Strange kind of heroes
Jessica Lynch was taken prisoner by Iraqis. She was liberated and became a media darling: media is telling us every little thing about her. The same goes for the other 7 liberated recently - they are treated as heroes. Nobody dares to ask a simple question: did they actually do anything heroic? They made "a wrong turn", came to a wrong place at a wrong time, failed to defend themselves and surrendered. If this is a heroic behavior, then how would you qualify the soldiers, who did make all their turns right or came under attack and defended themselves rather than surrendering?
Why don't we start calling a spade a spade: the "magnificent seven" are nothing, but bad soldiers.
Pentagon spokeswoman Clark on several occasions said that she saluted “our fine professionals”, she did not though specified their specialty. She did not want to specify that they were fine professional murderers, who were paid to kill humans and loved doing it. Take, for example, the pilot who killed 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan exactly one year ago. He flew so high, that he could not possibly feel himself in any danger. He dropped the bomb for the thrill of killing. The pilot's nickname is "Psycho", one does not get such a nickname for nothing. This was a premeditated murder, and he got away with it.
What kind of a human would not hesitate to pull a trigger and shoot at a truck full of women and children, even presuming that they failed to stop? Presuming that the man was afraid that the truck was full of explosives does not justify the shooting: shooting at a truck just make it explode. They got away with these murders too. This is the advantage of being a professional murderer.
Ask yourself, why would anyone in the time of peace decide to become a soldier? There is a group of people why like killing humans and NOT to go to jail for that. They are smart enough to understand that the only profession, where they can do that, is to become a soldier. Then there is a group of misfits, who have no professional education, hate regular menial jobs, they enroll into the army. Of course, being a misfit does not preclude one of belonging to the first group those who love to kill.
Are there some idealists, who become soldiers to "protect their country"? I would be very surprised if one may find one out 100 soldiers sincerely thinking so, especially when one can not name a single country which might threaten either US or Canada. Remember Canadian soldiers torturing a Somali youth to death and military brass doing their best to cover it up? Remember video of Canadian soldiers drinking beer and bragging that they came to Somali "to kick some asses and to kill some niggers"?
I rest my case.
Story number one. American soldiers hide inside a bank and wait for robbers to come, open safe and get the money, then American soldiers nab the robbers, take the money and drive away with money, for safekeeping, as the reporter tells us. If you were American soldiers and you wanted to rob a bank, is this Scenario exactly what you would have done? If you did NOT want the bank to be robbed, you would have stayed guard OUTSIDE the bank.
Story number two: looting of hospitals. We know that all hospitals were overwhelmed by wounded civilians. All beds were taken, wounded were lying on the floor. Looters came and took all beds and medical equipment and supplies. Imagine the picture: a looter has to approach a gravely wounded person (child), kick him (her) out of the bed and to take the bed away. What kind of human would do such a thing? The bed is heavy and inconvenient to carry; there is nobody to sell it to, so what is the point to take it?
It all looks like nonsense, until you ask a very simple question: who would benefit from such a looting? Situation number one: hospitals are full of injured people, doctors have no way to help them, media shows all this, US do not look good. Situation number 2: hospitals are empty, no sick and injured people, Iraqis themselves are to blame. When you clarify for yourself, who may benefit from a crime, you discover, who initiated and facilitated it.
Story number three: looting of National Library and Museum. Here is what we know. General Franks plan had an item: to secure and protect oil fields. There was not a single word in this plan about protection of cultural heritage. As comparison: when Soviet Army entered Dresden in 1945, their first priority was security of Dresden Art Gallery. In Iraq, the military were warned well in advance about the importance of protecting national treasures of Iraq. They deliberately chose to ignore these warnings, it was not an oversight, some of them enriched themselves on this looting. I suggest to search Franks himself.
The vaults of National Museum were open by keys and people obviously knew what they were taking. Somebody placed the orders. Have you noticed that looters were smiling to the cameras? Every thief knows that what he is doing is wrong and usually shies away from the camera. Why in this particular case they did not try to hide their faces? Because cameramen were smiling encouragingly to the looters first. Were the cameramen the only ones who encouraged looting?
Now, after everything has been looted, there is a tank guarding National Museum. Do you sincerely believe the same tank could not be placed there prior to looting? Franks did not forget to place tanks in front of the Oil Ministry.
Idiots at Discovery channel, part 2
A show about dams. The host tells US that humans build dams in order "to challenge the laws of nature and to push the rules of Physics". It might sound impressive, but if you build anything which is against the laws of nature, it might kill you and those around you. Ironically, the show is about dams, which were broken and as a result, many people got killed. Clearly, these particular dams did challenge the laws of nature, but this certainly was not the intention of their builders.
About freedom, part 2
1. Iraqis were severely punished if they dared to criticize Saddam.
2. Americans started war to liberate Iraqis and to allow them to criticize Saddam.
3. Dixie Chicks dared to criticize Bush for his decision to start a war to liberate Iraqis. They were punished: numerous radio and TV stations refuse to play their music.
4. Madonna got so scared, that she changed her video to eliminate any criticism of Bush.
5. Which country should now start a war against US to liberate Americans, so that they could criticize Bush without fear?
Doctor, heal yourself first.
Ten most stupid commercials
I suggest to make a list of 10 dumbest commercials. Here is my
contribution. The National Post commercial, where numerous National Post
Journalists tell the audience just how superb their newspaper is. Every
Journalist's job depends on the number of subscribers, so even if their
newspaper stinks, they still would praise it. Could not they find a
single reader to praise the newspaper?
O temporal o mores!
I was born and lived 39 years of my life in the USSR. I have never heard of a single case of a child or a spouse disappearance. Children were always playing in the street, with no adult supervision, and nobody ever was kidnapped. Should a child disappear, the parents would be the last one to be suspected. Everyone would consider it a sacrilege even to think that parents could be involved. Not so here: parents are often the first and only Suspects and so is the spouse. Why is this so?
It is difficult to admit, but both English and French are more sexually perverted than any other nation. There seems to be no church school which were not plagued by allegations of sexual abuse. Just look at their child pornography laws. No Russian (or should I say, ALMST no Russian, because every nation has some perverts) would think that a depiction of a child's anus or genitalia can have a sexual connotation. Poor Reubens according to Canadian law would be considered a child pornographer. The so-called "underdeveloped" nations can teach Americans a thing or two about morals.
Yet another reason: insurance companies. They offer life insurance for children. There seem to be cases where parents killed their children in order to collect insurance; this is how SIDS was invented. Ask yourself, why would any parent be interested to get a life insurance for a child? Would any money compensate in any way for a lost child? I understand getting a life insurance for a breadwinner, but not for a child.
There is also an inverse side of this insurance saga. When a large sum is to be paid for someone killed, insurance does its Utmost to avoid payment. The easiest way to do so is to accuse the beneficiary of murder. If the accused is convicted, the insurance does not have to pay. All they need is to bribe the police chief (or investigator) to press charges, and after that the media does the rest. If a couple had marital problems, here is the motive: large insurance. If the couple had no problems, the husband was a nice guy, he is a monster who managed to hide his antisocial psychopathic qualities.
One can not win against yellow media. The more heinous is the crime, the easier it is to get anyone convicted, because the jury is intimidated to be seen as people, who let the murderer walk. A relatively recent case took place in Atlantic region, where a man was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife and spent several years in jail before finally it was proven that his wife died of accidental fall backwards. They had some disagreements, he remarried too fast, he was the last one to see her alive, the blood was washed away too fast, etc., all usual circumstantial evidence plus police coaching of several witnesses, who slightly changed their stories from the truth, did the trick: the man was convicted.
Clearly, our jury do not understand the term: "beyond a reasonable doubt". Imagine, how many more innocent people are still in jail, who were not as lucky as to have someone prove their innocence. After one is convicted, one has to prove his innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt". And they have insurance companies to thank for their misery.
The case of Scott Peterson strikes me as a very suspicious one: it is too
heinous to be true. Christmas Eve and 8-month pregnant wife - this is too
much. He did cheat, but this certainly does not make him a murderer,
especially taking into consideration unanimous testimony of all his friends
that their mutual relationship was very friendly. One does not turn up a
murderer in 5 minutes. It takes a lot to start hating someone to the
point of being ready to kill him. Police should have on him much more
than we have heard so far.
The media informed us that US government has frozen Iraq's funds in US banks. As they proudly say, this money will be used to rebuild Iraq. Sounds nice, is not it?
Then we hear that several lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq went to such companies as Halliburton, where Vice-President Cheney was CEO (just a coincidence) and Bechtel (thanks to Schultz). Not so pretty.
What is interesting, the media never joined these two statements together, because when you do so, the picture becomes quite ugly. How would you like someone burning down your house, confiscating your bank money, hiring a friend to rebuild your house and paying from your confiscated accounts?
If Bush gets 10% kickbacks, the $7 BILLION contract would give him $700 MILLION in kickbacks. Not bad at all. How many thousands of years do you have to work to earn that kind of money?
Red Lion school shooting
On April 24, 2003, a 14-year-old boy shot Red Lion (Pennsylvania) school principal and then killed himself. What is interesting in this and similar cases, the media does its best not to tell the public why it happened. I viewed the interview on ABC "Good Morning, America". There was a spokesman for the school and a female student. The student did not see a thing, because she was at the toilet all the time. Why was she chosen for the interview? Because she was ready to say what was requested of her. She was asked by Sawyer, whether there was any advanced indication of the shooting, and she said no. I do not buy this.
I looked at the Philadelphia Enquirer, and it has several articles on the subject of shooting and it quotes several students saying that the shooter told them that he was very angry with the principal, wanted to kill him and then to kill himself. What is interesting in this article, there is no explanation as to WHY was the boy angry with the principal. I do not buy for a second that the boy did not clarify to his friends what made him so angry with the principal. It does mention that boy's girlfriend dumped him lately, but again, no indication as to what the principal had to do with it. Just a hunch: could it be that the principal had sex with his girlfriend and this is why she dumped him.
Would this detail explain all the above?
Was I right or was I right?
In the previous posting I proposed the National Post commercial to be declared the most stupid. I did not imagine, just how right I was: I just learned the Chief Editor was fired and numerous reporters resigned, among them were those, who publicly declared that the National Post was the best newspaper in Canada. I do not see this commercial any more.
Rephrasing the well known joke: how do you know when a journalist is lying? His lips are moving.
An American senator was reported to have said that if Supreme Court decides that homosexual acts are not crimes, then polygamy and incest are not crimes either. There was a loud outcry against the senator. I agree with the senator, but in negative sense: the senator's point was that all the above are equal and are crimes; I agree that all the above are equal and are NOT crimes. I do not mean incest which is a child abuse, I mean incest between grown individuals. Why is it a crime? Who is the victim?
The whole notion of incest being a crime came from the knowledge that such unions produce a high rate of deficient children. People of ancient times did not know the reasons, so they decided to declare such unions a crime. Trudeau once said that government had no business in nation's bedrooms. Whatever two or more consenting adults are doing between themselves is none of government business. Let us recall that our forefather Abraham was married to his half-sister, which is officially a crime.
The absurdity of Canadian law on this subject becomes obvious from reading the Criminal Code. Section 155 states:
"Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person."
The term "sexual intercourse" is defined in Sec. 4(5):
"For the purpose of this Act, sexual intercourse is complete on penetration to even the slightest degree , notwithstanding that seed is not emitted".
The definition is so idiotic, that it does not clarify penetration of what into what, so strictly speaking, penetration of a needle into a fabric, "notwithstanding that seed is not emitted, is a sexual intercourse. On the other hand, oral sex without "penetration" is not a sexual intercourse, so Clinton was legally right when he claimed not to have one with Monica. If a brother and a sister are having a consentual sex, both are criminals, then who is the victim? Yet another question: if two lesbian sisters are having sex (no penetration), are they committing an incest?
The same logical thinking can be applied to polygamy: if it is OK for one man to marry another man, then why is it not OK for one man to marry 3 or more other men, and when he does so, who exactly is the polygamist? All four are husbands of each other. Who is a criminal and who is the victim? If several women voluntarily decide to marry the same man, why should this be anyone's business?
Polygamy was widely practiced among Mormons. Simple arithmetics tells us that in order to do so, population has to produce many more females than males. If this is the case, then to insist on monogamy in such a population is stupid and reckless: many females are left without husbands, they start breaking families, etc. This population in general would be much happier in polygamy. Nepal practices a reverse polygamy for the same reason: they produce many more males than females. It is a question of common sense.
Would there be a day when mankind would understand a simple thing: where
there is no victim, there could be no crime.
US and Cuba
Americans are fuming: Castro has killed 4 people convicted of hijacking a ferry and put a score of other people in jail for many years. Americans claim that this is a blatant abuse of human rights by a malicious dictator. Let us see whether Bush is any better in terms of respect for human rights.
Castro killed 4 people, who already committed a terrorist act – hijacking. Bush wants to kill Moussaoui, who did not commit any crime. Even presuming, that he planned to hijack a plane, he did not actually do anything. Certainly, the punishment should be proportional to the crime, and in Moussaoui case death penalty is not warranted. In addition, death penalty in his case would not serve as deterrent, because he allegedly planned to kill himself anyway. He was held in jail for almost 2 years by now without a trial. This in itself constitutes a grave breach of human rights. If Bush had enough proof against him, he would have put Moussaoui on trial long time ago.
Castro claims that people, who were given long jail sentences, were undermining security of Cuba. They met regularly with American diplomats and received money from them. Cuba is a tiny country and US is its enemy, who already tried in the past to overthrow Castro by force. In the absence of USSR to protect them, government of Cuba can be overturned now very easily.
As a comparison, Bush has jailed 6 of US citizens in Buffalo. Their crime: they travelled to Afghanistan and allegedly got some training in camps there. Several of them already pleaded guilty. They are given a choice: to plead guilty and get 6 years in jail or go to trial and risk a very long sentence. In addition, they are told that even if they are found not guilty, Bush can still arrest them after acquittal and put them in jail for an indeterminate period as "unlawful combatants". What would you do in a similar situation?
Speaking of "unlawful combatants", there are 660 of them detained by Bush, paradoxically, on Cuba. These people are held in horrendous conditions incommunicado, without charges and without access to lawyers. Bush claims that he needs to do so because he is at war and his country is in danger. Clearly, Al-Qaida can kill several Americans, but there is no way then can overturn US government; Mafia can (and does) also kill several Americans, nevertheless no similar measures are applied to them.
I can make only one historical parallel to what Bush is doing now: Stalin in
1937. Instead of "unlawful combatants", he used the term
"enemies of people". These "enemies" were also held
incommunicado, no access to lawyers, secret trials and long imprisonment or
death. Stalin claimed that USSR was surrounded by enemies who were eager to
overthrow him, and unlike Bush, he was right in this regard. After his
death, no other Soviet leader did a similar thing: people arrested had the
right to communicate with their families and lawyers, the trials were farce,
but at least an appearance of legality was there.