Who really gave his life?
I have heard on numerous occasions that our finest gave their lives on September 11. Let us start calling a spade a spade. The word GIVE means to voluntarily donate something. Soviet soldiers during World War II gave their lives when they wrapped themselves with grenades and jumped under German tanks. They knew they were to die and they were ready to die. They did it, because they did not have anti-tank weapons, and that was the only way to stop Germans. Terrorists GAVE their lives, because they knew for sure that they were to die.
Did our finest know that they were about to die? Not at all.
They did not expect the towers to collapse. Nobody knew that the towers
were designed and built with criminal negligence. Would they enter the
towers if they knew? Of course not. In every interview our finest
said that they had no idea the towers would collapse. What is the number
one preoccupation of our finest? To save lives? To stop
crime? None of the above. Their main preoccupation is to come home
at the end of their shift alive.
1. Suicide bombers have killed a number of Americans, 80 US army entered Afghanistan, killed a number of civilians and still is there. Suicide bombers killed a number of Israelis and Israeli army entered Palestine and is killing civilians there. What is the difference? Now, US is telling Israel to get out. Am I missing something?
2. Give to Palestinians the same weapons that Israeli army has. Do you think they would stop using suicide bombers?
3. CBS 60 Minutes show on April 14. Subject: people donate organs,
which are resold at huge profit, and instead of saving lives are used, for
example, for penal enlargements. During the break - a commercial with a
famous runner telling audience to sigh their organ donor card. Am I
God is a pervert
What proof do I have? Huge number of his close servants molested children for millennia (don't think this is something recent) and God did nothing about it. You may say that God does not interfere and gives us free will. Read the Bible. Here are couple of examples of immediate and quite severe interference. In Leviticus 10.2-3 we read about 2 sons of Aaron. They served the fire in a "profane" way, whatever this might mean. God immediately burned them to death. Don't you think, God could go easier on children, who clearly did not mean to offend?
Second example comes from 2Samuel 6.6-7. God's ark was carried by oxen to Jerusalem. There were no asphalt roads at that time, so bumps on the road have tilted the ark a bit. A man tried to straighten the ark. God priests, who immediately killed him. Does it look to you that punishment fits the crime?
Now, question of the week: why did not God kill each and every priest the
moment they started fondling a child in God's home? Because he liked it,
therefore, he is a pervert. Any other explanation?
Do I have a skewed opinion about police?
This is what one individual has written. I wish he elaborated on that. Here is what was in the news lately. News number one. A group of our finest in Florida were killing innocent unarmed people and were getting away with murder by planting guns in the hands of their victims. News number 2. A group of our finest in Texas were arresting poor uneducated innocent people on drug charges. Drugs were planted.
You might say that wrongdoers were apprehended, the system works. Wrong. It was a happy accident that it has become known. I assure you that it is just a tip of an iceberg. Our finest has the same code of behavior, as my fellow criminals here in jail: they do not rat on each other. Our finest even use the same word as criminals do: "to rat".
Are there honest people among our finest? Of course there are. Here are some examples. There was an honest policeman many years ago in Quebec. He was prepared to break the code of silence and to testify against his colleagues. He was found shot dead in his car. Police declared this to be a suicide, though he was shot somewhat in the back of his head. His family insists that he was murdered. They hired an expert, who declared that it was indeed a murder. Government has hired yet another expert, who said opposite. More than 20 years after the event, government is still spending taxpayer money to cover-up the murder.
Yet another honest person Bob Stenhouse was a member of RCMP and was
considered one of the best. Then he noticed that his superiors, instead
of fighting organized crime, used it to get more funding. He informed one
writer about this. One might think, that his superiors would lose their
jobs. Wrong. He was fired. One more honest policeman noticed
that some officials in Canadian consulate were accepting bribes, and he blew whistle
on them. Guess, who was fired. Want more examples? Is my
perception of our finest really that skewed?
Do children need protection from pornography?
It is so taken for granted that children should be protected from pornography, that I have never heard anyone challenging this notion. Being a scientist means to question everything, even well established rules, so I shall try to do just that.
Pornography is a graphical description of sex, something almost all of us did, do or will do. If you look at animal world, they do not shield their “children" from pornography, and no ill effects are noticed. On the contrary, there is a breed of primates, who can not reproduce, unless in their childhood they saw their parents engaged in sex. They just can not figure out how this is done.
It is taken for granted that the smaller is the child, the stricter he should be protected from pornography. Why? I remember myself at 6 years of age. Anything related to sex was just of no interest to me, and even if I were exposed to pornography, I just would not watch it, because I had better things to do. On the other hand, only I know how many stupid things I did, when I started my sex life, which I certainly would not have done, had I been exposed to pornography.
It is well documented that significant part of women had never experienced an orgasm in their entire life, and it is not because there is something wrong with these women, it is because their men just do not know what to do and how to do it. Sex is not something everyone knows how to do. I have read about one African tribe where boys reaching age of 13 are being taught sex by older women in the tribe. In our "civilized" society this would be considered as sexual child abuse. Is not this primitive tribe much wiser than we are?
In any case, a proper answer to my question, whether children should be protected from pornography might be given only through an experiment: to observe a group of children exposed to pornography and compare them to another group which was protected. Luckily, such experiment is being performed on a pretty grand scale due to the Internet, where pornography is widely available. Some children are protected and not allowed to use these sites and some are not protected.
It would be interesting to compare their lives 15 years from now. So
far, so good, to the best of my knowledge, there is no huge wave of teenagers
running out to rape neighbourhood girls. On the contrary, sociological
studies established that jails allowing prisoners watch pornographic movies
have much smaller incidence of violence than those which do not. It is
well known that nudists get so accustomed to naked bodies that they no longer
react to nudity. I think, the same thing will happen to pornography: the
more it is exposed, the less people would react to it.
Celine Dion and journalistic integrity
First, I must state that I am not Celine Dion's fan, I have not purchased a single disk of hers, on the other hand, I like some of her songs, she certainly has a pleasant voice, which I can recognize - this is why I think, my opinion might be quite objective, contrary to one article I have read recently in the Gazette.
A female reporter reproaches to Dion that she promised to be "out" for at least 3 years and did not keep her promise. The reporter writes that she is extremely aggravated by the huge publicity Dion gets at every occasion. She writes that Dion is "a national disgrace", as if this was a well established and accepted fact. Well, it was not known to me, and I would like the reporter to elaborate as to what exactly Dion has done to disgrace her nation. I know of some high caliber singers involved in drugs and alcohol abuse, and nobody is calling them a national disgrace, and it seems to me that Dion is clean in this regard.
I have read numerous opinions that Dion is a pride of her nation. The reason for saying so is an undeniable fact that she made it big, greater than any other Quebec singer (I personally like better Fabian). Millions of people have purchased her disks. If you are an honest reporter, and you are saying something totally opposite to the opinion of millions of others, should not you give some reasoning justifying your opinion? Not this reporter, and not The Gazette management.
The reporter writes that the song from Titanic made her nauseate and want that Titanic sank in the first 10 minute of the film. Again, a person with a little resemblance of integrity should have given some reasons as to why this song was so bad. This song has received an Oscar, and I am very interested to know how the Whole Academy was fooled to think that this was the best song. Not this reporter. (I personally think that the song was certainly better than the other 4 nominated that year, and that Dion was one of the best to sing it. Probably, Fabian and Streisand could have done it as well.)
Dion has recently launched a new album. The reporter writes that this album has no artistic merit. Excuse me, this album is number one in sales in many countries. Should not an honest reporter address this issue and explain how so many people in various countries were duped into buying something so bad? Not this reporter.
The reader learns from the article how many embryos has Dion frozen, that her most favorite show is "The price is right", that she enjoys her son's excrements, etc. The reporter really spent a lot of time for research, and my little brain can not understand one thing: she is so irritated by Dion, so why would she spend so much additional time to dig all this nonsense? It is a well-known fact that big people in performing arts are usually not at the top of IQ score, but this does not make them bad people, disgrace to their respective nations.
The personal hatred of female reporter towards Dion seems to be overwhelming. On the other hand, I have great difficulty believing that The Gazette management would have allowed such a poorly argued article to be published, unless this hatred initiated from the management. I personally think that the reporter was just a hired gun to malign Dion.
Dion has mentioned that her child cried when she was singing. The reporter does not hesitate to hit a low blow: you see, even her child hates mother's singing. Come on, get serious, since when opinion of a little child should be taken as final Judgment of someone's artistic qualities?
At the end of the article, the female reporter begs Dion to please,
pleeeeeease, leave everybody alone. I have a simple advice for her:
please, pleeeease, stop reading and researching about Dion. There are so
many interesting things in the world. Dion does not bother me and
majority of mankind: I just do not read much about her. Second advice to
the reporter: get some integrity - if you want to malign someone, give a good
Sex offender liberated
A newspaper article attracted my attention, because it screamed that a sex offender in BC, who admitted raping and killing a girl, was released from jail and the charge against him was dropped. Wow, I started reading the article. The guy in question was convicted in the past of sexual offenses. He was placed in jail due to suspicion of raping and murdering a girl. While in jail, he confessed to another inmate of the crime and on the basis of this confession was convicted and jailed for life. Then this conviction was overturned on appeal, and the Crown had to decide whether to prosecute him again. The Crown has decided that it has no case and the guy was released. The reporter was furious.
Let me explain to you what really happened here. A tragedy struck, a girl was raped and murdered. Our finest do not want to work long and hard, it is much easier to hang someone already implicated in sex offenses. They grabbed one such guy and placed him in Jail.
Every jail is full of informants, who are ready to say anything you want for a price. Our finest had no difficulty to find an informant ready to say what they needed. Have you noticed an interesting thing in all such trials: there is no tape-recording of the confession, the jury has to believe the informant that the accused really confessed. Nobody is asking police, why they did not provide their informant with a tape-recorder.
I have been in jail for almost 10 years, I know jail rules well enough, and I can assure you, that only a suicidal guy would confess of rape and murder, because after such a confession he would be dead very soon. Everyone knows that jail is full of informants and would never jeopardize his safety. One may brag that he killed a policeman, but one would always deny even the fact that he is or was ever accused of sex crimes. Such people are not tolerated in general population. Even in protective custody, everyone would deny being a sex offender.
Our jury is pretty gullible. They have no idea what is going on in jail; they are of high opinion of police. It never crosses their mind that police might come to trial and lie under oath, that police may knowingly put an innocent person in jail, just because they are too dumb and too lazy to find the real culprit. And jury render their guilty decisions most of the time. Crown knows the jury gullibility, and when knowing all this, Crown decides not to prosecute, this means not only that the prosecution had no case, but also that the prosecution knew for sure that an innocent guy was framed by police.
The worst thing in this sad story: the real murderer is laughing and free to
murder and rape again. Another bad thing: our finest, who framed an
innocent man, got unpunished and ready to frame yet another innocent man.
About the so-called civil liberties
Every society which calls itself civilized has certain safeguards against possible abuse by authorities. These safeguards are called civil liberties - rules designed from the notion that it is better to let 10 guilty individuals escape punishment that to punish 1 innocent person. Bravo! Let us see though what happens in real life and whether innocent people really benefit from these civil liberties.
One of these rules says that if police obtained a confession by coercion, such a confession is not admissible in court, and even if a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is to be let go and charges dropped. We have here two wrongs: police misbehavior and a criminal escaping punishment. Do these 2 wrongs make one right? I do not think so. The two rights here are: the criminal should go to jail, together with the policeman, who breached the rules; policeman's sentence should be equal to the sentence received by the criminal.
These rules were made under the presumption that police would not employ illegal tactics, if it knows that the evidence obtained illegally would be thrown out of court and police would not get conviction. The reality is different. Police still misbehaves, and then they come to court and lie under oath that everything was done according to the rules. Our "honourable" judge trusts police and an innocent person gets convicted. Remember the case of 7 Birmingham bombers in England? They were beaten up by police into confession of a crime they did not commit and then jailed for a number of years. They were finally liberated, no policeman was punished.
On the other hand, police is using the same rules to let guilty persons go free. Here is how this is done. Police deliberately misbehaves and then they come to court and this time they tell the truth that they did misbehave, so our "honourable" Judge has no choice but to let guilty people go free. Here are some examples. Remember several years ago an SQ raid on a local police in a small town? SQ got information that local police was selling drugs and was engaged in prostitution pimping. The newspapers wrote that these local policemen were treated extremely harshly: they were held incommunicado, not allowed to consult lawyers, etc.
A naive person might think: wow, SQ is really tough on crime, it does not hesitate even to mistreat their own colleagues! No, not at all. SQ did all these illegal things for one purpose: to save their crooked colleagues, and indeed, all of them were acquitted, with excuses and compensation for "suffering". SQ here achieved 2 goals: gullible population decided that SQ really fights crime and do not hesitate to attack its own colleagues; on the other hand, SQ has managed to save its crooked colleagues from prosecution.
Yet another example. Several years ago, 2 brothers were caught with several tons of hashish. The only way to save them was through the police misbehavior, and misbehave they did. Then our "honourable" judge has dismissed charges against these brothers. Then Commission Poitras has wasted $30 MILLION to investigate the matter. All these millions were paid, so that Poitras would NOT uncover the truth, and Poitras did not disappoint.
Remember the trial of former Premier Regan? He was accused of rape, sexual assault, etc. Again, the only way to save him was for the prosecution to misbehave, and misbehave they did. The same thing happened in the Simpson trial (I have made a special posting on this subject several years ago). Simpson was also framed by LA police, but not to have him convicted, but to have him acquitted.
So, what can be done to have our civil liberties work they way our
forefathers intended them to? The solution is very simple. The
misbehaving police and prosecutors should be punished. This punishment
could be established as jail sentence for misbehaving officer equal to the
sentence the suspect would have gotten, had he been convicted. As minimum
punishment, policeman or prosecutor should be fired for life. This would
certainly eliminate deliberate misbehavior to have criminals acquitted.
How jailers steal from taxpayer
I have noticed an interesting phenomenon: jail gets overcrowded by April 1 each year. It happened in Cowansville, and now I see a similar thing in Archambault jail. Why do jailers do it? I have discovered that each jail gets annual funding proportional to the number of prisoners kept in jail on March 31. So, the more prisoners they have by March 31, the more money they would get in new budget which starts on April 1.
Where do jailers find these prisoners? They grab parolees from the street alleging parole violation. It does not matter, whether their actions will be supported by the Parole Board. By the time any hearing takes place, jailers would get their budget, and even if Parole Board orders release of some prisoners, the money stay in jail. Majority of parolees have just couple of months of their sentence to be served, so they will be out soon. The money allocated for them will be embezzled by jailers.
What about the disrupted lives of people, who rented an apartment, found a job, bought some furniture and who are going to lose it all? Jailers do not give a damn about them. And if these people get so angry that start committing new violent crimes, that is even better for jailers: they have more clients.
And YOU are paying for this.
Mom Boucher trial
I have already made a posting on this subject several years ago, where I expressed my opinion, that prosecution's claim that Boucher ordered guards killed in order to destabilize the system makes no sense: if you want to destabilize a system, you kill the Premier or Minister of Justice, not a little guard.
Now, informant Gagne testified that Boucher ordered guards killing, thinking that those, who killed guards, would never become informants. Is Boucher really that stupid? Is not Gagne himself the best proof to the contrary? And again, if the killing was like an immunization against turning into informant, why did not Boucher use different people for second murder? Gagne was already immunized by the first murder.
There is one more very interesting point in Gagne testimony. Gagne said that it was OK to kill a member of Rock Machines at any time, no permission needed, but it was different with respect to guards or policemen: one had to get a special permission from the top if he wanted to kill a guard or a policeman. Why was it so? It was OK to kill Rock Machines, because they were enemies - well, aren't policemen enemies too?
Here we come to a discovery: indeed, some of our finest are not their
enemies at all, on the contrary, they are on the bikers payroll, and only the
top people know who they are. This is why a special permission was
needed: nobody wants someone on the payroll to be killed. I have already
made a posting on this subject saying that it was not a random killing, these
specific people were targeted. I was right.
Michael Moore about September 11
I have come across an article written by Michael Moore (you saw him on TV
many times). Here are some quotes:
(In the interests of space in this newsletter, Michael Moore's comments about security are abbreviated)
Here’s a short list of my experiences lately with airport security:
At the Newark Airport: the counter can't find my seat ... so I get on without a ticket!
At Detroit Metro Airport: I pass my deli lunch to the guard so it doesn't go through the x-ray machine or the metal detector. He believes my word that "It's just a sandwich." At LaGuardia in New York: I send my bag on the flight ahead of me. Nobody knows what's in it.
Back at Detroit: I take my time getting off the commuter plane and find I'm alone and free to. wander on the tarmac. I or my companion could have taken aboard knives, razors, o hammer and chisel. Noone stopped us.
Of course, I have gotten away with all of this because the airlines my safety SO important they pay rent-a-cops $5.75 an hour to make sure the bad guys don't get on my plane. That is what my life is worth - less than the cost of an oil change.
Too harsh, you say? Well, chow on this: a first-year pilot on American Eagle (the commuter arm of American Airlines) receives around $15,000 year in annual pay.
That's right - $15,000 for the person who has your life in his hands.
Until recently, Confinental Express paid a little over $13,000 a year. There was one guy, an American Eagle pilot who had four kids so he went down to the welfare office and applied for food stamps he was eligible!
Someone on welfare is flying my plane? Is this for real? Yes, it is.
So spare me the talk about all the precautions the airlines and the FAA are taking. They, like all businesses, are concerned about one thing the bottom line and the profit margin. Four teams of 3-5 people were all able to penetrate airport security on the same morning at 3 different airports and pull off this heinous act? My only response is-that's all?
Well, the pundits are in full diarrhea mode, gushing on about the 'terrodst threat' and today's scariest dude on planet earth- Osama bin Laden. Hey, who knows maybe he did it. But, something just doesn't add up.
Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modem, sophisticated jumbo jets with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these three targets without anyone wondering so far off path?
Or am I being asked to believe there were four religious/ political fanatics who JUST HAPPENED to be sullied airline pilots who JUST HAPPENED to want to kill themselves today? Maybe, you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for the cause - but FOUR? Ok, maybe you can - I don't know.
What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact - WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden!
Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!
Don't take my word for it - I saw a piece on MSNBC last year that laid it all out. when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the CIA trained him and his buddies in how to conduct acts of terrorism from Soviet forces. It worked! The Soviets turned and ran, Bin Laden was grateful for that what we thaught him and thought it might be fun to use those same techniques against us.
We abhor terrorism - unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing.
We paid, trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.
Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers?
We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent people, and we never let the human suffering THAT, causes to interrupt our day one single bit.
We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) that I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised when those orphans grow up and are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have helped cause.
Yet, our recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been conducted by a guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple of ex-military guys who hated the federal government.
From the first minutes of today's events, I never heard that possibility suggested. Why is that?
Maybe it's because the A-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the all-important race card. It's much easier to get us to hate when the object of our hatred doesn't look like us.
Congressmen and Senators spent the day calling for more money for the military; one Senator on CNN even said he didn't want to hear any more talk about more money for education or health care we should have only one priority: our self-defense.
Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more secure when the rest of the world isn't living in poverty so we can have nice running shoes?
In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race - you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all.
The Senators and Congressmen tonight broke out in a spontaneous version of "God Bless America." They're not a bad group of singers!
Yes, God, please do bless us.
Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity.
Lets mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Yours, Michael Moore
End of quote.
Moore expresses the same thoughts as I did in my postings.
Idiots at large
Imagine a CBC show with a subject on stem cell research; the panelists: politician Manning, a bio-ethicist, and a rabbi. Not a single specialist in the field. Manning is discussing whether it is better to use adult stem cells rather than embryonic ones. There is nobody to tell them all that they have no business discussing a field in which they have no knowledge.
There is nobody to tell them that freedom of religion means that anyone has the right to follow any religious idea, no matter how delusional, and they will not be prosecuted, and they will not be placed in an asylum, but this is as far as the notion of freedom of religion goes. Freedom of religion never meant to be freedom of religious zealots to barge into any field of human activity, especially in the field of scientific research and to tell scientists, what they can and what they can not do.
There exists Criminal Code, and as long as a scientist does not breach it,
it is nobody's business what he does. Human embryo is NOT protected by
the law. If it is legal and moral to create human embryos during sex,
knowing full well that they will be destroyed in abortion, with no use to
anyone, it is much more moral to create human embryos for research purposes,
because here some very remarkable results are possible.
Of all languages I am familiar with, English seems to me the most hypocritical. No, I am wrong: language can not be honest or dishonest people are. I am talking about the expression "friendly fire". If one does not know what it means, he might imagine a cozy fireplace lit to warm up friends expected to come in after a long exposure to a nasty weather.
My first language is Russian. I assure you, that if you try to use the exact translation of this expression in Russian to denote a murder, you would be taken for an insane. No Francophone would understand "feu amical" to denote a murder, and neither would "fuego amistoso" be interpreted that way by any Hispanic. I can not say it for sure, but I hope that no other language would accept such a hypocrisy.
It is funny to see on TV yellow media trying to help Americans to cover-up. CBC reporters are interviewing an American general. They pretend to be angry and ask a question, why Americans seem to be the most prone to "friendly fire". The general responds that "friendly fire" existed since Stone age, and that every army had its share of friendly fire and that Russian army had killed a lot of its soldiers in Chechnya. A normal reporter here should have asked to prove his statements, not CBC.
My father fought the Second World War from the first day to the last day. The only cases of "friendly fire" he told me were the cases where soldiers under German attack called fire on themselves, deliberately sacrificing their lives. If someone was shot by his fellow soldiers, this meant that he was a deserter.
The reporter reminded the general about the American pilot, who several years ago killed 20 Italians and asked whether this pilot was punished, to which the general responded yes, he was found guilty of obstruction of justice. A normal reporter here should have asked why was not he prosecuted for multiple murders, not the CBC reporter.
We know that every fourth soldier killed in Kuwait in 1991 was killed by "friendly fire". Just recently, an American pilot dropped a bomb in Kuwait on his soldiers during an exercise. Several American soldiers were also killed in Afghanistan. We know also that tribal chiefs riding to the inauguration of the new government were killed. Then we hear of American attack on a compound, which they thought to be al-Qaida. They killed a lot of people and took prisoners the rest, just to discover that they killed innocent people; all the prisoners were released. This is the culture of shoot first and ask questions later.
We hear each time that an inquiry will be held in order to prevent repetition, and then we hear about another murder, and again an inquiry to prevent repetition. I just wonder, how long would it take for seemingly normal people to understand, that nothing is REALLY being done to prevent all this? One of the guests on CBC was a history professor. I expected that he would be asked about history of "friendly fire" - there was not a single question asked.
Yellow media lied to us that the pilot thought that he was in danger. How on earth could he be in danger at the height of at least 15000 ft? At night, all bullets are easily traceable, he could not possibly not see that all the bullets were flying horizontally, none directed at him. He had contemporary navigational system, which should have certainly told him, where he was and that he was in a no-fly zone.
In order to console the relatives, Chretien and yellow media tells them that the murdered soldiers were heroes, who gave their lives in the fight against terrorism. The truth is that they were not given a chance to do something heroic, there was no fight, and they did not GIVE their lives; their lives were taken away from them by a dumbhead, whose name we still do not know. When was the last time you have heard of British or French army killing their own? If you did, compare the numbers with that of Americans.
Something friendly can not kill, and something that kills can not possibly
be called "friendly". Let us call a spade a spade.
Corrupt politicians and half-witted population
A poll revealed recently that majority of Canadians are considering politicians of all levels to be corrupt. Yellow media is trying to put a spin on it: they say that politicians now no more corrupt that 50 years ago. This is true: all politicians have always been a very well organized crime, but does it mean that we should tolerate it because it existed always?
Chretien is having a field day: each time someone from the opposition asks him a question about corruption, he has a very good response: he says that when the opposition party was in power, they were very corrupt, and he is telling the truth for a change.
I have noticed a very strange voting pattern of Canadians: they do not vote FOR someone, they vote AGAINST. For example, they are fed up with Liberals, they want to kick them out, so they vote Tories not because they like Tories, but because they hate Liberals. Several years later, they are fed up with Tories, and the story repeats. I call this behavior half-witted: they managed to figure out that the politicians are corrupt, they can not yet figure out what to do about it.
The same situation is now brewing up in Quebec: the voters are fed up with P.Q., so they will vote Liberals. They completely forgot what kind of crooks they are. Wake up, people! A party, which screwed up once, should no longer be allowed into politics.
Kick the politicians out of politics. Vote independent.
Kick the POLITICIANS out of politics. Vote INDEPENDENT.
KICK THE POLITICIANS OUT OF POLITICS! VOTE INDEPENDENT!
Honour of France
French are claiming that their country was disgraced by vote for Le Pen and call upon their fellow citizens to restore the honour of France by voting against Le Pen. Well, voting against Le Pen means voting for somebody else. This somebody else is a crook. Of course, when you have to choose between a Nazi and a crook, you choose a crook, but how would this choice restore the honour?
Don't they have a single honest person in the whole of France?
The comedy of Canadian politics
I call it comedy, but it would be appropriate to call it a tragedy as well. What do we have? A well organized crime (Liberals) plundering the country tirelessly. Here are just 2 examples of such thievery from the newspapers (of course, the yellow media does not call it thievery). In the past 4 years, government has wasted about $250 MILLION to get and advice on how to improve the medical care. Did you notice any improvement due to these advices? Remember Quebec medical emergency system was falling apart? All they needed at that time was $20 million, less than one twelfth of the stolen amount.
Yet another example of plunder - grant of $240000 to government cronies: Columbia Communications. They got the money for an advice to government on Queen's visit to Canada. The yellow media justified it saying that Columbia Communications has a "unique expertise" on security of Queen's transportation. Have in mind, this is not a security company, this is a communications company. How come, neither RCMP nor CISIS have necessary expertise?
If one computes all the money government spends on the so-called advice, it would be many BILLIONS. Aren't they supposed to have brains of their own? They have many thousands of employees - how come none is capable of giving proper advice?
So, we have a bunch of crooks in government, and who do we have in opposition? Alliance - a bunch of stupid religious bigots. They always shoot themselves in the foot and then apologize. Latest blunder: their deputy refused to support a motion to establish a Canadian Forces day. What was his reason? Government has failed his motion to introduce observance of two minutes silence instead of one-minute silence. This idiot sincerely believed that 2 minutes silence is double as impressive as 1-minute silence. I called them stupid bigots, but this does not mean that they are not crooks.
On the other side of opposition, we have Block Quebecois, who have just one preoccupation: to get out of Canada. Again, this does not mean they are not crooks, but they are less dangerous: they will never form a government. Thievery of Conservatives during Mulroney years is well known. And last, colorless NDP. They did not steal much, because they never had an opportunity to form a government, at least, not in my lifetime.
Can a politician be an honest man? Robinson from NDP projects an image
of an honest person, but this is why he is not the head of NDP. So, to
sum up, we have a very well organized crime - Liberals in power, and an
impotent dumb opposition. Would the people of Canada one day understand
that the only way out is kicking the politicians out of politics and vote
Police and prison guards have a license to kill
Majority of people think that a significant visible violence is required in order to kill a human being. This is not so. Police and prison guards know very well, how to kill a human being, without leaving any trace of violence. This is how they do it. They just apply a significant pressure on the chest of the human they want to kill, so that he can not breathe for 2-3 minutes. They do this either by having several guards sit on the victim's chest or by pressing with their knees on the chest. After that they claim to have noticed that the victim "appears to have difficulty breathing", while they know very well that the victim is already dead, call an ambulance and the victim is declared dead on arrival to the hospital.
This scheme works every time, and everybody gets away with murder due to corrupt media, pathologists, prosecutors and judges. I reproduce below a newspaper article which describes one such murder. I have great difficulty believing that the reporter sincerely did not understand that it was a premeditated murder of an innocent human being.
"B.C. woman dies while being arrested
Vancouver. An investigation is under way after a woman, whom police found holding a sword died while being arrested, a local radio station reports.
News 1130 said police were called to a rooming house late Saturday morning after receiving reports that a woman was throwing objects out of her window.
Officers forced the door open and discovered the woman was 'brandishing a sword', a police inspector told the radio station.
She was wrestled to the floor and handcuffed.
An officer noticed the woman appeared to be having trouble breathing and an ambulance was called but she was pronounced dead shortly after."
When the guard is big and the prisoner is small, one guard is enough to kill the prisoner. One guard tried to kill me in Donnacona jail in 1994. He placed me, handcuffed and shackled, in front of a high iron-clad counter, got behind me, grabbed something in front and pulled, thus pressing my chest against this iron-clad counter by his body. The pressure was so strong, that my ribs fractured and I could not breathe. Had he hold me like this for 2-3 minutes, the scenario described in the above newspaper article would have been replayed. I was lucky someone around understood what the guard was doing and told him to stop.
This kind of premeditated murder is committed on a daily basis by police and prison guards, and it is being done in the so-called civilized country, not in some backward one.
Was I right or what?
Back in September of 2001, I have made several postings, where I wrote that I would not be surprised that Bush knew about possible attack on WTC and did nothing to prevent it because he understood that this attack would be the best thing for him to happen: he mysteriously was transformed from a dumbhead who stole election into a most popular president.
Now news has surfaced that there was plenty quite specific information to
act upon. Bush claims it did not come to him. I doubt.
Rare case of a politician telling the truth
On May 19, 2002, I have heard Cheney saying 2 things:
1) the next terrorist attack on US is almost certain;
2) US is now no more secure than on September 12, 2001.
Wow, did not they tell us that the Afghanistan invasion was necessary to make US secure? If they have not even moved towards this goal, then how can they justify many thousands of innocent civilians killed there?
What is interesting, none in the yellow media asks these questions.
Church of sexual perverts
I am talking about Catholic Church. Let us face it: it is a business trying to make as much profit as possible. The prohibition to marry does not come from the Bible; its purpose is quite obvious: whatever a priest acquires during his life should not go to his children but to the Church. This is why Vatican is the richest religious organization in the world.
Ask yourself what kind of people would agree to become a Catholic priest. First, the hypocrites, who wow celibacy, but in fact continue sexual relationships with women; second, those who do not need women: homosexuals, pedophiles, bestialists, etc.; third, people who are indifferent to sex: they just do not need it.
When a regular man is never seen with a woman, it creates suspicion and unpleasant rumors about him, but if he is a Catholic priest, he is respected for that, so this "profession" provides an excellent cover for all these people. If a regular person wants to devote himself to God, but also wants to have a regular life, he would go to one of so many other denominations which serve the same God.
There is a great Russian proverb saying that a fish usually rots from the head. Look at the Pope. He expressed his condolences to the cardinals and bishops, he never apologized to the victims, he does not think that the priests molesting children should be reported to the police, he disapproves monetary payments to the victims. If you watched ABC 20/20, one of Pope's best friends is an accused pedophile. Tell me, who is your friend ...
Every normal person is full of outrage, the Pope just feels sorrow, that the
whole thing became known. This is a behavior of a pervert.
What the opposition does NOT talk about
On May 18, 2002, I saw Clark on TV making a speech about corrupt Liberal government, which continues to pump millions to its cronies, including Group Action. He was saying all the right words, but his speech was remarkable not by what he was saying but rather by what he was NOT saying. Here is what he failed to say:
1. Government spending should not only be proper, it should also LOOK as being proper. There is no doubt, that giving a contract to a company which contributed even $1 to the governing party does not LOOK proper. Clark should have demanded that any company which gave any contribution to the governing party should be disqualified from obtaining government contract. He failed.
2. In many civilized countries, government is forbidden to own newspapers, radio and TV stations. The reason is very simple: the government should not be allowed to brainwash the population. If the government did something good, the so-called independent media will tell us about it, and if the government did something bad, the so-called independent media is supposed to tell us about it too. When the government spends YOUR hard-earned money to promote itself, not only it is a waste of money the government in this case actually breaks the law and tries to brainwash the population. Clark should have demanded that every government be forbidden to spend a penny on advertisement. He failed.
Clark did not forget to say it, he did not want to. He hopes that one day his party will form the government and be able to loot the country as Liberals do now or as Mulroney did in his time.
Interesting enough, nobody in the media raises these questions either.
Does the white race need protection?
Several months ago, a provincial politician made a speech, where he complained that his white race is being eroded and that it needs protection, without which it might disappear from this planet. This politically incorrect speech raised hell, so poor politician apologized with tears in his voice. Let us look at this issue from the historical perspective.
There exists a theory saying that all whites were originally black, they came from Africa and whitened up due to lack of sunshine. I am not going into this theory; I shall look at it from what we know for sure. About 4000 years ago, Egypt was a country with a very high culture as compared to other peoples. They were not white, and if white tribes existed at that time, Egyptians surely would not want to mix with Vandals. Later on, we see high culture of ancient Greece with the Titans like Pythagoras and Archimedes, while everybody else was so much below. Then the center of human culture shifted to Arabs.
Since 15-th century, Italian greats lead the way, but not for long, and from
17-th century, English, French, German and later Soviet scientists created the
foundations of contemporary science and technology. One can observe now a
steady increase in scientific output of Chinese and Japanese scientists, so I
would not be surprised, if 200 years from now, some Chinese politician would
start worrying about erosion of superior yellow race. Did I make myself
Is not this what I was writing way back in 2001?
I quote below an article, which I have found recently in Globe and Mail:
WHO'S THE UNLAWFUL COMBATANT?
How come, with all the coverage of the U.S. "war" in Afghanistan, neither journalists nor opposition politicians are asking the tough questions? It is perhaps because President George W. Bush has whipped Americans, including the news media and Congress, into a patriotic fervor so that to question his judgment and motives is almost treason making him a better politician than most had thought?
Anyway, now that things are cooling down, there is a new issue demanding tough questioning: the transfer of prisoners from Afghanistan to an American base in Cuba. Civil-rights groups are concerned about the captives' treatment, but that's not the question that should be put to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at what seems to be his daily news conference.
It might be really informative if some bold reporter asked: Mr. Secretary, you've just announced that more prisoners of war have been airlifted from Afghanistan to the U.S. base in Cuba. Oh, sorry, right, they're not prisoners, but detainees. Is that because the U.S. hasn't actually declared war by a resolution in Congress, as required by the Constitution?
No, so on what authority, please, is the U.S. arresting people in a foreign country and bringing them to a U.S. base half a world away? What are they charged with? After all, the U.S. does pride itself on being a nation of laws, and we presume people innocent until convicted or maybe we don't in this case.
I see, it's because they are, as you say, "unlawful combatants". How do you tell an unlawful combatant from a lawful combatant? No, no, I am not suggesting the U.S. forces in Afghanistan are unlawful combatants, although it is an interesting idea. The difference, you say, is that some were terrorists and some were not. I guess you mean terrorists who have committed offenses against the U.S. because, after all, if they were terrorizing their own people, or the French or the Brits or whoever, it wouldn't be anything to do with us, would it? And if they have broken U.S. laws, wouldn't the normal course be to ask the government of Afghanistan to extradite them, instead of seizing them? I mean, you do own a new government in Kabul, don't you?
Anyway, you say only some of the people you have flown to Cuba are members of al-Qaeda and others were "fighters" for Taliban. But wasn't the Taliban the government of Afghanistan for years before the U.S. decided to back the other side in the ongoing civil war? Are you saying that it was unlawful for them to fight when the U.S. attacked? Isn't that what armies are supposed to do?
Oh, I stand corrected. The U.S. didn't attack anyone; it was just defending
itself by bombing
every suspicious hut and cave in sight. So if you never intended to conquer Afghanistan, you can’t claim the right of conquest, can you?
It is not like Germany after the Second World War when the Allies occupied the country and put the previous rulers on trial for offenses against humanity. It's not even like the arrest and trial of Serbian leaders before the international court at The Hague. You're not invoking international law, are you? You're just insisting the U.S. can do what it thinks best in backward countries.
I guess, Mr. Rumsfeld, that we'll know a lot more about this when the trial begins. No? Oh, I get it: the trial will be in secret before military tribunals.
Thanks for clearing things up, Mr. Secretary.
You may ask, how could a Canadian journalist write truth for a change?
Very simple: the author A. Westell is a RETIRED journalist. Of course,
the Editor could not have published this without and apology. This is
what is written at the bottom of the article: "Anthony Westell, a retired
journalist, is an ADMIRER of the United States who thinks even great
democracies need to be checked from time to time". Of course, God forbid,
someone might suspect that Westell is not a U.S. admirer.
Canadian judges cover-up for incompetent doctors
I have already made one posting on this subject in the past. Lately I came across yet another startling case (Johnson v. Forcier 200-05-000055-876, Court of Appeal case 200-09-00627-924). This is what happened there. Johnson felt tingling in his fingers, so he went to see neurologists. He was referred to Forcier, who told him that he probably had a tumor in his spinal cord and a biopsy was needed to clarify the situation. Johnson agreed. Forcier operated on him in 1982, and Johnson woke up after the operation a quadriplegic. In addition, Forcier told Johnson's wife after operation, that Johnson had an inoperable tumor and that he had 6 months to live.
Ignorant Dr. Forcier was wrong in every aspect: Johnson had no tumor, he is still alive and decided to sue for damages. Can you imagine the psychological trauma to hear a death sentence? Even for this he would have received millions in US, not here. Imagine, Johnson was made a quadriplegic and was told that he would die within 6 months, and Canadian judge Laflamme decided that Johnson is not entitled to any compensation, because there was no causal connection between his suffering and the actions of doctor Forcier. I could not believe my eyes when I read it, but this is so. Forcier just made an honest mistake in his diagnosis.
More than that: Johnson went to the Court of Appeal, and judges Pidgeon, Dusseault and Letarte decided that Laflamme judgment was correct. Now you understand, why Americans do not allow judges to make decisions in civil cases: it is the jury of peers who decide there. Can you imagine a regular person deciding that a medical doctor making his patient quadriplegic and telling him falsely that he had 6 months to live is not liable?
Is not it about time to change Canadian judicial system?
The worst fears of various professions
Medical profession is considered to be the most noble. Indeed, they are supposed to save our lives. What is their worst nightmare? Everybody is healthy. It might sound shocking, but this is the unpleasant truth. Of course, like in any profession, there are noble and decent people among medical doctors, but let us face it: their primary preoccupation is not to make us healthy, their first preoccupation is to make on each patient as much money as possible, and this leads to unnecessary tests, medications and other procedures for which they get commissions.
Every 6 minutes, a human being is being killed in US due to the so-called medical errors. They are not really errors: they take place, because doctors just do not give a damn, whether we live or die, the errors are totally preventable, doctors have enough knowledge not to commit them. In addition to murdering patients, there are thousands of cases reported each year of amputations of wrong limbs, surgeries on wrong side of the body, on wrong patient, etc. The reason, once again, they do not give a damn about us.
What is the worst nightmare of every pharmaceutical company? The same thing: everybody is healthy. Have you noticed, how many medications are out there to relieve your symptoms and how few are there to cure you? The reason is obvious. Pharmaceutical companies are there not to cure you, but again, to make on you as much money as possible. If they cure you, you pay them once and I that is it, but if they just relieve your symptoms, you are a lifelong client, and this is exactly what they want: to milk you for money all your life.
What is the worst nightmare of our finest (fire fighters)? There are no more fires. They would not mind to have less fires as long as it does not threaten their employment, because this way they would have spent more time cooking and playing cards at their stations. Remember how during fire fighters strike in Montreal the number of suspicious fires had increased dramatically? Guess who lighted these fires?
What is the worst nightmare of judges, prosecutors, police and
jailers? You guessed it right: their worst nightmare – there is no more
crime. Remember police in the West calling press conferences and
protesting bikers expansion to the West? It was nothing but a public
relations spectacle. They were very glad that organized crime was
coming. Not only it guaranteed their employment, but also a dramatic
increase in funding and new hiring. Our bravest have never had any
problem with organized crime. All the policemen killed on duty are either
traffic cops or those investigating break-ins in progress. All these
things are done by little criminals. None was killed by organized
crime. It is not a coincidence that judges, policemen, Mafia and any
other well organized crime call each other "brothers".
If it looks like a duck
Back in September of last year, I was writing that I would not be surprised if at certain point in time it would be revealed that FBI and Bush knew about 9/11 attack and did nothing to prevent it. I was called a raving lunatic. The latest events proved just how right I was.
Now all the spin doctors are coming to radio, TV and newspaper and lying to us that it was just an unfortunate break in communications, FBI hands were tied up by the inadequate legislation, they did not have enough manpower, not enough money, antiquated equipment, etc. Let us examine some of the revelations.
Agents in Minnesota claim that the bosses in the headquarters did not allow them to search Moussaoui's apartment due their tremendous respect for civil liberties. Why on earth did they need to ask headquarters about it? If they had enough to suspect Moussaoui in terrorist activity, all they had to do was to go to a justice of peace and to ask him for a search warrant. If a judge gives such a warrant, civil liberties are respected and no permission from the headquarters is needed.
The Phoenix memo. We have never heard the name of the boss, who received it and why he did not react. If he sincerely did not understand its importance, he should be replaced by someone who does. Recently we learned about one more thing: two of the hijackers were followed by CIA for many months prior to 9/11. CIA just had no idea that it had to communicate this to FBI. Do you believe this lame excuse? One senator said on CNN that she knew all this long ago and that there is more than that. Should not American people have known about all this at the same time the senator was informed?
In science, there is a notion that if a certain theory explains all the observed events, it is usually a right theory. Presume that CIA, FBI and Bush knew very well about impending attack and did not want to prevent it. Bush knew that such an attack will make him very popular, which it did. CIA and FBI knew that such an attack will bring them many BILLIONS in additional funding (FBI is hiring 900 new agents). Presuming that all this is true, does it explain why the headquarters did not want Moussaoui apartment to be searched? Does it explain why Phoenix memo was ignored? Does it explain why CIA had no idea that it should communicate with FBI?
If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, most
probably, it is a duck!
Why did Karen Hughes decide to resign?
Whenever a politician resigns citing family reasons, everyone understands that the real reason is somewhere else. The only exception is Bush's most trusted advisor Hughes. When she said that her son is missing Houston and this is why she decided to resign, every reporter said that this indeed was the real reason.
Let us see, if this is so. She was the woman who bent the law in Florida (she was there Secretary of State). She was there not just a couple of days, and her son tolerated Florida and did not miss Houston. The woman has little if any education: she was a TV reporter in Houston when she started working for Bush, helping him to become governor. Then she went to Florida working for his brother. Bush was so grateful for her delivering him the presidency, that he created for her an advisory position and she moved to Washington. The fact that he made the position for her comes from Bush's announcement that she will not be replaced.
She has a dream position, staff, a lot of money and practically no
responsibilities. Who in his right mind would resign such a
position? Her son did not miss Houston while in Florida. Why would
he miss Houston now? Bush has so browbeaten the reporters that none dares
to express any doubt in his truthfulness. I am sure that one day we will
learn the real reasons why she resigned. Here is my thought: she was
caught in Monica position while Bush was eating pizza. Any other idea?
Idiots in the Council on the Status of Women
It was reported that they have published a study about prostitution. They were to answer in this study the question whether prostitution is exploitation of women or it is a profession by choice. The study is finished, but the question remained unanswered: they need more studies. Excuse me, prostitution exists for many thousands of years, and if you still do not know what it is, couple of additional years of studies are very unlikely to enlighten you.
The answer seems to me very clear. The women, who are sold as sex slaves, who are beaten up and forced to have sex are being exploited; on the other end, women, who make a lot of money and are having high life style, are not exploited but have prostitution as a profession of choice. Such women existed way back in ancient Greece, they were called courtesans and were called courtesans and were highly respected.
Government may and should intervene, whenever a woman (or a man) is being forced to do something against her will, but government has no business to tell a grown woman what she can or can not do with her body.
When chosen voluntarily, prostitution should be considered a profession as
any other and at least more respectable than that of a politician, because a
woman sells her body, while a politician sells his soul.
This is a very colorful Russian word which does not seem to have an exact equivalent in English. It means literally "prostitution of words". This word comes to my mind whenever I hear a politician talking. All of them are engaged in it, but the top "master" of "slovobludie" is Goodale. I was listening to him talking after a meeting with provincial ministers of agriculture of the Western Provinces. Here is what he said.
"We had a very productive meeting. There was a constructive exchange of information. We know where we are going and we know how to get from here to there. If it is necessary, we shall build a bridge from here to there. The problem in question consists of short-term issues and long-term issues. The short-term issues need to be addressed here and now, The long-term issues can wait for a while, but we are determined to resolve them as soon as possible and to the best of our abilities. Canadians demand honest government, Canadians demand responsible government, Canadians demand effective government, and we are prepared to deliver. Our people deserves the best............ BlaBlaBla ....”
It was astounding: he was talking on and on, without mentioning once anything specific to the meeting or to agriculture. Take the speech above, and it would fit perfectly to any occasion. You do not need to change a word.
There was not a single reporter to tell him: "Hey, stop this
crap! Let us talk business!"
Idiots in American Congress
If you watched Rowley testifying in front of the Congress Committee, two things were noticeable. One, there was not a single question or answer, which would be of any interest. Two, there was an obvious attempt to play the "computer card": whenever a government body is in shit, it is always the outdated computers which are responsible, (remember when INS has sent the visa extensions to 2 dead hijackers, outdated computers were blamed). Senator Shumer mentioned that FBI computers are not capable to search two terms simultaneously, and he gave an example, that FBI agents could search for the word "aviation" or the word "school", but not "aviation school".
I have great difficulty believing that Senator is that stupid, but if he is I have a surprise for him: a computer searches for a string of characters, a space is also a "character" for a computer, so it does not matter whether it searches for one word or several words. Shumer also said that his daughter had a better computer than FBI. Nonsense again. They certainly have several mainframes - supercomputers in addition to numerous specialized workstations.
Yet another nonsense: FBI computers are so bad, that agents have difficulty communicating with each other by E-mail. I had no problem to communicate by E-mail 20 years ago, so even presuming that their computers are 20 years old, they should have no communication problem. Archambault is the lousiest jail I have seen so far, nevertheless, guards office has not one, but 2 computers, which are not more than 2 years old.
Each case management officer has a computer in his office plus a laser printer, none is more, than, 2 years old. Prison school, is supplied by computers which jailers no longer use, and they are not more than 4 years old. Even jail school computers, which have one-tenth of contemporary speed and one-tenth of contemporary memory, still are capable of doing anything you might need.
Do you still believe in that lame excuse of outdated computers?
How yellow media misinforms you
I have read in the newspaper that a judge has awarded $2000 to a convicted murderer (Bourke), because jailers have breached his privacy rights. According to the newspaper, jailers have provided Inmate Committee with a computer and "forgot" to erase its hard drive, which contained private information on all 300 prisoners of Kingston jail. As far as Bourke is concerned, computer hard drive contained "some false information" which “might jeopardize his security". One might think: wow, Canadian Judges are standing guard on prisoners rights!
Now I shall tell you what really happened. First, in my 10 years in jail, I have not seen a single case of jailers giving Inmate Committee one of their computers - inmates have to buy it from a store. Second, I assure you that none of jail computers has any information on its hard drive about prisoners. Jailers have all private information on a central mainframe, to which they have access according to their clearance. So, if jailers gave a computer to Inmate Committee and its hard drive contained personal information on ALL prisoners, it means that they deliberately copied this information on hard drive (and it was done by a high-ranking jailer), rather than "forgetting" to erase it.
Now about "false information", capable to jeopardize security. Usually it is a claim that a prisoner is an informant, a rapist or pedophile. In jail like Kingston, such people are as good as dead. I can also assure you that such a misinformation can not appear just by "mistake”. Jailers wanted Bourke dead (probably, not just Bourke), and this is why they decided to give a computer to Inmate Committee.
Jailers did similar tricks with me, without success so far.