Fidel Castro and Barbara Walters
Several months ago, ABC played the interview given to Barbara Walters by Fidel Castro. She asked him several sharp questions, and he did not have enough brain to respond properly. I describe below what his responses were and what he should have answered.
Walters asked him why he did not allow formation of other political parties and why he was in power for so many years. He mumbled something like his people wanted him to lead them and if he refused, his people would consider this as betrayal, and he could not possibly betray his people. Here is what he should have responded. It is true that in Cuba a person, who is not supported by Cuban Communist Party, has no chance to be elected, but in US a person who is not supported by one of 2 political parties has practically no chance to be elected either. Now, is having 2 political parties steal the elections really so much better than having just one?
Fidel was asked about freedom of the press, and he started defending his rules. He should have instead told Walters that there was no freedom of the press in US either. He should have suggested Walters to publish some bad things about her owner company Disney. He could have reminded her that Bill Maher lost his job just because he dared to say the truth which nobody wanted to hear. There is no need to jail or to kill a journalist: the threat of losing his job is enough to make him write whatever his employer wants. It might sound strange, but the most free media these days seems to be Al-jazeera, which is located in Qatar – a country ruled by a dictator.
Look, for example, at the choice of words which journalists use when reporting from Israel. When a Palestinian blows himself up, it is called atrocity which kills women, elderly and children. When Israeli Army does something, the words are: "Israel strikes back". Palestinians never “strike back", they always "attack". The yellow journalists tell us that Palestinians have killed 12 women and children returning from worship at the tomb of Abraham, then several days later we learn that all people killed or wounded were either soldiers or security guards, no women, no children were shot. When Israeli Army kills a 13-year-old boy, they argue whether the boy was on its way to school or was throwing stones at soldiers, as if throwing of stones was a crime punishable by death.
No reporter so far dared to ask a very simple question, how would YOU feel if YOUR child was killed by a soldier for throwing stones? How would YOU feel, if YOUR country was occupied by foreigners? Suppose, YOUR wife and unborn child died, because foreign soldiers did not allow you to bring your wife to the hospital? Don't you think that such a person has moral right to kill any foreigner?
About November 20, 2002, it was reported that Chretien's media director Ducros has called Bush a moron. Everyone denounces her; there is no journalist to have the courage to say that she was right and that Bush is a moron indeed, and so is Chretien. Just recall what was Chretien's explanation of what was "good proof". When asked about Ducros’ remark, Chretien said: "Bush is not a moron, he is a good friend of mine". A polite person would have never repeated an insult, and everyone understands that being a good friend of someone does not preclude someone from being a moron. Opposite to a "moron" is a "wise person"; Chretien did not call Bush wise. Sometimes I think that what Ducros said was not really a slip of a tong, but rather doing what her boss told her to do.
At the beginning of November, the media reported that the arrested head of Jewish Defense League Rubin tried to commit suicide. This is how, according to the reports, he did it. He slashed his throat with a blade, then he ran out of his jail cell and thrown himself down several flights of stairs. The media are taking public for stupid. I have never heard of a case where someone slashed his own throat in a suicide attempt: they always slash their wrists. Second, if you want to kill yourself, you do it during the night, you do not run out where everyone can see you and send you to the hospital, where they might save you. Clearly, Rubin was murdered in jail, his throat was slashed, and he ran out for help, but in a panic (or being pushed by someone) fell from the stairs. No reporter dares to say it.
Six people were killed several weeks ago in Yemen when their car was hit by a missile fired from an unmanned plane. Bush has authorized the operation. One of the killed was a US citizen. In Canada, government can not kill its citizens under any circumstance; in US, government can kill its citizens only when they are sentenced to death by a jury of its peers, no Judge and no government official is authorized to do so. What Bush did was a crime of murder pure and simple, every reporter knows it and none dares to say it loudly.
Not only this kind of activity is illegal, it is useless as well. Israel has been involved in murders abroad for many years. For example, it hunted down and killed a number of terrorists who participated in killing of Israeli weightlifters during Munich Olympics. We know that at least one of those killed was an innocent man who was killed in front of his pregnant wife. Oops! One may ask if Israel is now, after all these murders, safer than it was in 1972. The answer comes loud and clear almost every day when yet another suicide bombing is reported.
Walters has reproached to Castro jailing of innocent people, and he lied that he did not do it. Instead, he should have reminded that US has jailed thousands of innocent people, in total breach of its own laws, held them incommunicado, with no access to lawyers. Castro could have reminded that all this was done in response to an attack by a group of people, which in no way endangered the existence of US regime as such. Castro could have asked Walters, what US would have done if it was a tiny nation (as Cuba) near a huge and hostile nation, which already arranged one armed invasion (Bay of Pigs) during which the mere existence of Cuban regime was clearly in danger. I bet, in Cuban situation, US would have breached human rights and civil liberties much more than Castro did.
Prisoners and internet
An article on this subject has been brought to my attention. I give below some quotes from the article and my comments. The article starts with:
"The day Stardust Johnson ran across her husband killer on the Internet holding a kitty cat and searching for female pen pals to alleviate his death row boredom, was the day when she went from a mild-mannered widow to outspoken victims' rights advocate."
Pay attention to the choice of words: she "ran across" the killer. May I ask, how on earth can you “ran across" anyone on the Internet? You can get to some place on the Internet, if you explicitly ask to get there. I understand that a picture of her husband killer was posted at one of the prisoners’ pen pals sites. Now, what was she doing there? She could not have possibly get there by accident. Was she looking for a pal for herself?
"Johnson's outrage led to creation of a 2-year-old Arizona law that makes it a criminal offense for inmates to publish personals, pen pal ads, financial aid requests or even their artwork and musings on the Internet".
Whenever an individual does not like a turn of events, he/she tries to introduce a new law dealing with a particular and usually rare situation. One MP from BQ did not like that I called and questioned at my trial a number of Concordia officials, so she introduced a new law which would forbid an accused to personally examine witnesses. This idiotic law did not pass, but if it did, what happened to the presumption of innocence? Over 100 people were liberated lately in US, some of them from the death row, because it was proven that they were innocent. According to Arizona law, they are forbidden to declare their innocence. If a wrongfully convicted person is forbidden to declare his innocence, he will die in jail.
Canada has its own share of wrongfully convicted. The sad truth is: the more heinous is the crime, the easier it is to convict a totally innocent person, because we do not realize how crooked police is in their desire to get a conviction. Even among criminals, who generally hate police, I noticed that they are ready to kill anyone police accuses of rape, even when the guy denies guilt and is not yet convicted. The jury is also soared to acquit an accused, because they in turn would be accused of letting a murderer walk.
A man in Canada was convicted in 1991 for killing his own mother. Imagine the horror of a normal human being, who lost his mother in a brutal murder and then was falsely accused by corrupt police in this crime. The man spent 8 years in jail when his pleas of innocence was finally heard. I assure you that his time in Jail was hell. Majority of prisoners consider me a hero, and still I would not call jail a nice place to be. A guy who killed his mother is despised in jail, he would have extremely hard time here. Now imagine that this man would not be allowed to proclaim his innocence. He would never get parole, unless he admits killing his mother. A tough choice: to admit committing a crime he did not do or to tell the truth and stay in jail.
The stupidity of Arizona law was demonstrated by the events which followed its adoption. Prisoners were forced to write letters demanding that their web sites be withdrawn, and Internet providers just did not respect these letters because they were obviously written under a duress. The lawmakers forgot for a second that these web sites were not made by prisoners, but rather by people who are beyond the reach of lawmakers.
"Phelps (Arizona official) said that several death row Don Juans were using the Web to drain the bank accounts of lovesick women, pledging affection to multiple female fans in an elaborate con game to see which inmate could bilk sympathizers out of most money".
I can tell you what is the money situation in Canadian jails, and I suspect, it is much worse on death row. The money which are sent to a prisoner from the outside, can not be used to bye anything from prison canteen. A prisoner can buy clothes for a maximum of $500 per year. A prisoner can buy food from canteen only by using money he earned himself up to the maximum of $90 per 2 weeks period. That is it. In this situation, what is the point to "bilk" anyone for money?
The only way to spend big money while in jail is on buying drugs. The only people death row inmates have access to are guards, and only these guards can bring them drugs. So, if death row inmates are really bilking women for money, it is the jail guards who are really benefiting from this scam. Prisoners can not pay guards from their jail accounts, so the money should be sent either to guards directly or to some intermediary people on the outside.
It is the disrespect, stupid!
On October 28, 2002, R. Flores killed 3 instructors at the University of Arizona and then he killed himself. I have read discussion of the event in several groups, and it is surprising to me that people are discussing wrong things, like was he right or wrong to kill them, was he a hero or a villain, etc. It does not matter any more, he is dead and so are the individuals he killed. The only thing which makes sense to discuss, is understanding why he did it and what can be done to prevent similar things in the future.
The answer is surprisingly simple and is given by Flores himself in his letter. He states it clearly: it was total and utter disrespect displayed by the instructors killed. You may argue ad nauseum whether a disrespectful person deserves to be killed, IT DOES NOT MATTER, they ARE dead, and many more will be dead if we do not learn the lessons. There are no winners in this story, everyone is a loser. Here are my observations of the university culture (or should I say absence of it).
In my life, I have been on both sides: a student for about 60 years (I still am); and I started teaching at the university level 40 years ago at the age of 22. 1 can tell you that there was much less student abuse in the old USSR than here. The university culture in the West is based on the presumption that a student is always wrong, even when he is right, he is still wrong to be right. Flores disregarded this, he dared to assert his human dignity and to complain against one instructor. Instead of correcting the instructor, the university have chosen to threaten Flores with expulsion. More than that, significant number of professors behave like Mafia: if a student dared to complain against one of them, others in the "family" will do their best to fail the student, they did and paid with their lives.
What happened to Flores was not an oversight or a mishap, this is a typical university behavior. When I dared to complain on French teacher at Concordia, who was smoking in class while sitting under a plaque "Smoking is forbidden", I was not just threatened with expulsion, I was expelled from the course. I did not let it go, I went to see the Rector, and he promised me to correct the situation. Instead, he sent me a letter saying that it was my fault, because I was "disruptive" (the same word was used with Flores) and when I wrote to the Rector asking him to specify what exactly did I do to be called disruptive, he just responded that the file was closed, period. Have in mind, I was not an ordinary student, I was a university employee with a doctoral degree. Can you imagine, how they behaved with regular students?
As a comparison, I have written my first scientific article while being undergraduate student back in the USSR; my professor wanted his name to be included as one of the authors. I just told him point blank, that he did not make any scientific contribution, he would be thanked for posing the problem, and that was the end of it. Neither he nor his colleagues ever made any attempt to fail me on any exam, on the contrary, I graduated cum laude and was offered a junior teaching position.
Graduate students here are mistreated even more that undergraduate, because they are being used as slaves. If they write a scientific article, they are obliged to include their supervisor as co-author whether he did or did not make any scientific contribution. They are also forced to mark homework of undergraduate students as well as conduct laboratory and seminar studies with undergraduate students. As a result, undergraduate students suffer, because they have teachers of low qualifications (graduate students); graduate students suffer as well, because they have to spend too much time on the job, which should have been done by their supervisors. When I heard the story of a graduate student in California smashing the head of his supervisor with a hammer, I was only surprised that this kind of murder does not happen more often.
As a comparison, during my graduate studies back in the USSR, my supervisor Professor Bolotin never requested his name to be put as co-author; graduate students were given an opportunity to give a lecture or lead a seminar with undergraduate students, but not on a regular basis and always under the supervision of a Professor. Bolotin was not an angel, he got very angry when I dared to tell him that I had found a mistake in his derivations (a scientist of his stature could not possibly make a mistake), but he was a decent person. He could very easily kick me out when I started a scandal at another department accusing them of anti-Semitism when they refused to accept my brother for graduate studies, and he did not.
There is a Russian proverb: "Kto znaet - delaet, kto ne znaet - uchit" (the translation is: who knows how to do it - does it, who does not know - teaches). Sadly, this proverb rings true for majority of university teachers. They come to their lectures with notes or just read from books, they hate their job, they despise students, they are extremely intolerant to any criticism and they hate good teachers, who are a tiny minority and not in a position of power at universities.
I remembered well what I did not like in my professors, so I tried to be the professor, which I as a student would like to have. Professors are usually not available for consultation, so at my first meeting with every new class, I always gave them my office and home telephone numbers, and I told them that they were free to call me 7 days a week from 9 a. m. to 9 p.m.; I had office hours, but I would never refuse to see them any other time and be with them as long as necessary to help them.
Many professors are full of vanity and consider student absence at their lectures as personal insult; they even openly reduce students' grades just for being absent. I have always told my students that they were free to come or not to come to my lectures; their grades would in no way be affected by their presence. Usually, not only my students were present, but also some students from other groups came to my lectures, because I knew what I was talking about (unlike many other professors). I never used books or notes during my lectures. My logic was very simple: if I demand my students to know the subject without looking into the books, I should be capable of the same.
I told my students that they should "swear allegiance" not to me, but to the subject I teach: if they know the subject, they would get good grades, regardless whether they liked me or not, or whether I liked them or not. When I was correcting the exam papers, I always opened them from the back, so that I would not see the name of the student. This way I eliminated even subconscious bias. When all exams were corrected, I took the heap again and entered all the marks in my journal. Remembering Bolotin, I encouraged my students to find an error in what I was saying or writing and even offered a bonus (several additional points to the future exam marks).
It was very important to me that my student get the best possible education, so I re-checked the marking of their homework by graduate students and found it to be non satisfactory. Graduate students did not have either time or qualification to do it right. Being very busy with their own studies and research, they tried to the marking as fast as possible. They just checked the last numerical result; if it was correct, they gave full mark to the student, and if the numerical answer was incorrect, they failed the student. Thus, a student who somehow managed to get the right number (sometimes from a friend), but understood nothing, would pass, while a student who did everything right but accidentally pressed wrong button on his calculator would fail. This was wrong, so I decided to mark my students homework myself.
I was giving my students a lot, so I was justified to demand from them a lot, and I did. I challenged them with graduate level problems and some of them took the challenge very well. One student even wrote a scientific article which was published in the most prestigious journal. My students usually did on exams better than students of other professors, but this was because I was a better teacher and not, as The Gazette wrote it, because I would give my students better grades than to others. I wrote about it in detail (see the file "What really happened at Concordia and how the media lied about it" at www.jeocities.com/benny_patrick).
I finally got from Concordia the report with many deletions. This report does NOT accuse me of deliberate falsification, as was claimed by The Gazette. The author of the report was Bush; his address is Mr. Gerry Bush, 1659 rue du Burgundy, St-Lazare, Vaudreil, Quebec J7T 2Cl; Tel. (450)-455-7683. Call him and ask him for a copy of his report.
A student failure on exam is a morally traumatic experience for many of them, and every professor should spare no time to meet with the student, who is not satisfied with his grade, and to explain in detail, what the student did wrong. The student should realize that the professor did not fail him, he, the student, failed the exam and the professor just registered this fact. The student should be assured that the professor is not his enemy, professor is there to help him to master the subject. This was certainly not so in Flores case: he did not fail the course, his instructor failed him.
Regretfully, some professors go as low as to tell the student: "You insulted me, so I reduced your grade as punishment". This is a "no-no". If you treat a student with respect, he will treat you with respect. I have never encountered such a situation, but even if a student insults a professor for no good reason, there are other ways to deal with it; the student's grade should be reflection of his knowledge of the subject and nothing else.
One summer I was in New Zealand to present a paper at a scientific conference. When I checked the answering machine in my university office, I heard a message from one of my students, who failed his exam. I immediately called him back, he was not there, so I spoke to his mother. I introduced myself, explained that I was far away in New Zealand, that nothing terrible happened, her son just did not spend enough time to learn the subject, he needed to study hard and I was there to help him.
When I came back to Montreal, I found in my mailbox a "thank-you" card and a $20 bill as a compensation for the cost of a phone call from New Zealand. I kept the card, but the money I returned back to the student; I explained to him that taking money from a student creates an appearance of impropriety. The student studied all summer and passed his exam in the fall, and I was not the one who marked his supplementary exam. I did all this not because I was scared that a student might shoot me, I did it because it was the right thing to do. I loved my students and I cared for them as if they were my own children, and they knew it. Six of my former students came voluntarily to my trial and testified that I was either one of the best or the best teacher they ever met.
The fact that I loved my students never meant that I would give a passing grade to anyone who did not deserve it. Back in the USSR I got into trouble in Ulianovsk when I dared to give a low mark to a daughter of a party official and refused to change it, despite all the pressure. She got exactly what she deserved. I was ready to help her to get better, but not to give her what she did not deserve.
In my 12 years at Concordia, there were 2 cases of students filing complaints against the failing grades I gave them. I met with them and told them that if they manage to show me that I made a mistake in my grades, I would be happy to change them, otherwise, they should study harder and pass the exams again. None of them could point out my mistake, and neither could the professors to whom the complaints went for adjudication. I got a phone call from the chairman of Math Department. He asked me to change the grade, but I stood my grounds. I never learned why he got involved.
I take my hat off for students like Flores. It is extremely difficult to work full time and study at a university full time. It takes a lot of dedication and personal sacrifice. I remember noticing one very bright student in my evening class back in the USSR. He worked full time and attended the university in the evening. He did not seem to realize just how bright he was, and I did my best to convince him to drop his job and to dedicate himself to studies. I succeeded and now he is a Dean of the Faculty at Rybinsk Polytechnic.
Of course, it was much easier in Russia, because the university education was free and excellent students were paid a stipend. University of Arizona should have bent backward to accommodate Flores, because upon graduation he would have become a superb nurse. Taking into consideration that he was already a licensed nurse, they should have credited him all practical parts of the courses; instead, they have chosen to fail him on medication distribution. How much education does one need to distribute medication? Do you believe that Flores, who worked for a number of years as a nurse, did not know how to distribute medication?
I described all the above because I believe that my experience could be useful for teachers of every kind of schools. I hear too often that a student came to a school and shot one or more teachers. I assure you that if all teachers clean their act and start behaving properly, there would be no shootings at schools. It is true that majority of students take the crap and never shoot anyone, but even one shooting is one too many and could be easily avoided.
Flores would have also taken the crap, had it not been for the additional circumstances, namely, his chronic back pain, losing his wife and kids, prostate problem and possible impotence, toothache, financial problems, etc. All this taken together made his life not worth living. He decided to kill himself, and on this occasion, he decided to take along as many scoundrels as he could, and he did. His actions do not surprise me, I am more surprised that in Quebec alone, about 1500 people kill themselves every year, and majority do not take along any of the scoundrels who made their life a living hell.
FBI and 9/11
On October 27, 2002, CBS "60 Minutes" had a show about a woman who was fired from FBI because she complained that her supervisor encouraged her not to do her job of translation of documents. He told her to pretend that she was too busy, so that he could demand to hire more people in his department. When she started complaining she was warned it would backfire. She also noticed that one of her colleagues was involved with a Turkish man FBI was spying on, and that the woman did not translate properly documents in her charge.
Senator Grassley is interviewed, and he states that he believed the woman, nevertheless, he does nothing to help her or to reprimand the supervisor in question. The conclusion of the show: the supervisor is promoted and the woman is still out of job.
On November 24, 2002, the second "60 Minutes" show on the same subject. The FBI employee in charge of internal investigations, who was brave enough to say that FBI does not give a damn about protecting the nation and that their purpose is self-promotion, is humiliated and ostracized by the FBI Deputy Director, who said that FBI are a family, and anyone, who speaks bad about family, does harm to the family. Senator Grassley can not help to notice that the term "family" is being used by Mafia. What does the senator do? He calls the FBI Deputy Director to his office and the man just refuses to speak to the senator. There is nothing the senator can do.
Do you believe this nonsense? Remember senator Joe McCarthy? He made the life of not just one but thousands of people living hell. He put people in jail for refusing to speak with him. The congress still has that power. Why does senator Grassley not use this power? Because 9/11 was the best thing that could happen not only to Bush, to FBI, but Congress as well: frightened people is obedient people. Every police organization is nothing but a well organized crime. They make their "bacon" on crime and the worst thing for them is disappearance of crime, because they would disappear as well.
I can tell you what would have happened to an old KGB supervisor, who would dare to tell his employee to pretend too busy and not to do her job: he would lose not just his job, but his head as well, and fairly quickly.
Ask the right question
On November 9, 2002, there was a TV show about a man who lost his leg in military action. He was asking God, why him. Then he saw on television two Russian boys who also lost their legs, so he decided to adopt them, and now he understands why God took away his leg: so that he could adopt those 2 boys and help them.
The right question to ask here, why did God take the legs from small children. This is why religion survives: people are not asking the right questions. Here is an example of right way of thinking. David Attenborough met a boy, who had a worm in his brain. This worm was trying to get out perforating boy's eye and making him blind. Attenborough says: "I know that God made this boy, but I also know that God made this worm, and I have a problem with that".
Disrespect, humiliation and violence justified
On November 11, 2002, "Good Morning, America" shows Virginia Military Institute. The first year students are called "rats", they are not allowed to speak, to have anything in their pockets, etc. They are being insulted and humiliated on a regular basis by senior kadets. They claim that this procedure of being humiliated and then humiliating others makes them better people. Using this logic, child abusers should be praised, because they are making better the whole humanity.
Are the bosses of Virginia Military Institute that stupid? Not at all: they are making thoughtless cold-bloodied murderers. They need killing machines, people ready to kill anyone without thinking. Being humiliated and then humiliating others is the best way to achieve it. Remember people shooting and killing students at Kent University?
Steak in jail
There was much noise about prisoners of Drumheller jail having their steaks barbecued and jumping around in bathing suits. The loudest voice was indignated by the allegation that taxpayers paid for those steaks. Here are some facts. Jailers are obliged to spend $5 per day per prisoner for food. Usually, they do not, but if they did, prisoners would be able to afford a steak every day, because jail buys food in bulk.
I have participated in a number of so-called barbecue steaks. Usually, it is the Inmate Committee who pays for the steaks. Quebec prisoners get filet mignon every St-Jean Day. Prisoners food is a very small portion of jail budget. A prison of 300 prisoners has the annual budget of at least $20 million. Multiply 5 by 300 and by 365 and you will get the food expenses, which is less than 3% of the whole budget. Jailers inflated salaries and imaginary overtime is where the lion share of money goes.
Section 4 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act states it clearly that prisoners are entitled to the same rights as other citizens, except those which are explicitly taken away by incarceration. For example, a prisoner can not fly to Florida for winter due to his incarceration, but eating of a stake has nothing to do with incarceration and is therefore permitted. Prisoners work in jail, they get paid up to the maximum of $6.90 per day. If you do not smoke, you can buy a steak at prison canteen and eat it, but if you do smoke, then all you can buy for $6.90 is one pack of cigarettes. Everything is much more expensive in jail.
So, what is a big deal about a steak in jail? Everything is according to the law.
Prisoners and heart transplants
On December 1, 2002, CBS "60 Minutes" presented a piece about California prisoner who got a heart transplant for which taxpayer paid $1 million. The main argument was that prisoners in jail are getting better medical care than the law-abiding citizens. California Corrections representative said that they did not have a choice because they were already sued with respect to their denial of a kidney transplant to a prisoner. They lost and were ordered to pay $35,000 in damages. Do you sincerely believe that jailers do not know how to count? What is cheaper, to pay $35,000 in damages or $1 MILLION in medical costs?
A medical doctor said that medical profession also did not have a choice because they can not discriminate against a patient just because he is a criminal. Bloody liar! Not only they can, they do it all the time. In my case, they lied through their teeth for 4 years that all I needed was pills, that angioplasty was too dangerous, until they brought me to the brink of death. The courts were not exactly on my side: corrupt Canadian judges have declared me vexatious pleader and forbidden me to file any legal proceedings, and no lawyer would take my case.
Finally, when I was brought to the brink of death, I was transferred to British Columbia, the angioplasty was done without any complication. Since then, I had 2 more angioplasties done here in Quebec, which proves that they lied to me, they could do angioplasty here in Quebec, there was no need to transfer me to British Columbia in the first place. Typically, prisoners are getting killed by denial of medical care and no lawyer would take their cases, because neither corrupt judges, nor juries would be on the side of a prisoner. I still do not know, why in my case, jailers blinked at the last moment. As far as the prisoner in California, I am sure, there is more to the case than meets the eye: the prisoner obviously had "connections", was related to someone "important", managed to give bribes to the right people, etc.
The law does indeed provide for prisoners free medical care in every country
called itself "civilized" and it is uniformly NOT respected.
What astounded me in the show, that everyone there said that the law should be
changed and prisoners not allowed medical care which is not provided for
law-abiding citizens. There was not a single person to say, that not only
prisoners, but indeed, every law-abiding citizens should have free access to
medical care when his life is at stake. American Constitution guarantees
everyone the right to life. Is not it obvious that, when a person
affected by a terminal illness has no access to medical care because he has no
insurance, his constitutional right to life is violated? Is not it
obvious that government should pay the medical expenses of everyone whose life
is in danger?