About promised land
The term of promised land came from the Bible story of God taking the enslaved Jews from Egypt and leading them thorough the desert to the promised land to keep for generation to come. The story looks good, until you start reading the Bible. One little detail is usually not mentioned: the promised land was already occupied by other nations, so Jews had to kill them in order to get possession of the promised land. With this little detail, the story does not look that rosy any more, does it?
God is almighty, so why could not he create a new uninhabited land for his chosen people, so that their trail to the promised land be less bloody?
The most repugnant actions of God and his chosen people
If you read the Bible attentively, majority of God’s actions are repugnant. For example, he decided to kill all people, except Noah. Excuse me, he is the one who made them in the first place. Should not he have known better? And how do you like a practical joke telling Abraham to kill his only son? I suggest to make a “Top Ten” list of the most repugnant acts. Here is my contribution: God goes through Egypt and kills every first-born child (Ex.12.29)
Moses also did a lot of repugnant things. Here is one of the worst (Nu.31). Israel attacked Midian and killed all their men, taking prisoners women and children. When Moses learned about it, he got angry that women were not killed, so he ordered: “So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins”.
Any other suggestions?
I have made recently several postings about Bible. Some people responded that the Bible should not be read literally or that it was written by people, who were not witnesses to the described events, that Moses was a fictitious person, etc. If you belong to this category of people, my postings are not addressed to you.
Regretfully, 80% of Canadians believe in one kind of God or another.
My postings are addressed to them, because historically, more people were
killed in the name of God, than for all other reasons taken together.
Religion is and has always been the worst evil on this planet, and it is
important to explain to the people what exactly they are believing in.
Though written by humans, the so-called Holy books (Torah, Bible and Koran) are
claimed to be dictated by God (angel). For example, Muslims say that
Mohammed was illiterate, God (angel) has dictated to him Koran and moved his
hand to write it. So, on the presumption that Bible was dictated by God,
let us read it attentively and see what exactly is written there.
Idiots in medical research
British researchers claim that men over 50, who had sex 2 times or more per week, are only half as likely to drop dead, than those less active. Their conclusion: sex is good for your heart. This is a classical example of researchers confusing cause and consequence: a man need to be in good health in order to have sex, so those who report having sex more often are in better health, than those who don't. Sex is not the cause of their good health but rather a consequence.
I remember seeing an interview with a very old man. A reporter asked him, how did he manage to live so long. His response was that he stayed away from women.
Yet another "medical discovery": researchers claim that flu shots save from stroke. Would there be a time, when those, who call themselves “researchers", would finally understand that if something happened AFTER an event, this does not mean that it happened BECAUSE of the event?
Cardiologists claim that high cholesterol and high blood pressure cause heart disease. So, they are making good money selling medication which lowers (at least, they claim that it does) blood pressure and cholesterol. I have always had normal cholesterol and normal blood pressure, and I already had 2 heart attacks prior to being 60. On the other hand, my mother had blood pressure so high, that she was joking that it was equal to international voltage (220/127). She had this high blood pressure for 40 years and died at 84.
It was noticed that high cholesterol and high blood pressure are often
present in people with heart disease. What is not clear is whether these
factors cause heart disease, are independent from the disease or represent a
defensive reaction of the body to the heart disease. It is well known
that there is a village in Italy, where inhabitants have extremely high level
of cholesterol, and nobody has a heart disease. This is a subject for
America shows its best
I came across some postings which I quote below just to show what kind of people still inhabit US:
> Seek out all those that do not believe in Christ and eliminate them.
> For if they do not believe in Christ, they do not believe in me.
> Purge our society of these rodents.
I do not recall Christ teaching to kill everyone who did not believe in him.
> We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them
> Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only
> Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed
> civilians. That's war. And this is war.
If you think, some redneck wrote the above, think again: it was written by columnist Ann Coulter (nationalreview.com). One would think, that an educated woman should know better than that.
She correctly described the behavior of Christian countries in general (kill and convert) and US in particular (mass killings of innocent civilians), though instead of condemning such a behavior, she approves it!
> Dear President Bush! Please, bomb the Dome of the Rock!
Can you find something more stupid than this?
Militant ignorance - part 1
I have noticed a certain group of people, who are so ignorant, that they seem to be not able to realize it, and they are teaching me.
I wrote in one posting that USSR has lost about 20 million people during the war (1941-45), about 7.5 million civilians and 12.5 million of military. One can check these numbers in any encyclopedia. One ignorant man responded (funny thing - he calls himself "Researcher"):
> No Asshole, you can't make things up and sell them as fact ...
After several more insults, he writes (I reproduce his illiteracy exactly):
> Lets have the real facts ...
> Russia (because the USSR was not formed yet) had an army of 12,500,000
> and lost 7,500,000 during WORLD War II.
> Of that 20 million you love to banter around, 7,500,000 people were
> killed by Germans and 12,500,000 were killed by Stalin's purges just
> after the war. So you used the wrong figures asshole.
A person less ignorant might have thought that since I was born there, I might know; the numbers and at least, I know the name of the country I was born in. The USSR was formed in 1922, so decide by yourself, whether it existed in 1941-45. A person less ignorant might have understood that his arithmetic made little sense: Indeed, if Germans killed 7.5 million soldiers and Stalin killed 12.5 million civilians, then Germans seem not to kill a single civilian, since the total loss of life was 20 million.
Pay attention, the man operated with the same numbers I was using, but in a totally distorted way. Clearly, he looked up in an encyclopedia, but was unable to understand what was written there. By the way, the total of 30 years of Stalin's terror is estimated about 1 million killed and about 900,000 died in labor camps.
Elementary logic and reason escape this type of ignorance. When I made a posting on the subject of the most hated country, he cursed me for “rubbing salt" into wounds, and then just one paragraph later in the same posting he repeated what I was saying, and I quote him: "... there exists this bitter hatred towards America globally". He writes later in this posting:
> Its Just odd watching that America pretends to be a blameless victim,
> and won't even acknowledge the role America played in the September 11
Is not he "rubbing salt" into the wounds?
There is no way to reason with this kind of people. When he received a virus-infected E-mail originating from our computer, he flew in rage. I explained to him that we did not know our computer got infected, and I apologized for his inconvenience. His rage just increased: in his brain the picture was of evil me deliberately trying to infect his computer and then lying to get away with crime committed against him.
I explained to him, that we got the virus from Dr. Wessel, I even posted an
E-mail from his office acknowledging this fact. I tried to reason that
should anyone wanted to harm his computer, he would not use his real E-mail
address; this virus does no harm to any computer or data - it just replicates
itself and sends itself out, so if someone wanted to harm him, this is a wrong
virus to send, etc. Nothing worked. The man just has no ability to
Militant ignorance - part 2
I posted some of my thoughts on why the towers collapsed, and of course, several ignorants started explaining me what heat does to metal. I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering; don't you think I know all this? They called me names, of which "simpleton" was the mildest. I was told to read some "research" on this subject and then to get the courage to apologize to wonderful architects and engineers, who built WTC. I do not need to read the so-called "research": with billions of dollars stolen, they can always buy a professor, who would write that WTC was built well and performed admirably.
If you watched the TLC show on this subject, you could see that I was absolutely right. The show called WTC design revolutionary, innovative and very economical. Here is my translation of these words: nobody did this kind of design before, because it was reckless and dangerous, the word "economical" means that they were able to steal a lot of money.
Every high-raise should have a steel frame. In my postings, I stated that the frame was faulty. Not in my wildest dreams could I presume, that WTC did not have any: it had tubular design, where exterior walls, elements of which were welded together, was carrier of every floor made of trusses. No wonder, it crumbled like house of cards. The fireman in the show puns: "Don't trust trusses!" Fireman knew that trusses give way in the first 10 minutes of a fire. You could also see the metal beams from WTC: none was fire-proofed.
The structural engineer in the show admitted, that they knew about airplane
hitting Empire State Building, and they considered such a possibility for WTC.
He certainly lied that their analysis showed that WTC could withstand impact of
Boeing 707: even a child can understand, that tubular structure, with no frame
and no fire-proofing could not withstand even a medium-size plane hit, let
Militant ignorance - part 3
I have stated in one posting that the last threat to human civilization was Hitler. I reproduce below a response, which is a pearl of ignorance.
One Thunker wrote (I guess, he chose his name as opposite to Thinker).
> Wrong. The greatest threat to civilization in the past century
To the best of my knowledge, Stalin never advocated race superiority, elimination of inferior races, etc. He was never a threat to US, UK or France.
> Check out the average life expectancy in Russia today, which is
> comparable to that of the most backward African republics (most of
> which, by the way, are marxist dictatorships).
The man is totally confused: he does not seem to know that Russia is no longer a communist country. Yes, the life expectancy has now plummeted, but in the communist times, the life expectancy in Russia was at the level of the most advanced countries. So, decline of life expectancy in Russia is due to freedom and democracy. Thunker can also educate himself that life expectancy in communist Cuba is much higher than in any other country of Latin America.
I challenge Thunker to name 5 African republics, which are MARXIST dictatorships.
> Hitler rose in response to the atrocities committed by the Bolshevism
> that was sweeping across Eastern Europe, and the millions that Stalin
> had murdered in the name of egalitarism.
Hitler came to power in 1933. There was nothing "sweeping across
Eastern Europe" in 1933. Stalin's purges started in 1936, how on
earth Germans could know about all this 3 years prior to beginning of
purges? I guess, Thunker can educate us all.
Idiots in child psychology
One McGill professor of child psychology has sent a petition to Minister of Education, demanding removal from Math textbooks all problems, which according to him "glorify gambling". The problems in question require children to evaluate the probability of getting certain hand in cards or certain outcome in roulette. This professor clearly has no idea either of importance of the Game Theory in Mathematics, or of the results of children computing all these probabilities: when these probabilities are computed correctly, children would understand, how small is their chance to win and would never gamble.
People gamble, because they think, they can win. The day they
understand that they can not is the last day of their gambling. If you
want to reduce gambling, make every gambler study the Game Theory.
Are insane people getting away with murder?
I see now and then on TV cases, where mentally ill people kill someone, and then they are found not fit to stand trial, which makes relatives of the victims very angry, because they feel like the murderer is getting away with murder. Nothing could be further from truth. Prosecution has offered me "insanity", even without going to trial, which I rejected. Then during the trial, they offered me $230,000, and the only thing that was required from me, was to let lawyers do their job, which I understood as mounting the insanity defense. I rejected the money too. Government did not want me in jail; they wanted me in mental institution. They do not like my views, and this is what every government does to people, whose views are deemed to be dangerous - declare these people insane.
Why did I reject insanity? I was in a mental institution just for
several days, but I can tell you, that the worst jail is much better than any
mental institution. If I were given a choice of 3 years in Pinel or 25
years in jail, I would choose jail. Prisoners have at least some human
rights, mental patients have none. So, if you hear, that someone was
found not fit to stand trial, don't think that he got away with murder, he is
getting punishment much worse, than any jail could inflict.
When silver is better than gold
For a number of days, there was nothing to discuss in Olympics, except the subject of fairness in judging the pairs skating. Everybody was outraged; everybody was expressing his sympathy to Canadians. They were called courageous, heroes, etc., though no courage or heroism is (was) needed to participate in pairs skating.
Now, ask yourself a very simple question: what situation is better for Canadian pair? Had Canadians won gold, it would have been forgotten the next day. The way it happened now, they became celebrities both in Canada and US, and this will certainly translate into very lucrative endorsement contracts for them. So, the abuse they suffered was the best thing which could possibly happen to them. I am not sure the gold they finally received had really benefited them monetarily.
There is much talk about French judge, who was allegedly dishonest.
One thing though bothers me: there were 4 more judges voting for Russians, why
nobody is saying that those 4 were also dishonest? You can not have it
both ways: if the voting for Russians was demonstrably unfair, then all 5
judges were dishonest. On the other hand, if you accept that those 4
judges voted their sincere belief that Russians won, then you have to give the
same credit to the French Judge, whether she was pressured or not.
Idiots in the City Hall
Every day, 5 people in Quebec commit suicide. This number is 3 times greater than the number of people killed by criminals in the whole of Canada.
I have already written a posting about idiots in government, who decided to modify cars, so that exhaust gases could not be used to commit suicide. I suggested to give the money needed for car modification to the people prone to suicide. By that time, a couple in British Columbia murdered their disabled son and committed suicide, because the father lost his job and they were desperate being unable to care for their disabled son. This couple would certainly be alive today, had the government taken my advice.
Idiots in Montreal City Hall have their idea of how to decrease the number of suicides in Quebec. They have noticed that many people are jumping from Jacques-Cartier bridge to their death, than from all other bridges taken together. The reason, according to these idiots: Jacques-Cartier bridge has an easy pedestrian access, while other bridges are not accessible. And here is their idiotic solution: to eliminate pedestrian access to the bridge.
Is it possible to explain to all these idiots, that people commit suicide not because a bridge is accessible, but because their life has ceased to have any meaning to them? If they block the bridge, nobody will be jumping from it, but it will not reduce the number of suicides, because if someone decided to kill himself, he will find a way to do so.
So, my advice once again: give the money to be spent on the bridge
modification to the families caring for disabled children, for example.
This will keep them alive.
Why did people freeze to death?
Quite some time ago, 2 bodies of native men were found on the outskirts of Saskatoon. They have frozen to death, because they were not dressed. Recently, a so-called public inquiry has concluded that there is no way to establish how exactly they died. Here is what is known. One native man was driven by Saskatoon police in their vehicle to the outskirts of Saskatoon and left there, without proper clothing. He managed to survive, and the two policemen were convicted not of attempted murder, but of "unlawful confinement". Two more people were not that lucky: they froze to death in the fields.
There are 2 options: the men came to the fields on their own or they were driven and left there by police. One body did not even have any shoes. How likely is it for a man to go out of his house without shoes in winter and walk all the way out of town unnoticed by anyone (a person without shoes would certainly attract attention)? Try to do it, I am sure, one would freeze even before he makes half of his way out of town.
Do you really need a public inquiry to decide whether these two were
murdered? This country always does not have money for health care and
education, but it always has millions to waste on blood-sucking lawyers, making
fortunes in the so-called public inquiries, where the answer is well known to
any normal individual.
About Canadian heroes - policemen
I have made a number of postings proving that many policemen are criminals, who are committing their crimes under cover and protection of their uniforms. Usually, they commit crimes they are supposed to fight.
For example, the anti-drug squads confiscate drugs and then turn around and sell those drugs through their friends - pushers. Here is what I have read in a newspaper recently. An RCMP with almost 30 years of "honorable" service was caught running illegal telemarketing fraud. Guess what was he fighting as "honorable" policeman? You guessed it right: he was fighting telemarketing fraud.
Have no doubt, that the cases which became public are just the tip of an
iceberg: majority of policemen-criminals are never caught.
Several weeks ago, General Accounting Office has started a legal action against Bush for his refusal to provide documents related to the meetings of his administration with the executives of Enron. Bush invoked the so-called executive privilege, claiming that these documents are exempt. He claims that if he allows the documents to be released, he would have difficulty in the future to obtain a sincere opinion, if the person asked would not be sure that his opinion would not be disclosed.
I understand that in matters of national security there might be issues not
to be disclosed, but his meetings with Enron certainly does not fall into this
category. President should conduct his business honestly. If someone
would refuse to give him his sincere opinion unless he is assured that his
opinion would not be disclosed, President does not need such an opinion, because
it must be dishonest, illegal or both. If a person gives an honest and
legal opinion, he would be proud to have it released, and so should be the
Save the children
It was revealed that numerous international aid workers have extorted sex from children-refugees in Africa in exchange for basic food. I have heard an interview with the head of English "Save the children" Foundation. His excuses can be summed up as follows: the aid workers were not English, but local people; the children were uneducated and did not know their rights, and in particular, the right to complain; the Foundation is still learning and could not imagine such things to happen.
The interview was the usual media whitewash: the reporter was deliberately
not asking questions, which every normal person would have asked. First,
how well were local people screened before being hired? I suspect that
they hired scoundrels deliberately, because it was cheaper. Second, why
were not the children told about their rights from the very beginning?
One does not need much education to learn that he/she has the right to get food
and where to complain, if he/she does not get food unconditionally?
Third, the Foundation exists for over 20 years, more than enough time to learn
these elementary things. An honest reporter should have suggested that
this Foundation be renamed from "Save the children" to
"Brutalize the children".
We all saw 3 of New York finest being released from jail after Court of Appeal has cleared them of criminal charges. I could not believe my eyes: everybody around them applauded. The fourth finest remained in jail for one reason: he pleaded guilty of sodomizing Louima several years ago, otherwise, he would have been acquitted too. It was never revealed as to how and why the Judges decided to acquit the three finest.
Ask yourself a very simple question: can one of the finest sodomize another man with a broom-stick without at least 3 of the finest to hold the man? Louima identified these three; I see no reason why would he lie. One can always say, that Louima was so traumatized, that he identified wrong people. Even presuming this, they were there when the crime was committed, they knew, who did it and refused to tell, which is obstruction of Justice. So, any way you put it, they should be in jail, but it is now politically incorrect to have one of the finest to be a rapist.
Ask yourself yet another question: why did they do it? The answer is very simple: first, because they are sadistic scoundrels; second, because they were sure that they would get away with it, and they would have gotten away if they did not do it in such a savage manner, that they have almost killed him. Had they not perforated his intestines, it would have been his word against their word. They would have denied sodomizing Louima, and that would have been the end of it.
Wake up, people! A scoundrel does not stop being a scoundrel, just because he died in tragic circumstances.
A SCOUNDREL does not stop being a SCOUNDREL, just because he died in tragic circumstances.
A SCOUNDREL DOES NOT STOP BEING A SCOUNDREL, JUST BECAUSE HE DIED IN TRAGIC
How police is fighting sex slavery
Yet another example of media whitewashing: I saw the interview with one of Vancouver finest on CBC Disclosure. This finest is fighting criminals, who import women from Malaysia, keep them as sex slaves, forcing them into prostitution. Here are some details of the interview.
We learn that these women (girls) are being kept in apartments. Criminals bring them clients and force women to have sex with those clients; women are being watched 24 hours a day, almost never go out, and if they do, they are always accompanied by the criminals.
Then we learn, that our finest have found 2 such apartments, where women were held, and raided those apartments. Alas, they found in both apartment only women, no criminals and no clients. Here, a normal reporter should have asked some questions. First, if women are watched 24 hours, how did it happen that none of the "watchers" was in BOTH apartments? Second, why did not they use surveillance of the apartments to choose the time of raid when maximum number of criminals and clients be there? The answer is obvious: criminals were tipped off by our finest about the time of raid, and this is why only women were there. Do you believe that the reporter was so stupid to miss it?
The general population thinks that our finest are there to fight crime. The truth is that our finest are there to make money on crime, while pretending to fight it, and they are doing it mainly with impunity. For example, when police confiscate drugs, they take part of it and give to their friends-criminals to sell. When a citizen is swindled out of his money by a telephone fraud, he comes to police and complains. Our finest then gives his name to his criminal friend, and this friend calls the citizen, pretending to be a lawyer, who is capable to get his money back, he just needs some money upfront. The defrauded citizen is defrauded again, this time by our finest. One such finest was recently convicted.
I can tell you what probably has happened in this case of sex-slaves. Some of the women are popular with clients, and some are not. Those, who are not popular, do not bring enough money, so criminals wanted to get rid of them and to replace them with new blood. They did not want to kill them and they did not want to spend money on air-fare for them. After all, air-fare to Malaysia is quite expensive. They collected women in 2 apartments and asked our finest on their payroll to make a raid, and our finest were happy to oblige, because they can claim that they have dismantled yet another sex-trade ring and liberated the women. The women are taken away, and in 3 days they are out of the country. You end up paying their air-fare. Nice, is not it?
An honest reporter at this point should have asked why our finest did not offer the women permanent resident status and witness protection program in exchange for their testimony. The reporter did not ask a single question of this kind: it is politically incorrect to embarrass our finest.
The Vancouver finest also complained that when they do arrest a pimp involved in sex trade, judge gives him one month of house arrest. Our finest complained that Canadian law is not severe enough. So, I looked into the Criminal Code. Section 212 allows 10 years of Jail for such offenses, and in aggravating cases (minors) 14 years of jail.
Clearly, keeping women as sex-slaves is the worst kind of pimping and should be punished by maximum sentence. Next good question to ask: why do Judges choose to give a slap on the wrist instead of imposing a maximum sentence? Because they are also on the take, and so are the prosecutors, because they do not appeal such ridiculous sentences.
Here are 2 scenarios. One, our finest arrest a pimp and Judge puts him in jail for a long time. Two, our finest arrest this pimp every 3 months and Judge gives him one month of house arrest. In which case our finest, prosecutor and Judge would get paid more by this pimp?
Here is a question: what is the worst nightmare of our finest? The
answer is obvious: their worst nightmare - there is no more crime.
Opposition and government
This is what I have read in La Presse of March 13, 2002. Company Groupaction has contributed $70,000 to Liberals during elections. It received from Gagliano $550,000 contract: to give advice to the government how to improve its visibility. The company claims that the report was produced and given to the government. New Minister Boudria claims that he can not find it. Sadly, Groupaction also does not have a single copy either on paper or in computer memory. Would you believe this nonsense? Even if you delete something from your computer, it is still available there, and if not, it is available on the backup tapes, which go several years back.
Opposition demands public inquiry on this subject, and government refuses. Do you really need to spend several millions more to inquire about something so obvious? What needs to be open is a criminal investigation.
We all get mad, when we read about a mother of 4 children who allegedly defrauded welfare by $96,000 during 10 years, which comes to less than $10,000 per year, and we want to put this mother in jail, though all she did with these money was feeding her children. Here, criminal government steals billions, and nobody is saying a word.
La Presse has also reported that Groupaction has received in May of 2001 $615,000 for "evaluation of its own work submitted to government". I could not believe my eyes, but it seems that my translation is correct. I have asked a number of prisoners around me, who robbed banks, what was their average take. The response comes to about $5,000 per robbery. Even presuming that this is not an exaggeration, these robbers risk their lives during a robbery and then spend a number of years in jail. Here, you have been robbed of over a million, and everything is legal.
Latest development: textual part of report was found, but not graphical. This is yet another lie: everyone, who uses WORD knows that graphics there is not saved separately from the text. Even presuming that they used HTM format, graphics is saved in the same folder, so if you find the backup of text, graphics is nearby.
Opposition just does not ask proper questions. An honest opposition should raise:
Here are the questions
1. Why should the government be allowed to spend a penny on advice of how to improve its visibility? Improvement of visibility helps only one thing: that the government be re-elected. Should you as taxpayer pay for this?
2. Presuming, that government is allowed to spend money on improvement of its visibility, does not every ministry have Communications Department to do this job? Should the government be allowed to contract private company to do it?
3. Presuming, that government is allowed to contract out, should the advice cost $550,000? CEO of Groupaction claimed that his firm spent 3300 hours on this contract, which comes to $166 per hour and about 1.7 man-year. Should the hourly pay be that great and does it really take that much time?
4. Presuming that the cost is justified, how do you explain that nobody in the government was using this report, otherwise it would not have been lost? If the report was worthless, former Minister Gagliano should reimburse the payment from his own pocket, because he should not have paid for worthless report. If the report was valuable, but nobody used it, Gagliano still have to reimburse, because the money were factually lost.
5. Last, but not least. Government is administering spending of your money. This spending should not only be honest, but should also be viewed as honest. Is not it obvious, that if a company gives $70,000 to a governing party and then gets millions in government contract, this certainly looks dishonest, even if it is honest? Why not to adopt a law, making any company, which contributed even $1 to governing party ineligible for government contracts?
Now, why does not opposition ask all these questions? One does not have to be a genius to figure out the above. Because every political party is a well organized crime. Their purpose is to come to power and do exactly the same: pillage the country by giving lucrative contracts to its cronies. This is why they do not want to challenge the legitimacy of contracting out, they do not want to challenge the amount, they do not want to make companies contributing to governing party ineligible for government contracts.
I am going to send this posting to every opposition party. You will smee if they would start asking the right questions.
It is time to kick professional politicians out of politics. Vote
All parties in the Parliament paid tribute to Gray who sat there for 40 years. They were all joking about his masterful way to avoid answering questions. Is this really funny? The man is a crook. Avoiding answering questions should be considered as contempt of Parliament, and Gray should have been expelled from Parliament 40 years ago.
Do opposition parties understand all this? Of course, they do. The problem is that they are also crooks, though not as masterful as Gray.
It is time to kick professional politicians out of politics. Vote
Our heroes fire-fighters
I did not watch the full documentary about WTC, I switched it on at the moment when the fire-chief was standing in the lobby of WTC surrounded by at least 5 of our heroes, who were doing absolutely nothing. I understand that fire-chief has to be somewhere to coordinate efforts, but the other 5 heroes, why weren't they busy saving others?
Then we hear the tower collapses and our heroes manage to get outside safely. Do you think they are rushing to save those who might be still alive under the rubble? Not at all, they are rushing to their station. We see one of them puking, but otherwise they are unharmed. Do you think they are saddened and traumatized by the fact that so many people perished? Not at all. One of them is saying: "It was raining men", referring to the people jumping in desperation from the buildings to their death. This smart-aleck was rephrasing a Spice Girls song with words: "It's raining men", where, of course, it has a totally different meaning.
Our heroes are concerned about one thing: whether all their buddies are alive. When they learned that one is missing, only then we see on their faces some concern and sadness, but there was no similar feeling at all about thousands of ordinary people perished before their eyes. Our heroes are clearly lacking any feeling of empathy. We see one hero saying words about towers, which just recently were there, and here he crunches an apple, and he continues that now the towers are gone, crunch, crunch. Then he finishes the apple and, instead of using a garbage bin, throws the remnants of the apple on the road. Am I missing something? How did you feel watching this scene?
The whole day passes, none of our heroes thinks about the need to return back and try to save someone. They are though concerned about the missing buddy. Then the missing hero returns and everybody is happy. Where was he? He was at the ground zero, where everybody else was supposed to be. But if you think that there is one hero with a sense of empathy, think again. He stayed there for one reason: his position was probationary, he wanted to keep the job, this is why he stayed. The other heroes are permanent, their job is guaranteed for them, so they could not care less.
Next morning our heroes finally went to work. They are working 24-hour shift. Why so long? Would not they be more effective working 8 hours? The answer might surprise you. After 8 hours, these people get paid overtime - double, and after 16 hours - triple. Our heroes wanted to make maximum money possible on the disaster, and they did. Some naive people thought that our heroes were so driven by desire to save that they did not want to go home and stayed 24 hours.
Just ask yourself, how productive would you be even after 16 hours of work? And how long do you need to rest after 24-hour work? Except for their greed, there was no need for such a schedule, and there was no shortage of firemen: some of our Canadian heroes went there and offered their services. They were turned down. American heroes were not about to share the money. Remember our heroes punching our finest in the face, when Giuliani had decided to reduce the number of our heroes working at ground zero? They lied that it was about saving the bodies of their brothers, it was about money.
Pay attention to the language used by our heroes. When they speak directly into the camera, they speak normally, but when they talk to each other seemingly unaware of being filmed - it is the language of criminals, I hear it around me for almost 10 years by now. Pay attention to their names: mainly Irish and Italian. How many blacks did you see? How many women did you see? Do you sincerely believe that people of other ethnic backgrounds are not interested to become fire-fighters? This is a job, where you work less than 10% of your time, over 90% of the time you are just sitting at the station, playing cards, watching TV, cooking food, and you are paid very nicely.
Remember the controversy of the monument to our heroes depicting one white, one black and one Hispanic fire-fighter? Our heroes are mainly white and male, because they are racists and misogynists. Remember one woman, who after a long fight was finally hired as a fire-fighter? Our heroes made her life so miserable, that she finally surrendered and resigned.
One hero in the documentary says that the towers were not supposed to crumble. This is why they went in. They had no idea towers would collapse. There was no heroism there, and they saved almost nobody. The towers collapsed not because of terrorists, but because of criminal design: towers had no frame and were disasters waiting to happen.
It is time to start calling a spade a spade. Glorification of people,
who did nothing good, is unreasonable.
Was Boucher a police informant?
I am not talking about Mom Boucher, I am talking about the guy, who was recently arrested for killing a policeman. Almost immediately after arrest, all the media repeatedly declared him to be a police informant. Nobody is asking a very simple question: if he were a police informant, why on earth would he shoot at a policeman? Does all this make any sense?
From my jail experience, I can tell you, what is really going on. Police are hunting little criminals, while being good friends with big ones. The family, which surrendered Boucher to police, might be in a big trouble, because the guy, who kills a policeman, is considered a hero. On the other hand, a police informant is the most despised person. So, if the family surrendered to police not a hero, but a police informant, that's OK.
The other purpose of declaration Boucher as police informant is to have him beaten or killed in jail, where he is now being kept. In addition, jailers would be able to make his life very unpleasant by keeping him in protective custody, which means being locked up for 23 hours a day. This does not mean that his life would be protected, because jailers can always arrange for an "accidental" meeting in a corridor with someone, who "accidentally" has a knife, and "everything happened so fast", that jailers just did not have time to react.
This trick, old as life, jailers are using against me for almost 10 years by now, and media are doing their best to help them. I have been informed that there is a book out there, claiming that I had been for many years RCMP informant on my fellow immigrants from USSR, which is of course a lie. The truth is that I have met with 2 agents on my arrival to Canada, and I answered their questions, because I thought that to be an obligatory procedure. They came to see me a year later and started asking the same questions. It was obvious to me that they were checking whether my answers would be the same. I got angry and told them to get out and never come again. They understood me, and never bothered me.
In order to check whether the yellow journalist had any documental proof to his allegations, I made a request according to Privacy Act for my file in RCMP (CISIS). I have received my immigration visa plus several pages, where everything was whited-out, except for my name. I have made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, arguing that the notes about the agents meeting me could not possibly be a secret, since I was present there. The corrupt Privacy Commissioner decided otherwise.
Jailers made yet another attempt to have me killed, when one magazine published an article claiming that I had raped a student. I have never raped anyone, and as far as my Canadian students is concerned, I have never had even a date with any of them. Jailers made hundreds of copies of the page where it was written that I raped a student and placed this material in every inmate's mail-box. Rapists are not tolerated in maximum security jails, and jailers hoped that I would be killed. Jailers did not succeed: inmates did not believe yellow media and brought to me the material they have found in their mail-boxes. This is how I became aware of the whole thing.
My life was saved, because many inmates consider me a hero, who stood for his rights with deadly force. My reputation of arch-enemy of Correctional Service also helps. I am writing over 100 complaints against jailers every year. I know all the rules and regulations, and I do not let jailers get away with any breach. This is necessary for my self-preservation, because jailers on numerous occasions were trying to create impression among population that I am an informant for them, which of course is a lie.
Here are some of the tricks jailers do. One of the guards becomes very polite and loudly greets me whenever he sees me, many times every day; a guard comes over and tells me in a loud whisper (so that everybody around could hear), that if I needed something, he would be happy to provide; jailers are telling each other some lies about me in a loud voice, so that inmates around could hear. Yet another trick involves one of jail informants. When I am alone in common room, informant comes in and hides his drugs somewhere. Couple of hours later, guards come and confiscate the drugs. Implication: someone informed guards. Since I am not involved in any criminal activity and I was the only one in the room, suspicion arises that I informed. Jailers failed here too, because nobody ever reproached me anything like that. My numerous complaints against jailers help to maintain my reputation.
Having failed in their attempts to have me killed, jailers changed the tactics: their purpose is to show that I am a quarrelsome man, incapable to live in peace with anyone. It started at Donnacona jail. The scenario is usually the same. A "big shot" is placed in the same range, where I live. Either the "big shot" himself or one of his "associate" is trying to create a quarrel with me. There are many ways to achieve it: my TV is too loud, borrow something and do not return, take my telephone time, etc.
If I try to show that my TV is not too loud by going out of my cell and asking him whether he can hear my TV at that spot, he can start shouting at me that I called him a liar. Jailers hear the shouting, come over and take me against my will into detention, for my own protection, of course. Then they write in every document that all inmates hate my guts, and I have to be transferred to another jail or to another range. This pattern repeats in every jail.
In Leclerc jail, after numerous unsuccessful attempts to create a quarrel,
President of the Inmates Committee started shouting at me out of blue, then he
went to guards and told them that he "can not guarantee my
safety". According to "jail code", he was not supposed to
go to guards and to inform them of anything, but he was Hell's Angel, he could
Six months observance
There was much time and attention devoted to the victims of September 11 attack. There was almost no attention paid to thousands of other victims: innocent people kept in jail for over 6 months by now. USA in the past has blasted many countries for keeping people in jail, without charging them with a crime. Now USA is doing it. Two wrongs do not make one right. SHAME!
Two people have been killed recently by criminals: one policeman and one ordinary man, who were allegedly mistaken for a gang member. Policeman's funeral service took place in Notre-Dame and was more pompous than that of Trudeau, with over 3000 representatives from the whole continent. The ordinary man's service was at a local church, and the procession was led by a Purolator truck.
Did the policeman die while trying to save somebody else’s life? No. Did he do something heroic at all? No. He was just a traffic cop. He had no idea someone would start shooting at him in the broad day light. He also relied on his bullet-proof vest, which was not bullet-proof after all. When a person is hired as a policeman, he knows that the job is dangerous by definition, this is why he has so many additional perks. On the other hand, there are many more construction workers killed every year, than there are policemen killed, and their job is not supposed to be dangerous.
One would presume that policemen in drug enforcement are in more danger than traffic cops, yet I have not heard of a single drug enforcement cop killed. Why? Because they are good friends with drug dealers. Both sides make good money on drug trade. They make a splash now and then about a drug seizure - a spectacle for public consumption. Their worst nightmare: legalization of drugs, they will loose their jobs and ability to make money on drug trade.
Some arithmetic. Presuming that every delegate to the policeman's
funeral ceremony spent on average $1000 for air-fare, hotel, meals, etc.,
multiply it by 3000 plus participants, and you get over $3 million of taxpayer
money wasted. Would not it be better to take this $3 million and give it
to the policeman's family?
What should be done to prevent cop-killing
I have watched an interview with a policeman on the subject of what should be done to prevent cop-killing. Our finest responded that there exists "Club-Feds", where criminals have access to golf, fishing, etc. According to him, if these "Club-Feds" are closed, there will be no more cop killings or these killings would be reduced dramatically. The yellow reporter did not have guts to question this opinion.
Here are the issues an objective reporter should have raised. The "Club Fed" exists in British Columbia, where no policeman had been killed for several years. The maximum policemen killed are in the Prairies region, which has the worst jails in Canada. In any case, the number of construction workers killed is much greater than the number of policemen killed.
Prior to 1979, jailers could even beat up prisoners by whips. Has the number of policeman killed after abolition of corporal punishment increased dramatically in Canada? If yes, let us reintroduce corporal punishment of prisoners, but I think that when someone shoots at a cop, the last thing on his mind is whether he would or would not be able to play golf while in jail. Cops are mainly killed during a traffic stop or while responding to a domestic dispute. I do not know of a single story of a cop being killed while trying to stop a crime in progress. Sorry, I do know one such story, but the robber in it was another cop.
One more thing was never discussed during the interview: the cop was wearing bullet-proof vest. How did it happen that it failed?
Am I rotting in jail?
Several individuals expressed their pleasure at the thought that I am rotting in jail. I have to disappoint them: there is no such jail on this planet, which would make me rot. History knows of scientists who were creating their theories amidst horrors of the Nazi and Stalin concentration camps. I am from the same family. Even at the trial time, while defending myself without a lawyer, I still managed to write scientific articles, supervise the Ph.D. dissertation of my doctoral student and help my children with homework and other issues.
I am still working 7 days a week, even when jailers put me in detention (detention is a jail inside jail), and I intend to do so until the day I die. You can put my body in jail, and I do not really care about it, since my brain is still free and is full of very interesting ideas. While in jail, I have published over 20 scientific articles in the top journals around the world, 3 more are accepted for publication and one is being considered for publication. I am more productive than 90% of the scientists in my field, though I do not have access to contemporary computing facilities, libraries, laboratories.
Ask yourself, what have YOU done lately, except for eating, drinking, sleeping and polluting this beautiful planet with your excrements? If the answer is NOTHING, then it is YOU who are rotting, not I.
Office of Strategic Influence
Media reported that the Office of Strategic Influence was created in Pentagon soon after September 11 attack. Its mandate – to influence global public opinion through media, even through hoax and false information. Rumsfeld denied that the Office ever did anything improper, and that the Office is closed. Well, if the Office did nothing improper, why did he decide to close it?
I do not believe that the office did nothing improper, and I do not believe it is closed. Here is why. Remember the "container boy" story? An Arab was arrested in Italy. He was found in a shipping container, comfortably equipped with all necessities. He had in his possession, plans of Canadian airports, false ID of airline employee, etc. After several weeks, he was released, no charges. I made a special posting on this subject, saying that it was just a spectacle to make Canadian nervous and to boost up support for the war against Afghanistan. I thought this to be an RCMP job, now I think that this was the office's job.
Then there was a bizarre story of the shoe-bomber, who tried to ignite his shoe in full view of everybody instead of going to the lavatory. I refer to my previous posting on this subject for detail. Yet another job of the Office.
A story from Italy: several Arabs are arrested with bags of cyanide and a map of Rome water supply. Wow, these bloody Arabs want to poison millions of people in Rome! Well, not exactly: this cyanide happens to be not poisonous. Do you sincerely believe that real terrorists would make such a mistake and would not try their cyanide at least on one animal? What happened to these people? After the loud news about their arrest, I have heard nothing.
The following scene is described to have happened in Yemen prior to Cheney arrival there. An Arab had thrown a grenade against a wall near American Embassy. Grenade exploded, nobody hurt, the Arab tries to get another grenade from his pocket when he is apprehended by security. Why would anyone do such a stupid thing? If you are a security officer, you saw someone thrown a grenade and is reaching to get another one, would you run to apprehend him or would you just shoot him dead?
Yet another bizarre story: a powerful car-bomb explodes in Lima near American Embassy prior to Bush's arrival. Again, no damage to the embassy, but 7 civilians are dead and 30 wounded. The terrorists used a taxi, which they car-jacked. One little detail: they have injected the taxi driver with a tranquilizer in the neck. Have you ever seen a terrorist that sophisticated? They certainly need a medical doctor in their ranks, who would provide proper substance with proper dosage. If they did not give a damn that many innocent civilians would be killed in an explosion, why would they care to keep the taxi driver alive? My guess: CIA (or Pentagon) has a policy forbidding DIRECT killing of innocent civilians, which is not applicable to the so-called collateral damage.
If you were a terrorist, would you do such a stupid thing like killing your own citizens without damaging anything American?
In order to decide, who arranged the two recent explosions, check who benefited. Both Bush and Cheney have demonstrated extreme bravery by proceeding with their respective visits. Do you believe their bravery? Bush was so scared on September 11, that the whole day he was jumping from one underground bunker to another; and Cheney even in US sits at an "undisclosed location". Is not their bravery dictated by their knowledge that both explosions were a work of their Office of Strategic Influence? Yet another benefit of both explosions: the whole world is convinced that the terrorists are still out there and still active, so let us support the war on terrorism.
Strategic influence indeed.
About Red Cross
Up until recently I thought Red Cross to be an eternal watchdog over respect for humane treatment of prisoners and civilians during international and local conflicts. I have heard an interview with a Red Cross representative in Afghanistan. He said that his employees were scouring street of Kabul collecting bodies and giving them decent burial. The reporter asked whether the bodies were that of men, women or children. The Red Cross representative refused to answer saying that if he revealed this information, the Red Cross would not be allowed to continue its job. A normal reporter at this moment should have asked, who the hell needs them if all they do is effectively covering-up the war crimes.
Recently, Red Cross had visited the Guantanamo detainees. All I heard from them was that they were allowed full access to detainees. Why not? Red Cross would never report what they saw and never protest.
Now I understand why Hitler allowed the Red Cross representative to visit
his concentration camps: he had nothing to fear, and the stupid world would
think that everything was fine at those concentration camps. Have you
also been under an illusion that the Red Cross was a watchdog for humanity?
About one French advertisement
I have recently come across a French advertisement for the company Travodiam. It pictured WTC towers cut in the middle, and it appeared on September 10, 2001. The following phrase was printed below the picture: "Une pub vraiment sciante!" Some explanation for those, who do not know French.
"Une" means indefinite article feminine. "Pub" is an abbreviation for publicity. "Vraiment" means "really". The word "scier" means to saw, to cut off; "sciante" is an adjective of "scier". There is another word "chier" meaning to shit; some people pronounce "scier" the same way as "chier". The company played on 2 possible meanings: "A really cutting publicity!" and "A really shitting publicity!"
The company Travodiam is specializing in cutting and testing of steel
reinforced concrete. The company certainly knew of WTC towers criminal
design (absence of a frame) and was warning public that the towers were a
disaster waiting to happen; the company just did not know how close its prediction
A three-letter f-word
I am talking about fat. No substance has been vilified as much as fat. Fat people are viewed as ugly and unhealthy. Is this really so? My mother was very overweight, she lived until 84, my father has always been skinny, he lived 10 years less. Japanese wrestlers must look sexy to Japanese women, otherwise this sport would not exist. Take a look at Reubens women. Everyone now would say that they needed a liposuction, but they were viewed as very beautiful in his time.
This country is obsessed with losing weight. The best compliment you can say to anyone is to suggest that he/she lost weight. On the other hand, in Russian language losing weight literally means getting worse and gaining weight means getting better. There is a Russian proverb that one can not spoil a porridge by addition of butter. If you say about someone that he grabbed a fat piece, it means that he got the best part of something. Every language accumulates people's wisdom. Are Russians really that wrong?
Let us look at animal kingdom. One can hardly argue that fat is a remarkable achievement of nature. It serves both as an excellent thermosinsulator and as a very concentrated source of energy. If an animal does not accumulate enough fat prior to winter, it would die. One of the most important organs is heart. Nature always protects it with a layer of fat. If you read the Bible, you would notice that sacrificing an animal required giving to God the best part - fat. Native hunters also consider fat to be the best part and eat it raw.
On the other hand, if you try the fat of the meat you can buy at the supermarket, you can not eat it. Is there a contradiction here? Not at all. If you want to try fat, which tastes exquisite, go to the Third World countries, where animals are not poisoned by antibiotics and growth hormones. It is as simple as that.
Why am I telling all this? Because the most important part in
scientific research is to ask a proper question. I want to suggest
questions, which our medical science do not ask. It was noticed that fat
people more often suffer from various diseases, so medical science decided to
get rid of fat from our diet, instead of asking a different question: why does
not our body use fat to its advantage and how to make it do so? There are
animals with huge layers of fat, who are perfectly healthy. How to make a
human being with a thick layer of fat perfectly healthy? Unless and until
we pose these questions, we will never get an answer.
Idiots in prosecution
The male prosecutor at Yates trial reminded me of Darden during Simpson trial. The same kind of nonsense talk. Remember Darden said, that he asked his secretary to go to a store and to buy American Constitution. She brought him the Constitution, he opened it and read that Nicole had the right to be alive. Wow! Does one really need to read the Constitution in order to come to this conclusion?
The male prosecutor at Yates trial was even more stupid. First, he started shouting that nobody is allowed to put her children "in a bunker". I could not comprehend, why did he use the word bunker? Then he told the jurors that if someone thinks that he could make a better use of money than a bank cashier and therefore it is OK for him to take this money, they should find that person guilty of robbery anyway.
I hate to disappoint him, but he was legally wrong. If someone SINCERELY believes that it is OK to take money by force, it means that he does not know what is right and what is wrong, and this is the internationally accepted criteria for being legally insane, which is not the same as being medically insane. The problem here is to convince the jury that he SINCERELY does not know right from wrong.
This idiot also told the jury that they have to send a strong message to the parents that it is not OK to kill your children. Do parents really need to hear this kind of message? Do you sincerely believe that if Yates would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, it would open a floodgate and thousands of parents would start killing their children? I would lay my life to protect my children, no matter what, and so would majority of parents. A message needs to be sent to parents like Susan Smith, not to those like Yates.
Had she been evil, she could have got away with these murders very simple: all she had to do was to tell police that she saved her children from sin and after that to say nothing. With her history of mental illness, police would have no case against her. Instead, she did her best to show that she was in total touch with reality, which in a way is the best proof that she was not. I am sure, if one day it would really down on her what she did, she would want to kill herself.
The whole trial was a huge waste of time and taxpayer money. Why was there any need to assign 2 (two!) prosecutors? Was the case very complicated or did Yates present such a tremendous danger to society? None of the above. In the case where a crime has political overtones, government is eager to declare the perpetrator insane. Remember Hinkley shooting Reagan? Government declared him insane even without going to trial, though there was no compelling evidence that he could not distinguish between right and wrong. Every politician is much more comfortable to say that only an insane person can shoot at him. The case of Yates has no political overtones, so government is eager to prosecute.
It is well known that women suffering from postpartum depression are very
likely to kill their children. It is a reckless negligence to leave a
sick woman alone with children. If someone needs to be charged, the
psychiatrists involved should be prosecuted for criminal negligence causing
Britain made a smart move: it gave its scientists complete freedom in doing of stem cell research, including human cloning. USA will be a big loser in this race not only because it will fall back in research, but also because a number of US scientists might decide to move to Britain.
Many people expressed their negative opinion about human cloning, but nobody
managed to explain why human cloning is bad. When a stranger meets a
small child, what is the most often compliment paid? The stranger says
that the child looks exactly like father or mother, and the respective parent
becomes oh so proud. Well, in the case of cloning this similarity will be
driven to its maximum.
We were soldiers
It is sad to see an actor of Mel Gibson stature to be involved in a propaganda film. He summarized the film's meaning as "hate the war, respect the warrior". Wow! How the hell can you separate those two? Does there exist a war without a warrior? How can you respect warriors who raped women, cut throats of children and elderly, like Senator Kerry did?
Can you respect Nazi warriors?
Infinitely merciful God
Here is a quote from the Bible (Deut. 28.63): "Just as the Lord once took delight in making you grow and prosper, so will he now take delight in ruining and destroying you ...”
The Bible claims to be the word of God. We all are his children.
Now, what kind of a parent would take DELIGHT in destroying his children, no
matter what these children have done? Am I missing something?
Who is number one in crimes against humanity?
No, it is not Hitler and not Stalin. They exterminated just a small part of mankind. I am talking about extermination of the whole mankind, except for one family - Noah. You got it right: our loving God is the criminal number one. In addition to crimes against humanity, he can be charged with tremendous cruelty to animals: except for one pair of each species, he killed them all.
What is his excuse? Humans became too wicked. Who made them in the first place? If God is almighty and all-knowing, did not he know at the time of creation that humans would become wicked? If he did and proceeded anyway, is not the whole thing his fault? And if he did not know what he was doing, what happened to almighty and all-knowing? What is his excuse for killing all animals? If he is really almighty, could not he just improve human morals, rather than killing everybody? What is God's excuse for killing little children? Clearly, they did nothing wrong yet.
Hitler was following God's steps. He also decided that humans were too wicked and needed improvement. The inferior races were spoiling humanity. So, in order to improve humankind, inferior races have to be eliminated, and this is what he tried to do.
Why are we justifying God's actions, which we would certainly condemn if the
same actions were perpetrated by another human being?
Has God sanctioned Holocaust?
Here is a quote from the Bible (Deut. 28.66-67): "You will live in constant suspense and stand in dread both day and night, never sure of your existence. In the morning you will say, 'Would that it were evening!' and in the evening you will say, 'Would that it were morning!' for the dread that your heart must feel and the sight that your eyes must see."
This quote seems to me a good description of how Jews must have felt in Nazi concentration camps. So, Hitler was just doing dirty God's job, punishing Jews for not worshiping him well enough. There is though one catch: all 4 of my grand-parents were very orthodox and have worshiped God all their lives, while my parents did not give a damn about God. All my grand-parents were killed, but my parents were saved.
Who the hell needs God like that?
About human sacrifices
It is written in many places in the Bible, that only pagans offer human sacrifices, and that God strictly forbids such practice. Well, let us read story of iephthah (Judges, 11). He went to war against Ammonites, and he gave a vow that if God gave him victory, iephthah would sacrifice to God the first person who would come out of his house to greet him.
Clearly, this vow has broken an important God's rule prohibiting human sacrifices, and a normal God should have punished iephthah for making such a vow, not this one. Not only he did not punish iephthah, but in fact accepted his vow by giving him victory over Ammonites.
The first to greet Jephthah upon his return from the battle was his only daughter. A normal God would have stopped the knife, as he did with Abraham, not this time. iephthah's daughter was killed.
Who the hell needs God like that?
Is God suffering from Alzheimer?
The Bible is God's word. Here is a quote (Judges, 1.8): "The Judahites fought against Jerusalem and captured it, putting it to the sword; then they destroyed the city by fire.”
And on the next page, we read (judges, 1.21) "The Benjaminites did not dislodge the Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem, with the result that the Jebusites live in Jerusalem beside the Benjaminites to the present day.”
Well, Jerusalem could be either taken and destroyed or not taken. You
can not have it both ways. Well, strictly speaking, there is a third
version: King David much later has finally conquered Jerusalem and made it his
God's atrocities - part I
There is a story in Bible (2Kings 2.24) about prophet Elisha. On his
way to Bethel, some small boys were jeering him and shouting: "Go up
baldhead". Prophet cursed them in the name of Lord. Two
she-bears appeared from the woods and tore 42 children to pieces. Imagine
a human being doing this to small children. He would be considered one of
the worst criminals. Should not God be judged by the same standards?
Does God respect his own laws?
It is written in several places in the Bible that children are not responsible for the crimes of their parents. God does not seem to respect this law at all. I refer to 2Samuel 21. There was famine for 3 years in the country. King David asked God for the reason, and God responded that there was a "bloodguilt" on Saul and his family, because Saul killed Gibeonites.
Have in mind, Saul is long dead. David calls Gibeonites and asks them what do they want to settle the matter. Gibeonites asked David to surrender to them 7 members of Saul family, Gibeonites want to cut them into pieces. King David gives them 2 sons and 5 grandsons of Saul, and Gibeonites dismember them. King David does not argue that Saulls children and grandchildren are not responsible for the actions of their ancestor, and neither does God. On the contrary, after this butchery God is satisfied and the famine is finished.
God's atrocities - part 2
King David decided to count his subjects, so he ordered his army chief Joab to do the job. Joab did not want to do it, but the order was made, and he obeyed. Then all of the sudden, King David realizes that this count was a sin (why was this a sin, my little brain can not comprehend), so he asks God to forgive him. Not so fast, says God, you have a choice of punishment: 3 years of famine, or 3 months running from enemies, or 3 days of pestilence.
Of course, David chose pestilence. God sent an angel, who killed 70,000 people all over the country. When the angel came to Jerusalem and wanted to start killing people there, God stopped him because 70,000 was more or less enough - God is infinitely merciful and loving.
Imagine that a human being kills 70,000 innocent people while leaving the
guilty one unpunished, would you call him the lowest of scoundrels?
Are you safer now?
We hear now and then that the whole airport was shut down, because security missed to screen one person. There is no suspicion that the person in question is dangerous, but still draconian precautions are taken. At the same time, it was revealed that 70% of attempts to bring knives through airport security were successful, 3 out of 10 guns were unnoticed by security. And to top it all, two of 9/11 hijackers got their visas approved.
Head of INS blamed this security failure on antiquated computers, huge overload of employees, etc. Let us do some arithmetic. Contemporary computers make several billion operations per second. Presume that INS computers are 20 years old, so they make several million operations per second. This speed is enough to process the whole population of US in a week.
We know that there is at least one year backlog in INS, which many people
understand as proof that there are not enough employees at INS. Well, is
it? When we arrived 20 years ago, INS also had the same backlog. It means that
it is capable to process all the incoming applications, because otherwise the
backlog would increase with years. So, mathematics tells us that INS has
enough employees, but keeps the backlog deliberately, so that being able to
claim the need for more employees and to have excuse in the case of a
blander. US needs a mathematician for President.
Is possession a crime?
It is about time for any civilized; nation to give a definition of crime as an action harming someone, and this someone should not be the perpetrator. In view of this definition, I can understand, why possession of a stolen property is a crime, but why a drug possession is a crime? The only person who could be harmed is the perpetrator, so why should the drug possession be a crime? If one has glue and sniffs it to get high, he harms himself more than by drugs, yet he could not be charged with possession of glue. If one has an axe and chops his own hand, you can not charge him with possession of an axe. Possession of drugs should be in the same category.
Second criminalized possession is possession of child pornography. Recently, Sharpe was acquitted because judge decided that his writings has artistic merit, and convicted, because he had in his possession picture of naked boys, and the reporter with horror exclaimed that some children were just 6 years old. Here I must admit that my parents were even worse criminals: they had in their possession naked pictures of boys, who were just several days old: me and my brother. These pictures were in our family album, and everybody thought that they were just cute. You are a sick, sick, sick nation if you think that a picture of a naked 6-year-old boy has anything sexual in it.
You may say that the picture was clearly sexual for Sharpe, who cares! The law should be written for normal people, not for perverts! Suppose someone gets aroused by a big nose or a big toe, would you declare a picture of a big nose to be pornography? When I was 6 years old, I was going to "banya" (Russian bath-house) with my mother; I was naked, all women around me were naked, nobody cared, and nobody saw anything improper or sexual in it, because there was none. When I read Canadian law about child pornography, my feeling is that it was written by perverts for perverts.
The real question that should have been addressed: were the boys in the picture abused in any way? If all what Sharpe has done was making pictures, as perverted as it might be, is not a crime, because there is no victim. The acquittal due to artistic merit looks to me as ridiculous as conviction. It was ridiculous, because I do not believe there was any artistic merit in writings of a pervert. On the other hand, one does not need artistic merit to justify his writing. This is what freedom of speech is all about: it is freedom of repugnant speech, freedom of perverted speech. His speech did not harm anyone, so he committed no crime.
I have lived the first 40 years of my life in the USSR, and I never have heard a single case of a child sexual abuse, while here it has happened almost everywhere: at schools, at churches, boy scouts, baby-sitter, you name it. Back in the USSR, little children were playing the whole day without any supervision; there has never been a single case of child abduction.
I recall the case of an Albanian father, recent immigrant, who paid dearly for his lack of understanding of just how sick this nation is. He was observed at a school meeting with his daughter sitting on his laps, and his hand being placed either between her legs or near that. Local parents saw this, and in their perverted mind decided that it was a public child molestation. The man was a Muslim, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case of incest reported among Muslims, nevertheless, his children were taken away from him, he faced criminal charges, etc.
This is what happens, when a normal and healthy culture collides with a sick and perverted one. I have no doubt that this Albanian father did not perceive anything sexual in holding his daughter the way he was, for a very simple reason: if he meant to molest his daughter, he would certainly not do it publicly.
The absurdity of the law was demonstrated recently in various police actions. It was reported that just one web site, which police identified as child porn site, had over 250,000 subscribers. Wow, is not something wrong with the law, which creates 250,000 criminals just at one web site?
Here is how you can become a criminal according to this law. Suppose
that you have a security camera presume that your 17-year-old daughter is not
aware of the camera; she brings home her boyfriend when you are absent and have
sex with him. If now police look at your camera, they might charge you
with possession of child pornography. It is not a crime for teenagers to
have sex; it is a crime though to have it on tape. Can any law be more
stupid than that?