Pants on fire

I read the media reports and watched the interviews about recent blackout.  What is striking, all the politicians are lying, and they know that they are lying, while the media is helping them to lie.  Here are the main deliberately false statements.

1. "We are the world superpower with the Third World power grid".  Nothing like this can ever happen in the Third World, because their power grids are not interconnected, so failure one would not result in the failure of the other.  High level of interconnection is the sign of a superpower.  Interconnection is a good thing: it allows to redistribute the power from underloaded plants to overloaded, thus providing everybody with electricity.

2. "A lightning struck the Niagara Power Plant".  People, making these statements, knew they were lying, it was not an honest mistake.  First, every power plant is protected from lightning; second, even presuming that a power plant explodes to pieces, the System is to disconnect the plant and to switch the customers to the remaining plants.  No customer would even notice that a power plant exploded, because there are thousands of them interconnected.

3. "Three transmission lines overloaded in Ohio and this created the blackout".  This is what the system is for: when several lines are overloaded, they are disconnected, and the system finds alternative ways of providing power.

4. "The equipment is 50 years old and outdated". The system has managed to disconnect 50 million customers in less than 10 seconds, this is a remarkable speed and state of the art equipment.  Even if the equipment was totally outdated, it still does not explain, why the whole system went down.

5. "We need stricter laws and regulations".  Politicians, who have their personal agenda, are using the blackout to promote their cause.  No rule or regulation can prevent what happened.  In firefighting analogy, imagine that you have sprinklers, which at the small fire sprinkled gasoline on it instead of water, creating a fire inferno.  We need first to understand, how gasoline came to the sprinklers.  In the case of sprinklers, the answer is obvious: sabotage.

6. "We still do not know what happened, but this is not a terrorist attack".  The logical inconsistency of this statement was noticed by many: if you do not know what happened, how do you know it was not terrorism?  The lie does not end there: they do know what happened, they are just not telling us.  I studied electricity back in 1960 in the USSR. There were no computers at that time. Nothing was digital, everything was analog, nevertheless, the most complicated blackout took less than 2 days to investigate.

Now it can be done much faster.  Contemporary Systems have their "black boxes", where every little detail is being recorded and analyzed automatically.  The system does not just disconnect, it gives a detailed account in plain English as to what happened and why.

7. "We might never know what happened".  Unlike in an aircraft, the "black boxes" here are readily available and are never damaged.  Every little detail is written there, just read it.  Here is the English translation of the lie: "If this was a terrorist action, we would never tell you, because it is too embarrassing after the war with Iraq to admit that we are so vulnerable".

One thing is obvious: this was not a hardware thing, because it was the software, which sent wrong signals.  Why did it send wrong signals?  The possible reasons are: a software glitch, which somehow managed not to demonstrate itself until now; a very talented employee, who was wronged and who decided to take his revenge by sabotaging the system; an even more talented terrorist, who showed that one does not need bombs to undermine a country's economy.
---

Archambault jail

I have recently learned how Archambault jail got its name: it was named after judge Archambault, who presided an inquiry into Correctional Service.  If you were an honest person, would you want a JAIL be named after you?
---

Let us do some counting

After the arrest of an arms dealer, who allegedly tried to sell an anti-aircraft missile to undercover agents posing as terrorists, there is much talk, that US airplanes have to be outfitted with an anti-missile equipment.  The reporters uniformly claim that it would be too expensive - about $10 billion for the whole industry.  Well, US spends over $4 billion every month in Iraq, so 2 1/2 months expense covers the cost of protection of all airline industry.  Corrupt reporters never make this comparison.
---

Scorched earth tactics

When Hitler occupied part of the USSR, Russian people hated Germans so much, that they introduced the scorched earth tactics: everything was to be destroyed, all bridges, all power plants, all factories, everything what could be used by Germans.  Everybody, who collaborated with Germans, especially policemen, were to be killed.  The hatred of Germans was so strong, that it did not matter that all this destruction was affecting negatively local population.

What happens now in Iraq reminds me of Hitler in the USSR.
---

How media lies about Geoghan murder

This is what we hear.  Geoghan was in protective custody.  An inmate somehow managed to slip into his cell, to tie him up and to strangle him.  He also managed to jam the cell door with a toothbrush, so that guards could not come to his rescue on time.  The investigation showed that no policy or due procedure was breached.

These are lies upon lies upon lies.  First, there is no way one inmate can just slip into another's cell: in protective custody, only one cell can be open at the same time.  When a protective custody prisoner goes somewhere in Jail, a guard is always accompanying him, regular prisoners are looked out, no one can even approach him, every corridor is checked to make sure that nobody is around.

When a prisoner gets out of his cell, the cell is looked and stays looked until the prisoner returns.  The cell door opens only when the prisoner comes to the door itself.  The door is opened by a guard, who watches prisoner enter the cell and then the door is immediately closed.  When a prisoner is in a shower, the shower room is locked with a padlock, no other prisoner can come in.  The range is under 24-hour visual control of a guard plus several video cameras.  This guard opens and closes the cell doors.  There is no way anyone can slip into someone's cell unnoticed.

Presuming, that someone somehow did manage to slip in another cell, he can not close cell door: the door can be closed only from the control by the guard, who is supposed to watch.  In addition, each jail has a preventive security department.  These people are paid to see that incompatible people are not placed in the same range.  In reality, these murderers search for VERY incompatible people when they want somebody to be killed.

I was once placed in Donnacona jail in a wing, where several people were neo-Nazis, proudly displaying their swastikas.  Jailers knew very well that I was Jewish.  There is though a big difference between me and Geoghan.  Majority of prisoners consider me a hero, so anyone, who kills me, would be considered a "rat" and might be killed himself.  This is the main reason I am still alive.  The guy, who killed Geoghan, on the contrary, will be considered a hero.

So, this is what really happened.  In protective custody, nothing can be done without an explicit cooperation of guards.  Jailers deliberately placed the person, who has already killed one gay man, in the same range with Geoghan.  The guy is serving a life sentence, he has a license to kill, there is nothing anyone can do to him.  There is no way one guy can tie up somebody fast, several people were helping him.  Then these people exited and the guard at control locked the door.  Obviously, the guard at control was in on the murder plot.  Geoghan was tied up and at the mercy of the killer.  Have no doubt, he shouted at the top of his lungs, so the killer had to gag him.

Then the killer placed his toothbrush in the gap between the door and the wall, and the guards were pretending not to be able to open the door.  I use the word "pretending", because a toothbrush can not jam the door in such a way that it could not be open from the outside.  A usual killing in jail is done by stabbing, because a killer usually has seconds.  In this case, the killer was assured by guards to have as much time as he needed, so he used strangulation.

The real murderers here are guards, who opened the killer's cell, let him into Geoghan's cell and then locked the door, so that Geoghan could not escape.  The guards should be tried for a premeditated murder. I can assure you that not only no guard will be prosecuted or even reprimanded, on the contrary, the guards' union will use this murder to demand more money and more staff, claiming that this murder could have been prevented if they were not so overworked and underpaid.

The former Chief Justice Gold used Hogben to threaten me with exactly this kind of murder.  It would have been much easier to murder me, because at that time nobody knew me, so nobody would notice.  If jailers did not have any fear to kill a high profile prisoner, they would have had easy time to kill me, if I was placed in jail for contempt of court, as Hogben threaten me.  Jailers would have no problem to find a neo-Nazi lifer to have me killed.  Without planning to do so, I effectively saved my life by killing 4 scoundrels, because when I came to jail, I was a hero in the eyes of other prisoners.

One more thing convinces me that I did the right thing at Concordia: it is the media conduct (or should I say MISCONDUCT).  The yellow reporters, who are so capable to investigate things to the bottom, in this case pretend to be brainless idiots, who do not know what kind of question to ask. They could have certainly discovered all what I mentioned above, they just do not want to.  Had I been placed in jail and killed there in 1992, the media would have covered it up exactly the same way they are doing it with Geoghan.

When people like Geoghan are not protected, nobody is protected.
---

Just watch the news

In my past posting I wrote that since people do not learn lessons of the past, they are bound to have it again and again.  In particular, the abused people will be striking back, no matter what.  Recent news proved me right.  This is a quote from August 19, 2003.

ANDOVER, Ohio - The 6-2, 300-pound man who opened fire at an auto parts factory, killing a co-worker and then himself, was described by his mother as a gentle giant.

The man, Ricky Shadle, 32, also seriously wounded 2 individuals.  The media presents this as a bizarre murder-suicide: the man was denied vacation, because he allegedly did not fill the application form correctly.  This is certainly not a reason either to kill somebody or to kill himself.  The media claims Ricky to be "mentally unstable".  They also admit that the man had no history of violence ("gentle giant").

Look at the whole picture: Ricky had learning disability and was teased and abused all his life.  The loss of vacation was for him yet another demonstration of his learning disability- he just did not know, how to fill in forms, and nobody wanted to help him.  Everybody was making his life a living hell and humiliation.  In addition, he learned that he had cancer and was about to have his leg amputated.  His life no longer made sense, he decided to end it, but to take several scoundrels along with him.  How long would it take any of you to crack after 30 years of unending abuse and humiliation?

In Quebec, about 1500 people kill themselves every year.  If each did like Ricky and took with themselves at least one scoundrel, who made their life living hell, very soon no scoundrels would be left in Quebec and people would not need to kill themselves.

There is a simple way to avoid the tragedies like this one:

STOP ABUSING PEOPLE!
---

Eleventh commandment

Someone suggested to introduce an eleventh commandment.  It would go like this: "Thou shalt not poke your nose into your neighbour's affairs as long as they do not affect you." Possible applications: it is none of your business, if your neighbours are swinging wives and husbands; it is none of your business, if your neighbour's wife has something inside her uterus and what she wants to do with it; it is none of your business, if your neighbour has several wives or several husbands; it is none of your business, if your neighbour wants to marry his/her dog, nobody forces you to do the same.

The list may be continued.
---

Is your child protected?

These are the first words in Gerber's commercial.  They offer what they called  "child protection" for less than $0.25 per day.  How do they protect a child?   They offer $5000 "protection" from birth, then this "protection" increases as child grows up.  What the commercial does not say, is how exactly this money protect the child.  My understanding is that if the child dies, his parents get the money.  Can this money resurrect the child?  NO.  This money would not be enough to clone the
child either.  So, why is this called "protection"?

I understand the need to have a life insurance for a breadwinner of the family, it is his family, which is protected in the case of his death, but why is there a need for "child protection"?  The only thing, which such a "protection" can do, is for some scoundrel parent to get a huge insurance  and then to kill the child, this is how the SIDS syndrome was invented.  This kind of insurance should be forbidden, period.
---

Who got the money?

Bush has asked for yet another $87 BILLION.  We are told that about $20 BILLION will be spent on rebuilding of Iraq, the rest goes for military operations. What is interesting, nobody asks a very simple question: who exactly is going to be paid?  It is obvious that none of the troops will become a millionaire, no Iraqi will be enriched very much, so who gets these BILLIONS?  If you divide $87 BILLION by 150 000 soldiers in Iraq, you get more than half a MILLION per each soldier, but once again, soldiers do not get the money.  Who gets?  Bush's friends and cronies, like Halliburton, Bechtel and others, who did not do much job in Iraq, but already got paid a lot.  Remember, Bush already spent $60 BILLION.

Again, who got the money?
---

Everything is relative

How big is the amount of $87 BILLION?  The media do their best to make public think that it is not much.  How do they do that?  Very simple: they compare it with the amount spent in the Second World War, without mentioning that it lasted 5 years, much money were spent on helping British and USSR.  The right comparison would be to, say, $30 billion: this is how much needed to be spent on Clean Air Act, which Reagan vetoed, because it was too expensive.  Yet another comparison: a brand new pipeline from Alaska through Canada to USA would cost about $20 billion and it would provide the whole USA with natural gas, which now is being wasted in Alaska.

What would you say, if someone tried to compare 3000 killed in 9/11 with 16,000 killed each year by drunken drivers or 90,000 killed each year in hospitals due to medical errors?  Is it correct to claim that 3000 is nothing compared to 90,000?