Big lie and statistics
Quite some time ago, I have posted some thoughts about our bravest. One individual (as usual, hiding behind a fictitious E-mail address) responded that being a policeman is a very dangerous job and that a policeman is being killed every 57 hours. Well, I decided to look deeper into this statistics. Here are some results.
First, I discovered that in 1995 1040 construction workers were killed on the job. Elementary arithmeties gives us that a construction worker is being killed every 8 hours. Does this mean that to be a construction worker is 6 times more dangerous than being a policeman?
The same individual proudly announced that one of our bravest is being
assaulted every 58 minutes. I looked into these data too, and I quote:
"On average, more than 65,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year and some 23,000 are injured annually." The first question: how come only 1/3 of the assaulted bravest are actually injured? One response: they are so well protected that the assailants are not successful.
Another response: the statistics is based on the reports issued by the bravest themselves. For example, they beat up a guy, then arrest him for assaulting police. Here we go, you have two of our bravest assaulted. So, the second explanation implies that you have at least 42,000 citizens beaten up by our bravest and then falsely accused for assaulting police and serving time in jail, because our judge would believe 2 of our bravest than one guy from the s-treet. Now, which explanation makes more sense?
I remind couple of cases which got wide publicity in the past several years. Remember the case when one guy was beaten up by 2 of our bravest and then accused for assaulting them. The guy was lucky: in happen in the metro station and was recorded by security cameras. The charges against the guy were dropped and 2 of our braves were accused of assault. But if you think they paid the price, think again. Our "honourable" judge did not allow the video-tape to be played at the hearing, because it was "too prejudicial" to our bravest. Well, without the tape, it was the man's word against the word of our bravest. They were acquitted.
Yet another case is now in court. One of our bravest Stante has punched a homeless man Lizotte in the face so atrociously that Lizotte's neck got broken and he got paralyzed and died a month later. Imagine, what kind of blow to the face it must have been, that the victim's head jerked back so violently that his neck could not hold. In addition, our bravest was punching a man who was restrained by another man and could not defend himself. Our bravest has filed a report, where he did not mention beating up Lizotte, but mentioning assault on him, Stante, with an injury to his knuckles. He was writing the truth: Lizotte's face has indeed injured his knuckles. Now you have one of the 23,000 of our bravest injured.
As comparison, in 1995, there were 350,000 disabling injuries (pay attention, not just injuries, but disabling ones!) among our construction workers. So, a construction worker suffers a disabling injury every 90 seconds. Does it mean that a construction worker is 15 times more likely to get injured than a policeman? Of course not. We have to take into consideration the total number of each group. There are about 740,000 of our bravest in US and about 6,500,000 of construction workers. Proper statistics is to compute the number of injuries per 100,000 of individuals in the group. So the adjusted numbers are: 5384 construction workers get disabling injuries and 3108 of our bravest injured (imagine, how many of those just injured their knuckles beating up citizens) per 100,000 in each group.
On average, 153 of our bravest "die in the line of duties" each year, which makes it about 21 per 100,000. Statistics shows that in Alaska and Wyoming there are over 60 accidental deaths per 100,000 among general population. So, you have 3 times greater chance to die in an accident in Alaska, than just being a policeman. I found that in Indiana, there are 33 deaths per 100,000. If this is the minimum, then it is more dangerous to be an ordinary citizen anywhere in US than to be a policeman.
Let us get deeper into the death "in the line of duties". If you think that dying "in the line of duties" means dying while defending citizens, think again. For example, our bravest gets drunk, gets into a police car and smashes it into a post. This death is considered as death "in the line of duties", and if you think I am joking, I am not. Here is the data for 1998: out of total of 163, who died "in the line of duties", 30 were exactly that - "alcohol related" deaths, 14 were "drug-related" deaths, 54 died in auto-accidents, 15 in "job-related illness" (whatever this means), etc.
So, how many actually died defending citizens is not clear, the categories are made deliberately so that to conceal facts. For example, 63 were killed by firearms, but it could be suicide, accidental shooting and shooting by criminals. How much of either is not known.
There is a big lie, and then there is statistics. One has to look deep
into it in order to understand what it really means.
Church of sexual perverts - follow-up
When I made a posting about Catholic Church, some people answered that every denomination is guilty of sexual crimes. Not so and not to the same extent. I lived almost 40 years of my life in the USSR, and I do not know of a single case of Orthodox priest being accused of sexual misconduct. I invite anyone to name the case where a Muslim cleric was accused of sexual crimes. Every man, who was never seen with a woman, raises eyebrows. The Catholic Church gives these people a perfect hiding place and respect.
I lived during the Second World War in Kirghizia, it is hot there in summer, and little children were running naked. Not a single person ever thought that a child could be a sexual object. There was no adult supervision, not a single child was ever kidnapped or sexually abused. Let us face it: English and French are much more sexually perverted than their Eastern neighbors. I assure you that everyone in Russia would laugh at the law claiming that a picture a naked little child is child pornography. This kind of law just proves the degree of perversion in society.
I listened to one woman describing, how she was molested as a child: the school principal used to call her from the class to his office and rape her, and this happened several times per week and lasted for several years. I assure you that no such thing could possibly happen in Russia. First, if a school principal calls a child from a class, it should mean that at least one of her parents died. Usually, when a child comes back from the principal's office, everybody is asking why she was called, and from the child's reaction it would be clear that something was wrong.
It escapes me, how could he possibly rape her in his office, his secretary could enter any time, she could hear the child cry, etc. If he locks the door, any secretary would become suspicious, and if it happened several times both his secretary and the teachers would call the police. Face it: all these crimes could take place only because people around knew and did nothing to save the child.
It was reported that Pope is against zero tolerance policy. Ask
yourself why. Pope is considered as God's representative on earth.
The priests are Pope representatives, and thus also God's
representatives. They must be more moral than ordinary mortals.
When a mortal molests a child, he goes to jail. When a priest molest a
child and tells the child that if he/she tells anyone about molestation, he/she
would burn in hell, this priest speaks in the name of God. The priest
effectively claims that what he did was approved by God, and if the child tells
anyone, God will punish the child by eternal damnation. Ask here, why
all-knowing and Almighty God did not kill the priest then and there?
Because God and Pope are pedophiles themselves. Any other explanation?
Bravo, FBI and CIA
All the media is in frenzy from June 10. The headlines are: "Brilliant coup of counter-intelligence”, “US has foiled a monstrous plot to explode a dirty bomb”, etc. Let us see, what really happened. A man was arrested May 8, 2002 on his arrival to Chicago. He is an American citizen. Government claims that he planned to explode a dirty bomb somewhere in Washington. Did they find any bomb or any explosive on him? No. Did they find any document on him saying that he planned to explode a bomb? No. What evidence do they have, which could stand in the court of law? None.
Presume that government is right, then why did not they announce their great victory on May 8, when the guy was arrested? Because they have no evidence against him. By June 10, they got so deep in shit, they needed something to deflect attention, so they recalled that one guy was arrested and declared their great victory, and nobody in the media dares to pose a simple question to Rumsfeld: "Sir, why have not you declared your great victory on May 8?"
If one believes CNN, 81% of Americans thinks that it is OK to put an American citizen in military jail and hold him there indefinitely, because government has declared him enemy combatant. Excuse me, what happened to the presumption of innocence? If we believe government that the guy wanted to explode a dirty bomb, then why do we need courts? Every civilized nation claims that personal freedom can only be taken away by a proper process, which involves government making a complaint and jury of peers deciding whether government proved its case, and not just proved, but beyond reasonable doubt.
It is astounding to see just how dumb the population is even in the so-called civilized countries. How did German people become so evil under Hitler? Very simple: he had his 9/11 - fire in Reichstag, Homeland is in danger from Communists, extraordinary measures were needed to protect Homeland. Stalin did the same using numerous "enemies of people", and now Bush is on the same track.
Rumsfeld says that he did not want to punish the guy, he just wanted the
information. Well, I have a surprise for him: if he wanted information,
there was no point to arrest the guy: there was no bomb yet, there was no
target. Let the guy go wherever he wants, let him meet whoever he wants,
just follow him, and you get all the information you needed. When he
comes back with a bomb or finally makes the bomb, then arrest him. As it
is now, not only US did not foil any plot, on the contrary, al-Qaida now knows
that its representative is caught, they would send another one, and Rumsfeld
does not know who he is. Now, wasn't it dumb to arrest the guy at such an
Idiots in climatology
One can often hear from people trying to scare us about climate warming the following 2 arguments:
1. Climate warming will melt polar ice, and this would raise the ocean level and flood many countries like The Netherlands.
2. Climate warming will result in increased evaporation and lowering of ocean level, which would make many bodies of water not passable by ships.
The problem is that these 2 statements are never used in the same speech. The reason is obvious: you can not scare people by flood from raising oceans and at the same time to scare them that many bodies of water would become unfit for navigation. So, what is the truth, will the ocean raise or fall? Nobody knows. One thing is obvious: the positive consequences of climate warming definitely overweigh the negative.
I have just heard on Discovery channel about "catastrophic effects" of global warming. They said that several lakes inside Antarctica are no longer frozen all year and some life appeared in them. I understand that disappearance of life can be called "catastrophic", but why appearance of life can be called a catastrophe?
Most of Canada and most of Siberia are not inhabited due to harsh climate. Those are huge spaces, rich with minerals. If they become fit for humans to live and farm, the benefit is enormous. So, do we need to fight the climate warming? No. But this does not mean that we should not reduce the harmful gas emissions. I do not mean the carbon dioxide: the plants need it for photosynthesis, but sulphur, and other harmful substances need to be eliminated. We need clean air to breathe.
I recall that US President vetoed the Clean Air Act declaring that it would
cost industry about $20 billion and that US can not afford it. Well, US
could afford wasting over $100 billion and counting on the so-called war
against terrorism. What is more important?
It was reported that FBI has about 11,500 agents and a budget of $4 BILLION. If you divide one by the other, you get that FBI funding per agent is over $347,000. Presume that average salary is $100,000, you still have over a quarter-million per agent to spend on something else. They claim to have antiquated computers. One can buy a pretty good computer for $2000. If you multiply it by 11,500, the total is $24 million, which is 0.6% of their budget. FBI can buy new computers for every agent every year by spending 0.6% of their budget.
Do you still believe they are using 486's?
Some more arithmetic
US government spent so far well over $100 BILLION on the war with terrorism and Cheney still tells us that it is not a question if but rather when US will be attacked again.
Here is my suggestion. There are about 4 million Palestinians.
If you divide $100 billion among them, each would get $25,000, which is very
good money over there. Don't you think US would be much safer had it
decided to spend these $100 billion that way?'
There are honest people in US Army
CNN reported that a Lt.-Col. of US Army was suspended for having published
an article in a newspaper, where he said that Bush had allowed the 9/11
attack. The man is not just an officer, he is also Vice-Chancellor of the
Military Language Institute in Monterey, CA. This is what I was writing
back in September of 2001. I was then called a raving lunatic.
Well, I am in a pretty good company.
I got used to hear the word "historic" back in the USSR: whatever Stalin did, every speech were historic. After his death, it was Communist Party whose deeds were all historic. Now I hear that Bush's plan is historic. First, he made a historic decision by creating the Homeland Security office and appointing Ridge its director. Recently, we heard from Cheney that US is not any more secure now than it was on September 12. Well, if this is so, then what were all these billions spent on? How come, Ridge did not make any difference?
Now we have yet another historic plan: creation of a huge bureaucracy of over 160,000 employees and $48 billion annual budget. The situation reminds me of a fable written several centuries ago by Russian poet Krylov. It describes 4 animals, who decided to play quartet. They took different musical instruments, sat down and started playing. No success. One of animals suggests that the problem was that they were sitting not in proper order, so they changed places. Tried to play again, no luck. Then another animal suggests that they are still not sitting properly and gives yet another suggestion, so they again change places. This new arrangement does not do much good. The moral: no matter how they sit, they are not musicians.
Bush does not seem to understand a very simple thing: all laws, punishments,
etc., make no sense against people, who are ready to die. There is no
protection against this kind of people.
Pursuit of happiness
American Constitution seems to be the only one, which gives its citizens a
constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. There is no legal
definition of what it is. Suppose, a drug addict claims that his pursuit
of happiness is to get stoned and that government is breaching his
constitutional right when it prosecutes him on the drug charges. Did
anyone try this kind of defense?