam - over budget past due. I interviewed for that and ran like mad when I found out what they were doing. So again Saskatchewan continues the time-honored tradition of exporting people who excel in their profession.

Anyway, I wonder if the Calvert government would consent to a third party security audit if their computer system was hacked. Get the forensics guys in there right away to find out what happened. After all, someone may have stole our personal information and suscepted the whole province to identity theft. Who knows what OTHER problems a hacker caused besides this poll situation. It would be irresponsible to think they stopped at petty mischief when there is a mound of gold in the government computers for them to profit from. If nothing else, their website programmer and system admin need to be fired for allowing such an obviously blatant oversight to cause a province-wide security scandal.

Knowing this Mr. Calvert, I suggets you refrain from sprinkling the media with terminology such as "hack." There are many of us out there who know what we are doing. You may want to consider hiring someone to help you spin what has happened. Failing that, just call it what it really is, "incompetence." I'm sure that's a term Sakatchewan residents are familiar with, particularly in reference to their government.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 23, 2005 11:12 PM

Pravda aka CBC reported a pack of bullshit. They didn't get what happened at all.
No wonder this is a pretend country .. eveything about it is pretend.
God help us all.
We know what happened.. the sask guv was cheating and through SDA they were caught with their pants down and no toiled paper in sight.
I just wish the CBC just once would stip suck holing to governments and be a news reporting media.

Posted by: Duke at November 23, 2005 11:17 PM

"A Gin and Orange, a Lemon Squash, and a Scotch and Water!"

Posted by: Shabbadoo at November 23, 2005 11:21 PM

It would appear the cheif export of Saskatchewan is stupid communism. I mean to say a cel phone invented in saskatchewan would need to be carried around in a wheel barrow. Just like the old Soviet Union would have done.
I onced marvelled at the way the soviets solved the problem of find a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity, by simply using a pencil. Then it occured to me that they didn't have ball point pens in the Soviet union ... too high tech Bwahhahahaa

Posted by: Duke at November 23, 2005 11:23 PM

If deleting cookies from your own web browser and voting more than once is considered hacking, I guess we're hackers.

This is hilarious...

Posted by: mafiaboy part deux at November 23, 2005 11:24 PM

Basil Fawlty is the Premier of Saskatchewan.

Lorne is convinced that Saskatchewan would be a top-rate establishment if it wasn't for the voters, who are merely sent along to annoy him and to prevent the smooth-running of the province. Incredibly class conscious, Lorne adopts attitudes of superiority that are quite unjustified. The voters are either objects of derision or scorn, or objects to improve his position in the socialist hierarchy.

http://www.btinternet.com/~c.tomlinson/basil.htm

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 23, 2005 11:31 PM

Sociopathic types seek office or other places of power.

That's why .... etc and so on ....

Posted by: Duke at November 23, 2005 11:39 PM

Kate: Calvert's crew looks to be technically challenged, but can you prove anything worse than the following sequence of events?

1. Someone flooded the polls in a 1 hr. period (TRIVIAL TO DO IF THEY DID NOTHING BUT LOOK AT COOKIES).

2. Rather than shutting the poll Calvert's crew rolled back the count and froze it. (INCREDIBLY STUPID AND MISLEADING. ANYONE WITH ANY SENSE WOULD HAVE ADDED A DISCLAIMER OR SUSPENDED).

3. Seeing a stuck counter sda happened on the scene and demonstrated the poll was frozen (BRILLIANT AND VERY PUBLIC).

The reason I ask is that as poorly written as cbc item is, with some clarification it would be consistent with the above.

Posted by: yyc at November 23, 2005 11:51 PM

I ran the ctv news network from top to bottom..nothing at all on it.

Posted by: Craig at November 23, 2005 11:54 PM

Today's news headlines read like a supermarket tabloid. Fact or fiction?

Spacecraft Lands on Asteroid !

Cosa Nostra types seek hitman to assassinate Canada's Prime Minister !

Saskatchewan farmgirl leads double life as an online prankster foiling the government !

Posted by: Barnstormer at November 24, 2005 12:06 AM

"Anyway, I wonder if the Calvert government would consent to a third party security audit if their computer system was hacked."

Your analysis looks bang on to me, Altruistic. I'd add that any "audit" that involved hiring a team of $800-a-day consultants from any company that has any business doings with the Sask. gub'mint or could possibly derive any future benefit would be somewhat compromised. I've seen that movie too many times. Should Calvert try to whitewash this sucker I suspect it will not stand up to peer review.

Posted by: Anonalogue at November 24, 2005 12:14 AM

Bingo. I remember requesting a DB audit for a company I was with. They have a guy come in and go over the place, and he leaves in a couple hours saying everything is in tip-top shape. Well, wait a minute, there are obvious deficiencies, redundant data threatening corruption and some security risks - everything is ok? Turns out the owner was friends with the consulting company, they sent in a junior guy who did it pro bono (or is it au gratin?) Beware the company you keep fer sure.

Of course the term 'hack' was thrown around too loosely here. Goes to show how the media can influence even our vocabulary - we use words we don't understand because they are common.


There are two possibilities here, online poll prankster, or security breech. If it was a prankster it reveals the incompetencies of every person involved in programming and implementing that poll and related software. If it was a breech then it means a criminal investigation as well as notifying the people of this province that their personal information may have been stolen. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes tomorrow because no matter the outcome, it looks bad.

Either way, I'm looking forward to tomorrow to see whether we get a lie or the truth. OK, let's be honest, I'm looking forward to exposing the lie they give us.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 12:43 AM

Congratulations Kate.

You scored one big point for the good guys. The more that kind of brainwashing-type garbage is brought to light the more chances there are for people to finally wake up.

Thanks. So fabulous.

Posted by: Leslie at November 24, 2005 12:46 AM

The government is saying they received 1200 votes from on computer. I'm not that technical...is that really possible?

Posted by: david maclean at November 24, 2005 12:52 AM

Gee, I've been busy for the last few hours. Wish I had been paying attention. This is soo funny. Way to go Kate. SDA does indeed own this thing. What an embarrassment. I can't stop laughing. Actually, right now I'm just trying to wipe the smirk off my face.

Posted by: John Crittenden at November 24, 2005 1:04 AM

That CBC article has taken me to a new level of enragement. What arrogance! How dare they.

Caught red-handed, and suddently it's the fault of SDA readers. Reminds me of how the CBC treated Good Mr. Iron Man(Gurmant Grewal).

Kate, not only was this you best post of the year, and by far the best title. I do NOT say that lightly.

Turn up the heat, and do a post on just the CBC "opinion"... It will be a fun day in the blogosphere when this evil gang of partisan hacks, gets the "pink" slips they all deserve.

Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at November 24, 2005 1:08 AM

Just for the record, when I voted twice to see if it was actually accepting multiple votes, I did not make any deletions from my cookies file first. It accepted the second vote immediately after the first without any "hi-tech wizardry" on my part, like deleting any cookies.

Posted by: andy at November 24, 2005 1:10 AM

It is possible for one computer to vote 1200 times. I heard that on the CKCK 11:30 PM news too. I'm not a HTML or Javascript expert, but if the NDP website wasn't setting cookies, and someone made a script to automatically vote, I don't think it's all that hard. I once had to manually convert 1200 files before the start of business the next morning and I was both physically and mentally numb when I got finished. Nobody manually voted 1200 times for giggles.

Calvert said he'd been briefed on the poll in the morning. He obviously didn't understand his briefing or wasn't told the real story. Somebody is in deep trouble if he was fed a cover-up.

RJM

Posted by: RJM at November 24, 2005 1:13 AM

It must have been run locally, or taken off the national piece by late evening. If anyone has a clip, I'd love to see it.

Way to go, KATE! Now if you could just do something to Ralph-the-foot-in-the-mouth-Harper-nonsupporter, we'd be laughing

Posted by: Candace at November 24, 2005 1:27 AM

RJM: Yes it is trival to do if they only check cookies (or if they check nothing at all).

Maybe they did they see 1200 postings in a short period of time all on one side PRIOR to the SDA tour?

If that happened the correct response is to shut down or warn users that the votes are being counted off line.

Posted by: yyc at November 24, 2005 1:33 AM

My wife works at a local CTV affiliate TV station, and said she'd get me a tape of the story if she could. Whether I can get it formatted onto my computer or not is another story, but we'll see tomorrow I guess.

Posted by: Shabbadoo at November 24, 2005 1:34 AM

Hi everyone. I read Kate's request and was fortunate to record the piece when i aired at the 11:30 broadcast. I ended up with a 27 MB file but managed to reencode it down to a 6 MB WMV file. If someone has the web space ( and probably the bandwith) i would be able to share it. Just email me

merkman

Posted by: merkman at November 24, 2005 2:06 AM

I share Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man's sentiments. The arrogant, constant revisionism is almost insufferable, as is their contempt to the truth, and for the taxpayers who prop them up. The story should be "Diligent citizen blogger exposes fraudulent government poll", not "Online prankster foils government poll". They make it sound as if the poll was legitimate, and that you infected their computer or something, all for a prank. Grrr. What else can they come up with?

"Calvert battles right-wing virus"

"Liberals hand out portraits of former Prime Ministers printed on coloured, numbered strips of paper for Christmas."

Posted by: EBD at November 24, 2005 2:20 AM

As I mentioned to someone else in a private email regarding this, there are likely three scenarios, all bad.

I don't want to give a professional assessment publicly because it will give fodder for their response tomorrow. You know they read this site....well, all except for Lorne who doesn't know what a blog is.

The last thing we want right now is for these guys to sweep this under the radar for an 'internal investigaton' and that is exactly what will happen if they think we know too much.

Let them make their statement tomorrow and we'll either expose it or demand more information. Thanks for the forum Kate....

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 3:00 AM

The more times the MSM and politicians in Canada say the word 'blog' the better.

Stupid, stupid Premier. Should have just ignored the whole thing.

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 6:27 AM

"Hacked" means that an unauthorized person or agent altered code on a web server. I presume that the Sask Govt is going to reveal the "before" and "after" code to illustrate the hacking?

Also, it appears that the site was hacked BEFORE it was highlighted here, not after. If indeed it was hacked, it was DETECTED by SDA, who did these clods a favor by exposing it.

This is one incredibly stupid response by the Govt.

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 6:35 AM

A little technical help for those wondering how this site was 'hacked'. I see that there was a cookie set at raiseflag.ca with an ID of JSESSIONID. Having worked with Java Servlets since day 1, and Tomcat in particular, I recognize this right away as a Java Servlet Session cookie. That tells me that there is dynamic content behind this poll, driven probably by a Java servlet.

Since I daily work with highly secure web environments using Java, I pay a lot of attention to Java 'hacking' incidents. I have not seen one yet. To have hacked the site means that someone has altered the .class file - i.e. the interpreted code representing the servlet. If indeed this has been accomplished, this is HUGE news to the Java community. I have never heard of this occuring, and it is an important part of what I do for a living to know what risks exist in a Java Servlet environment. (The reason Java Servlets are used so often is because these environments are so difficult to hack).

To declare the site as having been 'hacked' is not credible, based on the data that I have.

Therefore, I believe the most likely scenario is that the response HTML served up is static. Serving static HMTL in order to influence public opinion is a deceitful practice in my opinion. So is attempting to pave it over with an unbelievable story about hacking.

Perhaps another reader has a copy of the HTTP headers served up by the poll. A quick examination of that data would provide important hints about the server technology: is it Apache? Apache with Tomcat? Which version of Tomcat? Tomcat by itself (5.0 or 5.5 standalone server version?)

Why, we might even be able to help the government figure out how the site was hacked, if that was the case, and by doing so, improve server security for the whole planet.

A quick look at the servlet code (including how it accesses the database behind it where it tallies the poll results - hint: no database = static poll results) should clear this up very expediently. Any bets we don't hear a thing?

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 8:31 AM

Many people are criticizing Lorne Calvert has rigging his online poll. I, for one, commend the Premier for his actions. If you already know the result you want, why bother with all the messy details like counting the actual votes?

Therefore, I have decided to follow Premier Calvert's example when filing my income tax next year. I will simply determine how much income tax I want to pay, thereby eliminating all those annoying steps like figuring out my actual income, deductions, etc. This will be much easier and cost me a lot less money.

Thank you Lorne Calvert for teaching me that a the advantages of a complete lack of character.

PS - If any tax auditors read this, don't try to catch me because my system is foolproof. That's because I plan to build a "security fence" around it (whatever the hell that is).

Posted by: ms at November 24, 2005 8:51 AM

First, way to go Kate! Bravo!

Second, instead of just bemoaning the inaccurate and mindless article from the CBC that they would like to call journalism, show them the power of the bloggers that they so quickly defame. There is a link on the right hand side of the CBC article where you can report inaccuracies (and typos). If just as many people send a notice of how wrong their report is, as did vote in that sham of a poll, they might have something to say. At the very least, it will be fun to screw with them and it might be the first time we get out tax money's worth from anything CBC.

Posted by: Nat at November 24, 2005 9:08 AM

Mr. Calvert

I think you are mistaken. SDA does speak for the people of Saskatchewan.

Posted by: wasp at November 24, 2005 9:25 AM

So Kate, any idea how CTV got wind of this? Did someone call them with a tip, or do they have their newsroom monitoring your blog?

Posted by: Sean E at November 24, 2005 9:36 AM

Update to previous post: the poll had 'yes' and 'no' radio buttons, but, significantly, no text input field. Text input that is inadequately scrubbed can, in an incompetently designed application, allow web users to pass SQL queries directly to the database behind the application.

Without a text input field, the probability that the database (my theory is that there is no database behind this piece of flim-flam) was corrupted through the web is extremely small. These types of forms would pass most security audits, but text input fields would signal the need for much more careful examination.

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 9:37 AM

Or.... as I suggested already it was never a functioning data colection poll...merely a web page with a fixed disply showing 10% opposition to a pointless question.

The real news here is the knee jerk from PM Calvert of SK....main stream media failure to GET IT and report accuarately is No Surprise!!
Go hammer th CBC about their incompetenet reporting!

Posted by: PGP at November 24, 2005 9:39 AM

Great work. Tip of the iceberg. Too many politicians in Canada seem to think government resources are at their disposal to misuse to promote incumnbency. It's sick really.

The blogosphere is our only hope. MSM journalists have been corrupted, hoping to curry favour to become Governor-General or get some other government plum.

Posted by: Murray at November 24, 2005 9:44 AM

Going out on a limb here...
What is the concern... The concern should be it is not 100%...

The question was "Do you think Saskatchewan deserves a fair Energy Accord?".
One would think it should be 100% yes - or are there people out there that actually think to themselves or others - yea - we should't be treated fairly... I think I'm going to vote no...

And probably what happened - is someone decides to fill out the form a few times - walla - shows that there is a decline in yes votes...

Which then the government goes - well this is retarded... We thought this was a self evident question... Hmmm - lets put a stop to the nonsense...

So really - find the 10% of Saskatchewan people that want to be treated unfairly - I think that is ur story...


Posted by: Merle at November 24, 2005 9:58 AM

Is the government so desperate for approval that they are willing to stoop to rigging an online poll? Sure the government is not perfect and nobody is, but this makes them look all the more worse. What do they think that if they don't have over whelming majority of support they feel worthless? People vote against something all the time. All you do is look at the poll as sign to do things differently.

Posted by: Mr. C.C. at November 24, 2005 10:01 AM

S - Saskatchewan
D - Desires
A - Accountability

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at November 24, 2005 10:11 AM

S ocialism
D ebunked
A gain

Posted by: richfisher at November 24, 2005 10:27 AM

S ocilaisms
D espots
A ggravator

Posted by: richfisher at November 24, 2005 10:32 AM

The Leader-Post printed the NDP version of the "hack" and doesn't mention SDA by name.

"Energy accord website hacked"

"The Saskatchewan government insists one of its websites has been hacked."

"The province posted an on-line poll, asking whether Saskatchewan deserves a fair energy accord."

"Premier Lorne Calvert says that within about an hour, there were about one-thousand `no' ballots on the website."

"Bloggers on another site had asked people to visit the government website and vote `no' in an effort to see if the poll was rigged."

"The Saskatchewan government is working on some better security for the site"

http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=1a06d97f-1db7-4d3e-8393-66c78e2d8876

RJM

Posted by: RJM at November 24, 2005 11:26 AM

Very, Very, Good, Kate!

Your blog has done more for freedom in this disfunctional country than any single thing I can think of. And you've got more power and credibility than any (modern) Governor General. Kate for GG!
I can't speak for everyone else, but this disenfranchised family owes ya a beer!

Posted by: Mad Mike at November 24, 2005 11:33 AM

Well, thanks Leader Post for proving you are as clueless as the CBC and Mr. Calvert, AND those damn programmers who built the poll. Now the whole province looks like incompetent farmers who use a wooden stove to boil water for our morning bowl of oats. "Pack a lunch Ma, I'm headin' out on the tractor today!"

Again, I think this all comes down to incompetence of the people who built and implemented the poll on their website. I work in the field and have seen it before. Not everyone strives for excellence. When I was going to school our teachers used the correct definition of "hack" - which is literally, in the computer industry, a poor programmer who doesn't know what they are doing who insists on trial-and-error to get the results they want. This new version of 'hacker' as a criminal has only come up in the last 10 years and the erroneous definition that is now widely used has propagated through the media due to various events.

So, I would first be questioning the guys who put this thing in place. Then I would say there is a 90/10 consensus in favor of firing them.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 12:46 PM

Also, for user 'Shaken', don't try to convince us of your employ and then make comments about obtaining headers. Headers are publicly available to anyone, right now. If you don't know how to obtain them, then you certainly don't work in any environment dealing with security. Second, you saw the 'index.cfm' file right? That should give you an idea of what you need to know - the technology used. Third, headers can be faked in the case of Apache during compile time (I do it - first level of security through obscurity) and can be turned off all together at runtime in the config file, which is suggested by Apache foundation for a production server.

Any production site that reveals their server technology to any visitor without concern needs to have their staff fired and hire a competent one. Oh look, and here's on now...

Here's the headers from the raiseaflag.ca site:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:52:21 GMT
Set-Cookie: CFID=3159841;expires=Sat, 17-Nov-2035 17:34:31 GMT;path=/
Set-Cookie: CFTOKEN=23761865;expires=Sat, 17-Nov-2035 17:34:31 GMT;path=/
Set-Cookie: CFAUTHORIZATION_raiseaflag=;expires=Wed, 24-Nov-2004 17:34:31 GMT;path=/
Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=80303279901132854741939;path=/
Set-Cookie: STATSID=C3678C01%2D508B%2DBD63%2DFC89214A1DBF6530;expires=Sat, 17-Nov-2035 17:34:31 GMT;path=/
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 1:20 PM

Just got this reply back from Mother Corp:


Hello Jim Pook,

Thank you for your e-mail.
"Prankster" is not the best word, perhaps, and so I have reworded the
headline.
I disagree on other points, however. You're wrong to suggest the poll
always gave the 90-10 per cent result.
It's clear the poll was "working" (i.e. casting a vote online would
change the result) earlier in the week. For example, National Post
columnist Don Martin noted that when he checked, the results said 83 per
cent yes, 17 per cent no (I'm going by memory, but it was something like
that).
Only on Tuesday did the gov't freeze the results and display the fixed
90-10 percentage.
So, to repeat, it's wrong to say the poll was designed to give a fixed
result. The fixed result happened for a short period.
Calvert said they deactivated the survey because someone (an
individual) flooded the poll with 1,000 no votes.
One can certainly argue that there should have been some kind of
explanation on the site and people should have been told that that
casting votes would no longer work. Or they should have pulled the poll
altogether.
It's a longer bow to draw to suggest the gov't was intentionally trying
to influence public opinion with a display on a lightly-trafficked web
site that was pulled an hour or two after it went up.
But that's what blogs are for.

Kevin O'Connor
CBC online journalist

timestamp: 2005-11-24 09:34:28 EST
yourEmail: jim@tahsisbc.com
yourProvince: BC
yourCity: Tahsis
yourName: Jim Pook
yourComments: Re your story (attached below).

As usual, CBC got it completely WRONG.

This is not a "prankster" screwing with an online poll. It is a
government using a fake poll to influence public support of government
position - and they got caught red handed!

The poll was written to give the result of a 90 to 10 percent win for
the government viewpoint, no matter what the actual voting was.

-30-

Posted by: Jim Pook at November 24, 2005 1:38 PM

1. The CBC article should be much clearer that the 1000 votes are unrelated to the sda tour.

2. The 2nd last paragraph in the email should have been in the article.

3. How is anyone going to prove that they didn't get smacked with a 1000 votes?

Posted by: yyc at November 24, 2005 2:16 PM

Their logs should show if one person voted 1000 or even 1200 times. Will we see the logs? Don't hold your breath.

RJM

Posted by: RJM at November 24, 2005 2:45 PM

I mentioned in a private email that the contents of their log files need to be released for public viewing.

However, my experience in the past is this that people who make the allegations (of the 1000 votes in this case) are reluctant to release their logs, not because it contains sensitive data (they don't), but because it reveals their level of incompetance in analyzing the situation. Either that, or they don't show their logs because they are lying to prove their position and they need the several days ahead to doctor their logs before release.

Either way, whether they have incompetant workers who royally screwed up in their application of this poll, or whether they intended on fixing the poll (which they DID do with no explataion later), it shows the government has no intention of giving us an honest explataion about the circumstances.

The longer they wait in their final analysis the more fuel they give us and the harder these bloggers work to discredit them.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 2:58 PM

By the way, the new poll is supposed to be released tomorrow. If there are any computer guys here who feel they could make an analysis of the new software when it is revealed please email me.

I'm curious as to how this "security fence" will be implemented. That is, judging by the last poll, I can almost bet they are sitting around a table right now with the latest issue of "Visual Basic Monthly Magazine" looking for an ad that sells an online poll.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 3:02 PM

Just FYI David Simpson,

I noticed that the "mail a friend" portion of the raiseaflag website uses Mercury CMS. You mentioned in the comments from the original post that Mercury CMS, the software run on the raiseaflag website, is a Regina company called TMC. It is not. A quick search yields their contact info:

The Loft
Suite 300, 323 - 10th Avenue SW
Calgary, Canada T2R 0A5
T.403.262.2554
F.403.264.2684
E.tmcvisionpool@tmctech.com

They are in one of the downtown towers on 10th in Calgary. They have a 403 contact number. So let me see.....the Sask government hires programmers that simply buy their programming from Alberta instead of build it themselves. What are we paying our programmers for then?

$100 says the guy in Calgary who wrote this software was a Saskatchewan export.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 4:02 PM

My mistake, they do have a Regina branch.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 4:12 PM

There are a couple Google queries that my provide some light in absence of a media statement.

First this query,

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22powered+by+mercury+cms%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

which returns all websites that are powered by the Mercury CMS content management system. You'll find that many are Sask gov websites.

You'll also find that Google reports the raiseaflag website using Mercury cms, but when you visit the website you'll find they have removed those words from ALL their pages that I could find. Bad publicity for Mercury CMS and TMC-Visionpool maybe? Removing the 'powered by' on a piece of software is usually a violation of copyright and terms of use. That should be investigated.

You can see using Google's cache of the poll website that yes, at one point the HTML source of the poll page (not the results page) did indeed submit, to a dynamic script page (/index.cfm page = 7) the results of yes or no (1 or 2) when a user votes. So the HTML looks like it was intended to submit your vote. Again we can't tell what they did with it once it got submitted.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Araiseaflag.ca&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=
And go to Raiseafag - Pollling and select the link entitled "Cached"

Isn't Google great?

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 4:24 PM

Altruistic, perhaps the Premier is right on the money in describing the poll as "hacked". If he was describing its coding and implementation, then I would say he's right. If the poll was hit by some type of flooding, or DOS attack, it would have been more prudent to "hack it" to respond TEMP UNAVAIL than to freeze it.

A nonbrowser HTTP client could easily flood 1000 votes without passing back a session cookie. A one -vote-per-session "security fence" is easily defeated - it depends on the co-operation of the client. A more robust solution could use a cache of IP addresses that at least would filter multiple posts from the same IP within some unit of time (although still vulnerable to spoofing from the truly dedicated).

The point for all politicians is that open polls facing the Internet are not reliable. Certainly, putting one out there relying on cookies and without anti-robot devices like graphics obfuscation is unwise.

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 4:41 PM

He added he doesn't trust anything called "Small Dead Animals" especially when it encourages people to vote "no".

LOL

Posted by: Les Mackenzie at November 24, 2005 4:51 PM

The IP cache solution would be the way to go since many dedicated providers retain a virtually static DHCP assignment. If you felt like disconnecting and redialing 1000 times or had a dialer program you could circumvent the poll - but I think the skew was just a wave of SDA readers :D

Posted by: Les Mackenzie at November 24, 2005 4:53 PM

I actually used a nonbrowser command line HTTP client to obtain those headers I posted earlier. That kind of program could easily be written into a wrapper to simply make requests. I'm just not sure who, or why. It was a very poorly phrased poll. It is very typical of poll writers in that it was phrased to obtain a 'yes' answer anyway.

The problem was the altering of the numbers and freezing the poll. Whether or not that act was simply to halt the voting process until the solution was found, it still led people to believe their votes were counted and it still reported false results. That is still poll fixing, and that is still wrong. The programmer should have removed the poll altogether. After all, they went to the trouble of freezing it which meant altering something, they could have just as easily (or more easily) taken it offline until fixed.

However, the use of the term 'hacked' was still wrong. If you reload this weboage are you hacking their computers? No of course not! But if you do try to reload this page you'll find that even Kate has sufficient security in place to prevent you from reposting and causing problems. Why doesn't the gov't?

I honestly believe that if someone is too stupid to put a door on their house and just leave a big hole, they can expect a few animals to get in. If a programmer designs this code without checkpoints, failsafes, security and verification then it was a useless chunk of code. Just like having hole in place of a door. I would personally believe the programmer is at fault here for not designing in those well-known checkpoints. One person should not be allowed to vote 1200 times - that's an incompetent programmer. The so-called 'hacker' shouldn't be blamed for figuring out how to vote twice. Just like I shouldn't be blamed for clicking on the link to Kate's homepage.

Now, polls are a tricky thing to design simply because most programmers cannot accurately account for things like proxy caches and so forth - multiple people voting from a single IP address like we frequently encounter with large ISPs like AOL. Cookies can be bypassed, JavaScript can be turned off and IPs can even be spoofed if one wants to bad enough.

It is verily unthinkable that the poll was subject of a DoS (denial of service) attack though. I've been on the server side of a DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack a few times in the past and they are very hard to stop. However, a DoS attack by definition would have denied access to the rest of the raiseaflag website not just the poll, and because they are all hosted together, would have likely resulted in the suspension of activity from all government websites and even SaskTel itself. Since a DoS attack literally jams the Internet connection with traffic, something that big would have taken down most of Saskatchewan and considering the size of SaskTel's pipe it would have had to be distributed DoS coming from some of the largest connections in the world, typically University's. So a DoS would have been noticed.

The other point to make about a DoS is that once it is noticed pulling the poll offline and replacing it with a static page doesn't stop the attack! The requests just keep coming - and you'll see more than 1200 of them. 1200 a second maybe. The only known way to stop a DoS is to notify the network upstream provider and shut down the connection.

No, when the premiere is talking about hack he is using the conventional, albeit incorrect term of the word. He is trying to say that someone voted 1200 times rapidly and therefore nullified the results so we froze the results page. That's really it. It was never hacked, someone just revoted. No one broke the code, nobody got root access and no one has stolen their data. Let's be real. Code only does what it is told to do. Anyone who can break into a machine like that doesn't perform an act of mischief, and they know how to cover their steps to never be caught.

What I am trying to do here is tell Mr. Calvert that incorrectly identifying the situation and using a term like "hacked" leads us all to believe that maybe there is something wrong with the government's computers. Maybe we are under attack! Maybe there is more going on here if we are subject to hacking fits.

But in reality what needs to be done is the uncovering of the incompetence of the programmers and their leaders.

1. There wasn't sufficient, or any, security in place on the poll and reinstating it with a 'security fence' that should have been there to start with is pointless. The poll is tainted, leave it offline now.

2. Lorne should never have used the word 'hacked' to describe the event because he triggered off an incredible speculation in the blogosphere that has led many people to incorrectly believe the government computers are unsafe

3. The poll was already designed to obtain a "yes" answer by it's phrasing, making the poll, the programming, the media coverage and any associated discussion a waste of time

4. Knowing the above it is safe to say there are programmers, managers, content creators and others who should be fired promptly because they are a waste of taxpayer money.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 5:19 PM

Well said Altruistic. Spot on.

Posted by: Shaken at November 24, 2005 6:28 PM

Thanks Shaken. For some reason I can't get this off my mind. Maybe it is because one day later the whole thing had slipped off into the sunset and no one seems offended anymore. That would be terrible. Fix a poll one day, forgotten about the next day and then risen from the ashes with a new poll on the third day.

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 8:35 PM

AHA! I just have to share this with you guys for a laugh.....

About the Mercury CMS, which the raiseaflag.ca site uses (click view source and you will still see remnants of it in the code even though they removed it visually).

http://www.cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix?func=viewDetail&listingId=HeeUffA25JM0ICC6koJYPg

Was written as though the person doesn't know English but this line at the bottom slays me....

"Mercury CMS requires no programming skills to use and is ready to use, when we have set it up for you. "

Proves my point.....no skills required, none displayed!

Viva la revolution!

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 8:49 PM

Mercury CMS? That's unfortunate. Though not surprising.

The next election won't come soon enough.

Posted by: Brandon at November 24, 2005 10:38 PM

After a brief search at Google for "Powered by Mercury CMS" it appears that most of the SK government sites are using it....and not many others use it at all.

Next election? Maybe we should hold an online poll to see when the public wants it to be....'Soon,' 'Sooner,' or 'Soonest'. hehehe....

Posted by: Altruistic at November 24, 2005 10:42 PM

I read your comments and wonder what's important here? Loading a pole with no's to try and trick people or getting a better energy deal? Who's side are you on. I have no time for games but some of you appear have too much spare time. I'm off work awaitng surgery........What are you people doing?I heard there was a thousand "no" hits from one person. Who the hell has that kind of time? Some lifer in prison?

Posted by: archie at November 25, 2005 12:09 AM

Hi Archie,

Exactly. As I had calculated the 1000 votes theory could take an estimated 13.3 hours to register if they were entered by a user like you or I. Unless it was a vicious hacker.....but vicious hackers don't play mischief games.

As for myself, I'm back in Canada and unemployed - unable to get work in the field I was trained in. Facing yet again the option of going to Alberta or back to the USA if something doesn't come up quick.

But you are right, who has time to enter a thousand votes in one of those stupid online polls? Who has 13.3 hours to waste clicking the reload button or writing computer programs to affect the outcome of a poll that was worded to get a 'yes' response anyway?

No one, that's who. Not likely anybody. Not me, not you, not the people on this board. So if nobody in their right mind pulled this off it leaves two options.....1) someone not in their right mind, or 2) we were lied to about the 1000 votes.

We won't know the truth unless the gov't releases their log files for us to see....and quick.

But without the validity of the "1000 votes" story then there was no reason to take the poll offline. And if there was no erason to take the poll offline then there was no reason to roll back and freeze the votes. And if that is the case then the whole thing was a lie told to us because they simply fixed the poll to start with.

1000 votes and a "hacked" website - sorry, incompetent programmers. Saskatchewans tech sector is looking really bad right now and without the ability to attract more high tech industry I'm still out of a job. Thanks a lot to the experts we see on tv and those in the gov't who call the shots. Where are these jobs! Maybe the Sask Party had it right after all....

I gotta say this, if you can't find some computer jobs for us then you should pull any accreditation with federal societies that the colleges and Universities in SK hold. After all, don't turn out grads if you can't get them real work....

When I came back to SK I talked to a nurse who recently returned as well but is already looking elsewhere noting that the professional climate in SK hasn't changed much. We marvelled about no matter where you go you always meet someone from SK. And why is that? Because we can't get work in SK....

Posted by: Altruistic at November 25, 2005 12:40 AM

This isn't the first time the NDP has been caught "graph lying"! Remember the SPC cost of power graphs issued a few years ago to illustrate how much cheaper Saskatchewan power rates were compared to other provinces. But....that was before all the increases. Haven't seen those graphs lately. Wonder why?????

Posted by: Topcellar at November 25, 2005 12:15 PM

Just an update.... it is approx. 1 PM Sask time and still no "Security fence" or "poll back up by Friday" as promised.

C'mon you guys over there, it doesn't take 2 - 3 days to write, find or buy and implement poll software. I mean, not that it even makes sense to put it up now but where's the fulfillment of that promise?

I just want to know what you've been doing with taxpayer money for the last 2 days if you haven't been working on that poll....

Posted by: Altruistic at November 25, 2005 1:53 PM

Finally, Lorne Calvert and his government are getting a taste of their own medicine!

Awe... boo hoo! Lorne must feel pretty awful being ignored and treated so poorly by outsiders who have the money, control, and power and are not prepared to share it with a government that has less influence in the country's political arena than "Newfoundland"!!!

Having been subjected to "second-class citizen" and/or "non-person" status under the Workers' Compensation legislation of this province since my husband was killed on the job, I have little sympathy for Lorne Calvert or any of his party!
I hope the federal government continues to treat Lorne and his caucus with the same degree of prejudice that widows in this province receive under the Workers' Compensation legislation on an ongoing basis!!

If they want our support in obtaining an energy accord from the federal government, they'd be wise to show the people of this province the definition of "equality" by making government legislation equal and representative of all the population!

Congratulations Kate! You've made Lorne look like a bigger dork than he could have ever accomplished by himself! And to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, how stupid he is, Calvert then took the problem into the mass media so that everyone in Canada and around the world could be enlightened to his intelligence!!

Smooth move Lorne! Thanks for making Saskatchewan the laughing stock of the country again!

On one last note, it was great of our exulted ruler to let us know about this blog page.... I might have never found out about it if it wasn't for him!!!

You know......You just can't fix stupid!!!

Posted by: Kathy at November 27, 2005 5:06 PM

My response sent to Sask CBC on their "article"

Wow, I knew you folks were short on investigative skills but you even surprised me with your incompetency here. So glad we are forced to pay tax dollars for this kind of junior story-telling (calling it journalism would be another inaccuracy).

If you bothered to follow this while it was unravelling you might have got out of your chairs and actually asked some questions.

I know you believe everything those on the left say because your existence is dependent on it but really, your credibility is evaporating quickly.

Did you ask Calvert for logs to substantiate his 1000 votes in an hour? Did you follow the timeline on the SDA site and see how the bloggers were voting NO to see if the percentages would change? Did you try to figure out how many people would have to waste their time on such an insignificant, insipid poll with a question that begs no thought, just a yes answer?

A blogger posted a source code snippet showing hard coded 90/10. You take Calvert at his word yet did not investigate the bloggers findings.

Any other poll would have said that counting was offline if there was a problem. This one was just pretended to be real with a predetermined outcome in mind.

Calvert is a moron and symbolic of all that is wrong with this country and its laughable "leaders". You are as big a problem because you support these insufferable fools. I am unsure which is worse.

At least he brought attention to a blog site. Maybe more people will tune in and not have to read your witless attempts at journalism.

Ask yourself, before you continue your toady work as government lackies, that if the governments you believe at face value are to be as deceitful about something like this, what might they be like about something extremely important?

Calvert says he does not want a skewed poll. What a laugh. Hey, maybe if the SDA site was called "Liberals with Canadian Values" it would have been taken seriously!

Absolutely pathetic. Both you and Calvert.

Posted by: Brian at November 29, 2005 11:02 AM
Site
Meter