Questions in the poll
It is sometimes more interesting to see the questions asked in the poll, than the answers received. Polls are supposed to be tests of public opinion, instead, they are being used for propaganda purposes. How it is done? Very simple. Suppose, you want to create the impression that Canadians are happy with Romanow report. You take a poll with a question: "Does Romanow Report reflect Canadian values?". Majority will respond "Yes", and spin doctors will claim that Canadians approved the Report.
Now, presume that you asked a different question: "Was it justified to spend $15 MILLION for a report, which does not go beyond 'reflecting Canadian values'?" I am pretty sure, majority will respond "NO!!!". The problem is: nobody dared to ask the question.
Second example: Canadians were asked, who created more danger for world peace, Bush or Saddam. Of course, majority of Canadians, as any other nation, are dumb, but I was pleased to see that quite seizable minority (38%) were smart enough to understand that Bush was more dangerous for peace than Saddam. Again, what surprised me here, someone dared to ask the question! Are we having free press, or our yellow press is not that yellow? After all, nobody in US would dare to pose such a question.
The sad response is that out press is as yellow as ever. The reason for asking the "right" question comes from the top: Chretien hates Bush, and it shows. He has no guts to say it in the open, so he uses indirect methods just recently, Chretien's Communication director called Bush “moron". I am pretty sure, this "slip of a tong" was not a slip at all and was initiated by Chretien. Remember his reaction: "Bush is not a moron, he is my friend". Would you want to have a friend, who defended your reputation that way? And soon after this "slip of a tong", we have the proper question asked. Just check, who paid for the poll. Of course, Chretien is not that stupid to pay for the poll directly, but with a proper digging, a relationship can be found.
Mueller claims that 100 terrorist attacks were thwarted by CIA
Wow, if this is really so, where is the proof? We heard that Russians have thwarted CIA attempts to spy on them, several Russians are charged with treason and US diplomat is told to get out. Out of thousands of people arrested in US after 9/11, there is not a single one charged with anything resembling being caught red-handed prepared to strike. The only person charged so far (Moussaoui) had his trial postponed yet again. if government has a good solid proof against him, why would they need to postpone the trial? Sad, that not a single yellow reporter dares to ask these questions.
Gun registry – where did the money go?
As usual, I shall say what nobody seems to dare to say: the money was stolen! There is no way one can LEGALLY spend a BILLION dollars: gun registry is just a database of about 5 million entries, which by contemporary measures is not considered as a large database. No database has cost of $200 per entry. In order to understand, what a billion dollars is, I can tell you that the whole budget of Correctional Service is about $1 billion. This includes all huge salaries of about 10,000 employees; lodging, feeding, clothing, educating, medicating, etc. of about 14,000 prisoners; equipment, maintenance, repairs, building new jails, etc. Compare all this to creation and maintenance of an average size database.
This is why neither Rock, nor Cauchon can answer a very simple question: where did the money go? Both blubber something about non-cooperation of provinces and the gun lobby, but without quoting any numbers, and yellow reporters have no guts to press for answers.
Opposition is fuming, how come government has left the Parliament in the dark about these overspendings? The proper question to ask here: how did the government manage to spend more than was appropriated in the budget? Is not the Parliament the body which authorizes spendings in the first place? Should not spending more than was appropriated in the budget be considered a grand theft? If not, why does one need budget?
I have a question for the Loyal Opposition: are not they too "loyal" (or too lazy)? Aren't they supposed to be government watchdogs? There is an MP, who is being paid to watch over the Justice affairs. How come, all these years, he did not bother to stand up and to ask a simple question: "How much money were spent on gun registry?"
I guess, I demand too much from these overworked and underpaid people, am I?
Do you see what I see?
A woman had misfortune: her house was robbed, her husband died and her bank has kicked her out of her house. Perfect strangers heard her story and offered help. If you think, they offered to pay her mortgage, think again: they offered her storage space for her personal effects. What is most amazing - this woman obviously has grown children and siblings, and nobody is asking a perfectly normal question: where the hell are they? Am I missing something?
Two people were arrested in Jordan and confessed of being Al-Qaida members and of killing a US diplomat. Our media hails this as a major breakthrough in fight against terrorists. What surprises me though, that except for confessions, there seems to be no proof of anything at all, for example, where is the murder weapon? Do you sincerely believe that anyone would voluntarily confess to a crime punishable by death?
We know, for example, that our finest have managed several years ago to get confessions from 5 young people of committing a heinous crime of rape of a female jogger in New York Central park. Though there was no material evidence to support those confessions, the boys were found guilty and spent several years in jail. They were not tortured, at least not in Jordanian sense. Have no doubt, that if you were arrested by Jordanian police, you would confess to anything they want.
There were similar confessions in the case of Bali bombing in Indonesia, and again, no material evidence. I guess, Indonesian torture is as effective as Jordanian. You do not expect our yellow press to ask proper questions, do you?
How many lives were saved by gun registry?
Rock said that 120 lives were saved due to gun registry; at the memorial service for Ecole Polytechnique victims, it was proudly declared that 300 lives were saved. Nobody dared to ask Rock, and much less to ask some from the victims' families, how did they get their numbers. Nobody dares to ask, how exactly the gun registry can save any life. Presume, for the sake of argument, that the greater number is correct and that 300 lives were saved at the price of $1 BILLION.
One may argue that there is no price tag on human life, and this is so in theory, until you learn that THOUSANDS of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Even presuming that each transplant costs $1 MILLION, you could save 1000 people each year by sending them to US and abroad and to pay for their transplants at the tune of $1 million each. Is it preferable to save 1000 lives, rather than 300?
One individual has written that he would have understood if I was dealing with Mafiosi and shot them. Well, I was dealing with criminals who threatened my life. It is sad that so many people do not realize that Mafia is not the only organized crime on this planet. University professors can form an organized crime as profitable as Mafia, but well protected by establishment.
Stupid criminals take guns and go robbing banks of a few thousand dollars. Smart criminals become CEO and rob BILLIONS. If you are stupid, you sell drugs; if you are smart, you become a policeman, confiscate drugs and money from drug dealers and then use your own drug dealers to resell the confiscated drugs, and you do it with impunity.
If you are a stupid pedophile, you buy child pornography and you get caught; if you are a smart pedophile, you become a policeman in vice squad; you can watch child pornography all day long, and you are very well paid for that. Among individuals recently arrested in England on child pornography charges there were over 50 policemen. Imagine, how many more policemen-criminals are still not charged and never will be!
If you look at the history of mankind, you can not help to notice, that majority of positive changes in the society were achieved by violence. The creation of USA was achieved by a bloody war with Britain. There was no way to abolish slavery peacefully: a bloody civil war was needed. Many people credit Ghandi with achievement of India independence. In reality, it was violent resistance of population which did the trick. Ghandi was used by British as lesser evil. The same can be said about Martin Luther King: Black Panthers and other violent groups did the "dirty job", King provided the "lesser evil" option.
We are proud of our labor laws, like minimum pay, right to strike, etc. How did these laws come to life? By violence. Ford had a private army of thugs, who were beating up and killing strikers, to which trade unions responded by affiliation with Mafia and other organized crime. Not all capitalists are like Feuerstein, majority of them are trying to pay workers the least possible and make workers work as long as possible.
So, organized crime paid them visits. They were told that, unless they sign a fair contract with their workers, they will suffer a lot of “natural" disasters, like fires, "accidental" deaths, etc., and the capitalists knew that these people meant business, so they preferred to settle, rather than get killed. After a while, capitalists decided to put this fairness in the law rather than leave everything to chance. The media told us that infiltration of trade unions by organized crime was a bad thing. Capitalists have always been a very well organized crime and to fight them, workers needed another well organized crime.
Nothing can be achieved by non-violence. Look, for example, at Vietnam war protests. So many years of protest, with no results. And if a peaceful protest could not succeed in the so-called free and democratic country, can a peaceful protest succeed in a country not so free? The war was ended by violence: Vietnamese finally kicked out Americans, and that ended the war. Violence is locomotive of history.
There are people who take crap from others, and there are those, who do not. Those, who don't, pay terrible price for their actions: they lose their freedom and even life. Mankind is indebted to them for almost all positive changes in society. Ask yourself a simple question: would Enron or Worldcom executives do what they did, if they knew that at least one person they robbed of his life savings would have the guts to take a gun and pump sufficient number of bullets in their crooked brains?
American forefathers have included in American Constitution the right to bear arms. Their intention was very clear: it was not about house protection against a criminal intruder, it was against the government, which has armed police and an army, which it can use against people. At the time of writing Constitution, the arms the soldiers had was exactly the same as the citizens had, so they could challenge the army should the need arise. Sadly, this is no longer the case: people have nothing against tanks and smart bombs.
I call this posting "sad thoughts", because I have always hated violence, and I still do; it makes me sad to realize that human beings just do not get it, unless violence is involved. Sad.
What nurses are doing
I reproduce below the text of my letter addressed to Cite de la Sante hospital. The letter speaks for itself. Don't think that they are doing this kind of stuff only to me, they can do it to you as well.
"During my stay at the Emergency in the evening of July 15, 2002, a female nurse has given me an injection into my IV, without getting my consent. When I asked her what was she doing, she told me that she was injecting Heparine. I asked her, why would I need an injection of Heparine, if I had an IV in me dripping Heparine, and I did not get any explanation.
I asked for a copy of my file, and when I got it, I could not find neither a record of this injection, nor a doctor's order to make the injection.
It is well known, that excessive dosage of Heparine can cause brain hemorrhage. Is this what your nurse was trying to achieve?"
When I get a response, I’ll post it too.
About medical profession
I reproduce below yet another letter of mine addressed to Cite de la Sante hospital, which speaks for itself.
I have received your letter of November 15, 2002. Here are my comments.
You acknowledge that the subject of my communication was Dr. Roy's promise to arrange for me an appointment with Dr. Pelletier, and you write:
"It appears that Dr. Annie Roy made several requests for consultation at Sacre-Coeur Hospital, the Montreal Cardiology Institute, and the Quebec University Center."
I did NOT ask Dr. Roy to contact all these institutions, I asked her to make an appointment with Dr. Pelletier. Did she or did not she do it?
"No hemodynamist wants to perform coronary dilatation because of your heart condition and because of it is not your first procedure".
First, Dr. Pelletier is NOT a hemodynamist, he is a cardiac surgeon. Second, all angioplasties are done on people with heart condition, healthy people do not need angioplasty. Third, not only it is not my first, it is not my second nor third angioplasty. I had so far 4 angioplasties and 2 angiographies, and I did not see any medical publication placing a limit to the number of angioplasties one may endure. If such a publication exists, I would like to get the reference.
"...the unanimous opinion of all the physicians consulted is that the only treatment recommended in your case is a coronary bypass, which would improve your current problem".
It sound like "dejavu" all over again: since 1998, I hear that phrase that unanimous opinion recommends bypass surgery. The problem back then was that all those recommending bypass surgery were not surgeons hemodynamists do not do bypass surgery. I consulted back then 2 cardiac surgeons (and Dr. Pelletier was one of them); both cardiac surgeons did NOT recommend bypass surgery. Dr. Roy knows very well, what was the end of her recommended treatment: she brought me to the brink of death and in December of 2001 I had to be transferred to British Columbia for an angioplasty. This was exactly the angioplasty, which all Quebec hemodynamists unanimously considered too dangerous to perform and which obviously was not that dangerous when performed by a qualified physician. Besides, I have blockages now in all major arteries (at least eight), which one has to be bypassed?
"It is therefore recommended that your physician ask a surgeon from Sacre-Coeur Hospital for consultation in cardiac surgery".
I already spoke to jail doctor, he told me that he can not make a referral to a cardiac surgeon, it has to be done by a cardiologist like Dr. Roy. It is sad that Dr. Roy refuses to communicate with jail doctor Coche, though both work in the same hospital.
"Dr.-Roy remains available to communicate with your physician to inform him of your heart condition. In addition, a summary file about your complete heart condition is available in your medical file and could be sent to your physician following your permission to obtain it."
Dr. Roy does NOT need my permission either to communicate with jail doctor Coche or to send him her material from my medical file, because it was jail doctor Coche, who referred me to her, so it was her OBLIGATION to inform him IMMEDIATELY about my condition. She failed to do it.
On December 16, 2002, I was brought to Emergency, though I had no problem requiring my presence there. The reason for this indecent spectacle was the fact that all your cardiologists are refusing to see me, unless I am on the brink of death brought to Emergency. Why do your cardiologists hate me so much that they are refusing to treat me unless I am almost dead?
I posed this question to the cardiologist on duty in Emergency Comtois. His response was that they have decided collectively not to attend to me because I "had a problem with Dr. Roy". Well, what kind of problem did I have with her? First, she recommended bypass surgery. I went to see 2 cardiac surgeons Pelletier and Teijiera. Both did NOT recommend bypass surgery. After she learned about this, she recommended medication, though she knew that there was a hemodynamist in British Columbia who was prepared to do angioplasty.
Four years later, her medication has brought me to the brink of death, and her colleague Dr. Ayas had no choice but to recommend my transfer to British Columbia, where an angioplasty was performed a year ago. This angioplasty showed that medication prescribed by Dr. Roy did not help, my illness spread over the right side of the heart, with blockages everywhere reaching 80-90%, while LAD, Marginal and Diagonal were blocked 100% and it was too late to dilate them. They could have been dilated 4 years ago, had she recommended my transfer then.
It is sad, that all the cardiologists, with full knowledge that Dr. Roy's inaptitude (or maliciousness) has brought me to the brink of death and created irreparable damage to my heart, have nevertheless chosen to show their support for Dr. Roy by refusing to attend to me, instead of trying to repair the damage she has done.
Sec. 87 of Corrections Act states that prisoners are entitled to exactly the same medical care as other Canadian citizens. No Canadian citizen is brought to an Emergency for a routine follow-up, and this nonsense should stop. I call this "nonsense", because it is wrong to distract a cardiologist on duty to see a non-emergency patient, it is also unfair to me for 2 reasons: Dr. Comtois has never seen me, he did not have time to talk to me. He did not have time to see my file, he recommended bypass surgery, without realizing that I have already seen 2 of cardiac surgeons and both did NOT recommend bypass.
More than that, I was asked to sign a consent form to get a copy of Dr. Pelletier opinion, while his opinion should have been on file, since it was on referral from your hospital that I saw him in the first place.
On December 23, 2002, I saw jail doctor Coche, who showed me the document signed by your Head of Cardiology, where he gives a collective recommendation for a bypass surgery. No mentioning of 2 opinions of cardiac surgeons who did not recommend bypass. I am entitled to an explanation: if both cardiac surgeons were wrong, I should be explained, where exactly were they wrong.
There should be a trust between a patient and a doctor. What kind of trust may I have in doctors, who openly display their hatred towards me by refusing to see me unless it is an emergency, and do not hesitate to falsify an emergency, as it was done on December 16, 2002? What kind of trust may I have in doctors, who openly support their inapt (or malicious) colleague Dr. Roy?
Your doctors should do an honest thing: since they are collectively refusing
to attend to me, they should recommend my transfer to British Columbia, where a
doctor agrees to provide proper medical care.
Response from Cite de la Sante
Cite de la Sante de Laval
City of Laval, January 23, 2003
Mr Valeri Fabrikant
Centre de detention Archambault
242, Montde Gagnon
SUBJECT: Your complaint of 11-12-2002 Our reference: Pla.02-122b
This letter is in response to your above-mentioned complaint to inform you of the results of our action.
Following your numerous requests, we have sent your file to the department of tertiary cardiac surgery at Hopital Sacre-Coeur de Montreal (HSC). This decision is the result of the recommendation of cardiologists at Cite de la Sante, as requested, and your general practitioner, Dr. Edgar Coche agrees. A heart surgeon at HSC should contact the Detention Centre and set up an appointment for you. If there is any delay, we recommend that you contact this department at HSC.
We hope that this information is satisfactory. If not, you may exercise your right to appeal to the review committee of our hospital. In that event, address your request for review to Me Jocelyn Berthiaume, chair of this committee.
The Medical Examiner
Dr. Suzanne Michalk, md
Leno - politically correct
In one of his shows, Leno said that last year was a difficult one: Saddam
has almost succeeded to get us involved in war against him. If he lived
in Nazi Germany, he would have certainly said that bloody Jews have forced our
dear Hitler to build concentration camps for them.
Illinois governor Ryan has pardoned 4 death row inmates, because they have been innocent and their confessions were tortured out of them by our bravest. These 4 were pardoned, because there was evidence of torture. Now, ask yourself a very simple question: how many more were also tortured, but there is no proof of torture? Do you believe that Illinois is the only state, where our bravest do what they do best: beating confessions out of innocent people?
Ask yourself yet another question: would anyone in his right mind confess voluntarily in a capital crime? The answer is obvious: NO! So, if you have a "voluntary" confession, it should be automatically suspect. We know of a number of mentally ill or low IQ individuals, who confessed in horrendous crimes they did not commit, just to please the police (as ridiculous as this reason sounds). There is a simple way to stop torture of suspects: make confessions inadmissible, if they are retracted.
The pardoned individuals already spent on death row between 15 and 19 years. Should not our bravest, who tortured them, be placed on he same death row?
One thing though my little brain can not understand: why do innocent people need to be PARDONED? Should not everybody involved ask THEM for a pardon instead?
February 2, 2003, "60 Minutes" show about FBI search for a moll. They concentrated their attention on CIA agent Kelly, though the indications were that it was one of their own. They arranged several stings against Kelly, bugged his telephone, found nothing, nevertheless went as far as to openly accuse him and have him suspended. Finally, they realized that criminal investigations were not their cup of tea, gave up and decided to do what they do best - to buy information from Russians. This did work: Russians are now in a great need for money, so they sold Hansen to FBI.