Idiots in different fields

I have read recently several jokes entitled "Idiots at home", "Idiots in business" etc.  These
jokes are very funny, because they describe the truth as it is.  I have recently heard in the
media several things, which deserve to be placed in this category.


One man has been convicted of criminal offense - polygamy and faces 25 years in jail.  He has 5 wives and 29 children.  All seem to be happy and content.  If this is a crime, who is the victim?

Take an example.  A man has sex with a woman, makes a child and disappears.  Then he has a sexual relation with another woman, never marries her, makes one or more children and disappears.  Make this 5 times.  This man, according to the law, is not a criminal, but the man, who takes care of 5 wives and 29 children, is.  Am I missing something?

Take another example.  If one man marries 5 more men, is this polygamy?  If yes, which man is to be prosecuted?


I have watched on TV a cardiologist, who bragged of successfully applying certain medication in the case, where the patient did not have any symptoms of heart disease.  I am wondering, how does he define the word "successfully"?  If the patient did not have any symptoms of heart disease prior to the usage of the medication, and still did not have any symptoms several
years down the road - this means only one thing: the medication did not harm his heart.  There is no way to know, what would have happened to the same man, if he did not take the medication.

Every new medication is supposed to pass the so-called double-blind study.  The group of patients is split in two.  One part gets the medication, the other gets nothing-placebo.  Nobody knows, who gets what.  At the end of the study the results in each group are compared.  It is a well known placebo effect that at least 5% of patients is getting better in the placebo group.
Suppose that 20% of patients get better in the control group.  Medical researchers then declare that their medication is four times more effective than placebo and get their medication approved for sale.  They "forgot" for a second that four out of five patients did NOT get better.  This is why Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lie: regular lie, big lie and statistics.

I have a suggestion: if a medication requires a double-blind study to show that it works - it should never be approved, because this means right away that it does not.  If a medication really works - it should be clear right away.

Have you noticed how many are there medications which relieve symptoms, but not cure? The reason is very simple.  Medical research is not done to cure you, but to make money off you.  Now, if they cure you, you do not need them any more, but if they relieve your symptoms, you are their client for life.
Police has license to kill, part 2

This is what was written in the newspaper:

"Kasim Ciplak, 37, who suffered from schizophrenia, died Friday afternoon after two police officers and a male nurse tried to overpower him.  Police spokesman Bidniak said Kasim was increasingly aggressive with staff members at the mental health board's community living program, which he attended three times a week."

"When police arrived to bring him to Alberta Hospital, he flew into ' a violent rage,' Bidniak said."

"Pepper spray did not stop him, so the officers and nurse wrestled him to the floor and handcuffed him. They realized he had stopped breathing and tried cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but he was pronounced dead at the hospital."

There are two options here: one - victim had reaction to the pepper spray so strong, that it killed him; second - police killed him.  The phrase "pepper spray did not stop him" excludes the option number one.  Pay attention to the phrase "They realized he had stopped breathing" – excuse me – human being, 37 years old, does not just stop breathing.  Police stopped his breathing.  As brainless as these people are, they know very well, how to kill a human being with their bare hands.

I was almost killed in Donnacona.  I was not pepper sprayed, I was not punched, kicked or beaten up.  This is how it was done.  Guard Amyot has placed me, handcuffed and shackled, in front of and iron-clad chest-tall desk; then he stepped behind me, grabbed something in front and pulled thus using his body to press mine against the iron-clad edge.  All of a sudden, I just could no longer breathe, my chest cracked, and if Amyot continued this pressure for another 2 or 3 minutes, I would be dead.

All this happened in front of a camera, which was supposed to film it. I heard someone told Amyot to stop, and he did, otherwise I would be dead by now, and newspapers would have written, that guards realized that I stopped breathing, and my death would be called accidental. When I requested to see the film shot by the camera, Jailers refused.  I filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, who decided that I can not see the film, because this "would jeopardize the jail security".  One crook is covering up for another crook.

In this particular case, there are two ways, how police killed the victim.  One: policeman grabbed him by the neck in a choke-hold, thus stopping the blood circulation to the brain. Two: three people wrestled victim to the floor and pressed on him with their combined weight, thus preventing him from breathing.  They knew damn well, what they were doing.

Police and jailers have the license to kill.
How jailers create riots in jails, part three

I have already described several cases where jailers created riots in jails.  The worst case was Headingley jail.  This is what I have read in a newspaper recently:

"More than 120 inmates at a central Alberta prison remain in lockdown following a 7-hour binge of torching and destruction.  The riot, which began Saturday night and extended into yesterday morning, comes just days after guards at the federal medium
security Drumheller Institution filed a complaint of unsafe working conditions against their employer."

"Roughly 18 inmates blamed for instigating riot remain in segregation.  The melee broke out around 6:15 p.m. Saturday, shortly after inmates were ordered back into their cells. Assistant warden Bob Lytle said heavily clad officers were brought in to quash the disturbance, which left a sophisticated control booth and several cells in ruins."

Pay attention, there is no description as to how or why the riot started, because there is not really any reason to riot.  There are 3 "sacred cows" for which guards might create a riot: sick leave, overtime and stealing of prisoners' food and other supplies.  Guards can call sick any day, no proof required, and they are paid 100%.  Guards come to work for 16 hours, and they get 8 hours overtime, while they do not work an hour extra, if you count the number of hours per week.

If a warden would try to clamp on any of these sacred cows, a riot will follow.  Of course these "reasons" are not the only ones: while in Donnacona, I witnessed guards staging New Year mini-riot, and the reason was as follows: they wanted to send a threat to the administration of what is to come, if they are prohibited from smoking in their offices.

As we read in the newspaper, guards have filed a complaint on "unsafe working conditions", which I think, was just a pretext for something else.  Now, how to prove that the conditions are unsafe?  To make a riot, and the riot they did.  Look at the phrases used "The melee broke out ..". Excuse me, no melee breaks out of nothing - some events should take place.
What were they?  Then we read "heavily clad officers were brought in to quash the disturbance".  The rioting lasted 7 hours - it does not take 7 hours to quash the disturbance. Clearly, heavily clad officers were standing by for 6.5 hours, letting rioters to do the destruction guards wanted, and then rioters got tired and surrendered.

Have no doubt: guards have total control of the jail population.  They do it via big muscular inmates, who get numerous perks in exchange.  No riot would take place, unless these big muscular guys order so.  In 1998, I was transferred against my will from Donnacona to Leclerc Jail. As soon as I started making complaints, hostile actions from some inmates commenced.  When all attempts to start a quarrel between me and these inmates did not succeed, President of the Inmates Committee started, out of blue, shouting at me that I should stop complaining, if I did not like it there, I should get out.  Then he ran to guards and told them to place me in segregation, because he "could not guarantee" my safety. Official jail document stated that he was crying.  Would you believe a Hell's Angel crying because of little Fabrikant, who he could kill by one movement of his hand?  It was a spectacle.

I was placed in segregation and transferred to Cowansville Jail.  The official reason: I was arrogant and disrespectful toward other inmates and they did not want me around.  Would you believe that little Fabrikant would behave in arrogant manner toward big and muscular guys, who can kill him without much effort?  Of course, I was not arrogant.  The real reason was the fact that I was exposing illegal activities of the guards.  Majority of population have great respect for me, and this is why I am still alive.

In Cowansville Jail, I continued writing complaints against guards, who in turn were trying by the same means to create a quarrel, again unsuccessfully.  Since Cowansville jail has no Hell's Angels, jailers placed me in segregation under a different pretext: this time I was endangering jail security.  I already described, that when I was brought to segregation in Cowansville jail, guards arranged the whole segregation population to shout insults at me, bang the doors, etc.  The main theme of insults: I am a "complainer".  My complaints are against guards, they are in no way affecting negatively general population.  On the contrary, majority of them are directed to improve their lives.

During the procedure of my involuntary transfer to Archambault jail, there was not a sound from anyone in segregation, jailers did it just to demonstrate to me the degree of control they exercise over the population: when they want the whole population shouts insults at me, and when jailers order the whole population goes numb.  It was quite impressive. I am telling all this for one reason: to show that jailers exercise such a control over the population, that any riot takes place only at the order of guards, and not otherwise.

There is only one way to stop riots in jails: fire all guards and hire new ones after each and every riot.  If this is done once, there would never be any riot in any jail.

Capital punishment

Someone was asking my opinion on capital punishment.  In order to develop an opinion on this subject, one has to ask himself several questions first.  Question number one: are there people, who deserve to be killed?  My answer to this question is yes: people, who kill for pleasure or for money, war criminals.  Examples: the guy, who raped and killed 5-year-old girl recently, Senator Kerrey.

Second question: can a government be trusted to apply capital punishment?  To this question I answer NO.  Can a jury of your peers be trusted in the same matter?  Regretfully, no. Government can and does manipulate the jury, especially in cases of great publicity.  Here are some examples.  Many years ago, a 14-year-old boy (Truscott) was sentenced to hanging for
alleged rape and murder of a girl.  Due to his age, his sentence was commuted to life in jail.

We now know, he was innocent, but he was convicted by the jury, which was supposed to decide his guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", which they failed.  In these high profile cases, police is under pressure to solve the crime, and they pick someone with criminal background or someone, who looks or behaves different, failing which the person who saw the victim
last becomes the accused.  After that, the jury is under a tremendous pressure to convict, because otherwise they would be seen as those, who allowed the "murderer" to walk.  God knows, how many innocent people were convicted of the most heinous crimes.

Recently, a man was liberated from jail in US, after serving 30 (thirty!) years for the murder, he did not commit, and FBI knew perfectly well that he was innocent, because the real murderer was FBI informant, who was their star witness against this innocent man.  The man was finally liberated, because after 30 years FBI files became declassified, and the truth surfaced.  Had there been capital punishment, the man would be dead.  Should not someone go to jail for placing this innocent man in jail?  So far, nobody was prosecuted.

It was finally discovered in Oklahoma, that its star forensic scientist Gilchrist had falsely testified in thousands of cases, 23 of them resulted in death penalty, of which 11 have already been executed.  If you think, that Gilchrist is an exception, think again.  In my case, there was a testimony of one specialist in ballistic.  He testified that he made test on the bullets and has proved that they came from my guns.  I asked him to show to the jury, what exactly he saw - he could not show any picture, jury should have trusted his opinion.  I asked him, how could he possibly determine anything on a bullet, which was completely
smashed, and he could not answer.  In my case, the whole thing was not important: I never denied the shooting.  I did the examination just to show the public, how flimsy many convictions are: this man testified in many cases, and I am afraid, he still does, and lousy lawyers are just too lazy to properly examine him.

 The last issue in capital punishment: does it serve as deterrent? In US they have 38 states with capital punishment and 12 without. Statistics show that there is no difference in number of murders committed in states with or without capital punishment. On the contrary, if I recall correctly, Texas is number one in murders AND in executions.

I am pretty sure, that polls showing that majority of population in US support capital punishment are based on a wrong question asked.  If a person understands a question in the sense whether there are people who deserve to be killed, the answer is yes; but if you ask people whether they trust government to execute people, majority would say no.

There is also an opinion, that death penalty can be used to force a criminal to plead guilty in exchange for life in jail.  It might be so in some cases, but there is a dangerous opposite: an innocent person scared into a confession to a crime he did not commit.  Even one such case makes 10 valid convictions not worth it.  Case in point: Ray has confessed to murdering Martin Luther King under threat of death penalty.  He claimed until his death that he was innocent, and King's family believes him.

Conclusion: though some people deserve to be killed, since the government can not be trusted to murder its own citizens, capital punishment should be abolished.  Even one innocent citizen, killed by government, is one too much, and if you think that this is not so, imagine that this one is YOU.

And justice for all - Canadian style

1. It was reported that Evan Brown, who smacked a cream pie into Chretien's face on August
16, 2000, was sentenced to 30 days in jail.  Newspaper editorials were greeting this judgment,
going as far as to say that Brown should be shot by Chretien's bodyguard.  As we know, some
time ago, Chretien has grabbed one of the protesters by the neck and tried to choke him.  Well,
grabbing of another human being by the neck and trying to choke him is at least as bad an
assault, as smacking his face with a pie.  Should not Chretien be found guilty of an assault
and spend 30 days in jail?

2. Former Senator Cogger got unconditional discharge from Quebec Court of Appeal, which
means that he no longer has a criminal record.  The reason: he acted "in good faith".  He,
lawyer, did not know that to take $212,000 from a businessman for securing him $45
MILLION worth government contract was a crime.  The businessman, who gave the money,
was found guilty and spent some time in jail.  Cogger, who received the money, did not
spend a day in jail, was fined $3,000, 1 year probation and 120 hours of community service.
Would you mind receiving $212,000 and pay a fine for that of $3,000?  Not a bad deal,
huh?  Have in mind, that $212,000 is just a tip of an iceberg: Cogger got millions in bribes.
Would you believe that judge Beauregard, who wrote the judgment, did not understand the
ridiculousness of the situation?

3. Several individuals in Calgary filed a lawsuit, alleging that provincial government had no
right to use taxpayer money to pay Day's $800,000 settlement.  A judge dismissed their
lawsuit under pretext that they had no personal interest in the lawsuit.  My little brain is not
capable to understand judge's logic.  The plaintiffs are taxpayers, they paid money to the
government; government failed to spend the money properly; do the people, whose money
were spent improperly, have interest in the matter?  I think, they do.  Do you?

4. The new law provides harsher sentences for crimes committed by organized crime.  I have a
suggestion: to introduce a law, providing harsher sentences for policemen, judges and
prosecutors, who commit crimes, while in the office.  These people are paid to protect law-
abiding citizens.  These people are protected by the law more than anyone else: any killing of
a policeman is automatically a first-degree murder, no matter, what happened.  Should not
society demand from these people more?  When and if they do a crime, they should be
punished more than ordinary citizens.

We all saw Ottawa policeman Martin Cardinal slamming a woman's face into the trunk of his car, cowardly looking around and slamming her again.  The woman in question did not even file a complaint, and this speaks volumes: she was sure that she would never get justice, and she was right.  She was lucky - someone had it filmed.  Ask yourself a question: how many
are there individuals abused by police, who never filed any complaint?

Government - the best organized crime

Let us compare a typical organized crime and government.  One of the activities of organized crime is racket.  A representative of organized crime comes to a businessman and tells him that he has to pay him, say, 10% of his profit, and his gang will provide protection to his business, which means that no other gang would be able to demand from him money and no
bombing or other damage would happen to him, and they usually keep their word.

Government's equivalent is the Revenue Service, which tells this individual, that he has to pay, say, 30% of his income, and they will provide a police protection for his business, so that no harm will happen to him, and usually they don't keep their word, because if a private organized crime wants to damage his business, governmental organized crime (police) can do
nothing about it.  It has been shown time and again, that governmental enterprise is much less effective than a private one.

Now let us compare the enforcement.  If a businessman refuses to pay to a private organized crime, he might be beaten, his business might be bombed, etc.  If a businessman refuses to pay to the governmental organized crime, he will be ruined too.  They would (usually) not beat him up, but this is because they do not have to: they can just seize his business and sell it,
which a private organized crime can not do.  Is there much difference so far?

One may argue that government collects money, but these money are spent to provide services (education, medical care, police protection, justice system) to its citizens.  Let us consider these one by one.  Education.  I have seen two systems of education: totalitarian Soviet, and "free society" Canadian.  When I compare my level of knowledge with what my children are
learning, it makes me sad, very sad.  Medical care.  When I got my first heart attack, I had to go to New York for all my treatment, the waiting time was too long.

Government always claims that it does not have enough money for education and medical care.  They always have enough money for police attacking its citizens, for the so-called public inquiries, which line pockets of their friends -lawyers, for lucrative government contracts to be given to their friends, for patronage appointments, etc., but they never have
enough money for what is really important.  Recently, Montreal School Board has slashed school library services by $1 M. Members of the Board claimed that they did their best.  I did not hear any of them saying to the government: "You have found $38 M on police oppression of citizens, and you can not find $1 M for library services?  Explain why?"

Justice system.  People with money almost always win.  Civil litigation.  Example: Peggy Ann Sheppard was McGill University director of admissions for 15 years.  She was fired in 1996, after she refused to admit athletes as well as children of prominent business people and politicians, since they were not sufficiently qualified.  She lost so far on the Court of Appeal level; 5 years of fight and counting.  Criminal justice.  I refer to my previous postings about lawyer Guttman, guilty as sin, and walked free, and Michel Dumont, innocent and convicted of rape.  Look also at the recent case of Senator Cogger (details in another posting of mine).

Welfare.  The amount of money government provide is insufficient for decent living, no payment to stay-home mothers (as Scandinavian countries do, for example), huge number of homeless, etc. I have read, that Mafia in countries, where it is strong (Italy, Colombia), also build houses for poor people, provide them with financial assistance and employment.  Of course, both Mafia and government are woefully inadequate in this field.

Now, look at the argument above and decide whether there is much difference between private organized crime and governmental organized crime.  Let us discuss political parties.  I shall show that all political parties are nothing, but another kind of organized crime.  What is a political party?  By definition, it is a group of people, united by certain ideology, and whose final purpose is to grab power in the country (or province) and start pillaging and looting as much as they can.

Of course, they say in public that their goal is to come to power for the purpose of "serving people".  This can be easily checked.  I suggest the following experiment: introduce a rule that no government grant or contract can be given to any company, which has contributed any money to the ruling party or was politically active in favor of the ruling party; no person belonging to ruling party can be appointed to be a Judge, commissioner, Senator, member of government Board, etc. In general, introduce a rule that any appearance of impropriety is impropriety – criminal offense. Let the opposition appoint the Head of RCMP, the Auditor General, Information Commissioner, etc.  Give the opposition right to call any minister, ask him any question and demand to see any document.  After all this is introduced, I assure you, no party would want to be in power – "serve people".

One may notice that there were many scandals in Mulroney administration, and not so in Chretien's, and conclude that Chretien's administration is less corrupt.  This is not so.  The scandals in Mulroney administration were not because he and his people were selling influence: it was because they were selling and not delivering.  If you get from a businessman, say, $200,000 and give him a government contract worth $45 M, nobody would know about it, but if you get the money and give no contract, the businessman will start shouting to the whole world, and this is what happened with Mulroney administration.  We would have never known about Showinigate, if Chretien would not be so stupid as to fire the President of the bank, who he pressured to give the loan.

Now let us talk about a party ideology.  We have, for example, a Liberal party, which claims to have an ideology, which is very different, and in many subjects opposite to that of Conservative. A member of certain party is supposed to share this ideology.  If this is so, then how can you explain the transition of Charest from being the leader of Conservative Party to the leader of provincial Liberals?  Did he change his ideology overnight?  I guess, he did.  In Russian, it is called political prostitution.  Charest is not an exception - all political leaders are the same: their purpose is to grab power in order to loot the country. If this is not a criminal organization, what is?

How jailers steal from prisoners - part 3

This time, jailers looted $1.5 MILLION.  This is how it was done.  Jailers approached the Treasury Board with a proposal to "increase the purchasing power of inmates by providing them with the equivalent value of $4 per pay period for personal
hygiene and health products." Treasury Board agreed and provided jailers with $1.5 MILLION.  The rest is obvious: jailers pocketed the money - prisoners did not see a penny.  The information comes from the Correctional Investigator's 1999-2000
Annual Report, page 9. If you think that Correctional Investigator called police, think again.

This is not the first time that jailers play the trick.  One official told me that jailers approached Treasury Board in 1992 with a proposal to increase inmates' pay. Treasury Board agreed and gave them money, which jailers pocketed.  By now, prisoners in Canadian jails have had no increase of pay for 15 years.  The maximum pay a prisoner can get in $6.90 per day of work.
What CBC did not tell you about Canadian jails, part 2

On April 4, 2001, CBC had a 3 hour broadcast entitled "Inside Canadian prisons".  I posted my comments on it back in April.  Latest Annual Report of Correctional Investigator gives some additional information, which CBC would never show to the public.  I quote from the 1999-2000 Report, page 38:

"An offender was admitted to a maximum-security institution after a suspension from conditional release.  He was placed in general population after staff conducted a check for incompatible inmates using the computerized Offender Management System (OMS).  This check revealed that none of his known incompatibles were at the institution."

"Within 90 minutes the inmate was assaulted and stabbed several times in his cell by a number of inmates, and soon after was assaulted again"

According to the Report, the inmate suffered about 30 stab wounds in his arm and back, a broken nose and a collapsed lung.  The report is remarkable not for what it says, but by what it does not say.  First, I give some detail as to what a maximum
security jail is.  Jail consists of several ranges of about 20 prisoners per range.  No inmate from another range can enter it, therefore, the guy was attacked by the inmates from his own range.  Next, the cells are permanently closed, except for 5-10 minutes every hour, so if he was assaulted twice, it must have been with one hour interval. Every hour, a guard passes through the range and looks in every cell.  How did he manage not to see the first time the inmate was assaulted?

In addition, there is another guard in the control booth, whose job is to watch the corridor of the range.  Numerous microphones are installed along the corridor, so the guard in the booth can hear every word said in the corridor.  No inmate can enter a cell which is not his.  The guard could not possibly not notice that several inmates entered the cell, which was not theirs.  The stabbed guy was definitely shouting. The guard at control could not possibly not hear this.

Jailers are obliged to ask any new inmate whether he has any enemy in the jail and whether it is appropriate to place him in general population.  The Correctional Investigator's Report does not mention whether the guy was asked the question and
what was his response.  A collective assault takes place mainly on rapists or informants, whose cover has been blown.  I do not think the man was a rapist, because no rapist can be placed in general population.  Had he been an informant with blown cover, jailers should not have placed him in general population either. The fact that he was assaulted by several inmates means that it was not the case of a personal enemy.

So, what is the most probable reason for this assault?  Usually, inmates have no idea, who is the new guy in the range.  The fact that the assault took place within 90 minutes from his arrival, means that guards have informed inmates that the guy was
either rapist or informant (or both).  Most probably, the guy was neither.

Now, why would the guards do that?  Here is one scenario.  The guy was on parole. Police wanted him to become their informant.  The guy refused.  They threatened him that if he did not cooperate, they would place him in jail and tell the inmates
that he was an informant, and he would get killed.  The guy still refused, so police did what they threatened to do.  The fact that he was stabbed 30 times, but not fatally, supports this scenario: guards instructed the assailants not to kill him. Police wanted him very scared, but not dead, and assailants were happy to oblige.

If you watched "Practice" on ABC May 13, 2001, this is what they do all the time.

While I was in Donnacona, guards on several occasions tried to present me as an informant or as a rapist.  For example, to present me as a rapist, they used a lie printed in L'Actualite, made copies of relevant paragraphs and placed them into numerous mail-boxes of other inmates.  I was lucky, the guys did not believe it, but they showed to me what was in their mail-boxes.
What CBC did not tell you about Canadian jails, part 3

Here is a description of the incident from the Correctional Investigator's 1999-2000 Annual Report, page 51:

"The videotape clearly showed an inmate who was looked in a cell being beaten on
the hands with a baton.  This same inmate, later, during the course of being moved
to another cell, was gassed.  He was then left naked, wet and chained, in an
apparently semi-conscious state, on a slab of cement".

The second incident:

"The videotape showed two inmates being moved to segregation, strip-searched
and left naked, chained to a bed in a cell without a mattress.  At one point, an
officer appears to have punched one of the inmates, then turns to the camera
operator and says: "turn it off", and the taping stops."

I can tell you, what happened after the tape was turned off: the guy(s) was(were) beaten into pulp.  How do you think the Correctional Investigator reacts to all this? Is he outraged that human beings were beaten, tortured and treated in a degrading
manner?  None of the above.  Correctional Investigator reproached to jailers only that instead of sending him the tape within 15 days from the incident, they delayed it for 4 months.  Does he call police to investigate?  No, he wants Correctional Service
to investigate itself, though he knows perfectly well that jailers are criminals, who are placed on the wrong side of the prison bars.

The incidents took place at the beginning of 1999.  One and a half year later (the date of writing the Report), the Correctional Investigator still has not managed to convince jailers to conduct an investigation, though he knows, that he can investigate himself; he has the right to demand any document, to summon anyone and to examine him under oath.

At the beginning of his Report, the Correctional Investigator calls himself an Ombudsman for federal offenders, and I quote: "The notion of righting the wrong is central to the Ombudsman concept".  Do you think, he righted the wrong in these cases?
Idiots in justice system

One judge was quoted to say that he was giving lenient sentences for possession of marijuana, because marijuana produces little harm to the health.  I do not get his logic: is not a person, who harms himself a lot, already punished more than enough?
This country claims to respect freedom of its citizens.  Should not this freedom include freedom to harm himself, without fear to be prosecuted by government?  If you sniff glue, you harm yourself, but this is not a crime; if you sniff cocaine - this is
a crime.  WHY?

Idiots in Sierra club

E. May, a member of Sierra club, has declared a hunger strike, protesting government refusal to relocated residents of contaminated region in Sidney, N.S. Seventeen days later, she ended the strike, and I have heard her speech.  She said that
she was extremely grateful to the Health Minister Rock, who "worked hard" all these 17 days for the relocation.  She also thanked Minister of Environment, and called them noble, honest and decent people.  Have in mind, nobody is relocated yet.

Now, how much "work" is really involved in providing relocation?  One does not need 17 days, one does not need even 1 day or one hour - 5 minutes is enough: provide people with sufficient amount of money, and the problem of relocation is solved.
Government always has enough money for their friends, like Romanow ($15 MILLION), for police to beat up people, for plastic bullets, etc.  It always does NOT have money for medical care, for education and housing.  If this kind of people E.
May calls noble, honest and decent, how would she call a government, in which she would not have to go on a hunger strike at all?
On "democratically elected government", part 2

When I came to this country in 1979, I noticed graffiti on St-Laurent, which said: "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal." At that time, I did not really understand what it meant.  I understood the great wisdom of it only many years later.

Let us look at the pattern of voting in Canada.  Trudeau and his Liberals were in power for many years.  It was Trudeau, who started budget deficit, ran double-digit inflation.  Population had enough of him.  Prior to leaving, as any thief, he made
hundreds of appointments for his friends as judges, senators, board members, etc.  He should have been prosecuted as criminal, but strangely enough, he remained hero.  If you defraud welfare for, say $10,000, you would be prosecuted as a criminal; if you steal millions as Prime-Minister, you are still a hero.

Liberals were wiped out.  Another crook - Mulroney came to power.  He stole his millions, and was finally wiped out.  Now, who came to power?  The previous crooks - Liberals.  I am wondering, how stupid the population of this country is?  They do
not vote FOR someone, they vote AGAINST: they wanted Conservatives out, so they voted Liberals, knowing full well, that Liberals demonstrated to be as crooked as Conservatives.

So, here is the wisdom of the graffiti: population is dumb, they can be tricked into voting for one crooked party or another, and this pattern will never end.  And if one day the population will become smart to say: "Enough, we are not voting for crooks
any more!", the voting would be declared illegal.  I do not think this day would ever come, so the voting is not in danger.  The same goes for the so-called freedom of speech: I can say that the Prime-Minister is a crook for one reason: Prime-Minister is
smart enough to understand that my words pose no danger to him.  Had my words created a real problem, the freedom of speech would disappear.

It is time for population to understand that every political party, by definition, is a criminal organization, whose purpose is to grab the power and to steal as much public money, as they can.  The only way out of this is NOT to vote for anyone belonging to a political party - to get professional politicians out of politics.  Only independent people should represent the population in the Parliament, people who would not be bound by party discipline, and who would vote according to interests of their
constituency, and not according to orders of the party chief.  No member of Parliament should be allowed to serve more than 2 terms: power corrupts, and politics should not be a life-long profession.

Prime-Minister should be elected by a direct vote of population.  Again, a smart population would not want a member of a political party to be a Prime-Minister, – preference should be given to independent candidates.  In the TV show "West Wing",
US President is a Nobel Laureate in Economics.  This is a good idea: to have a Prime-Minister a highly qualified specialist in Economics.  The Parliament should exercise constant control over the government, no MP should be also in the government. If an MP accepts a government appointment, he should resign his seat.

 The Prime-Minister should not be able to appoint his friends as Ministers. He can nominate a person, and he should prove to the Parliament that this person is the best one for the job. The Parliament should have the final say to approve each appointment.  This way, we would never have lawyer Rock as Minister of Health.  Chief of RCMP should be appointed by and report directly to the Parliament: it is totally stupid to presume that a police chief, appointed by Prime-Minister, would have the guts to investigate the criminal activity of his boss.

The budget approval is now a mere formality, since the Prime-Mister has a majority in the Parliament, and everyone is bound by party discipline to vote for the government. This mockery of democracy should stop. The Parliament should provide
an effective control of spendings. In the situation, where a government has $38 M to spend on police, gassing people and shooting people with plastic bullets, and do not have $1 M for school libraries, the Parliament should start impeachment proceedings against the Prime Minister or to have him resign voluntarily.

Canada is a rich country; it is certainly capable to provide every homeless with a decent housing, every child - first class education, every sick person - speedy and effective medical care.  What is needed - to stop the political party in power robbing country blind.

Do members of Parliament deserve salary increase?

The taxable equivalent of MP salary is now $109,000.  The senators get the equivalent of $89,000.  Do they deserve more? I think, the right question here is: do they deserve their present salary?  One MP bragged that she worked 80-90 hours per week.  Let us do some arithmetics.  If she works 7 days a week, it comes to 11-13 hour per day, and for a 5-days
week it comes to 16-18 hours per day.  The whole day is still 24 hours.  How stupid do they think public is?  We all remember one Thursday, when majority of MP went on a very long week-end, don't we?  So, the lady in question worked 3 days a week, which gives us 80/3 = 26 2/3 hours or 90/3 = 30 hours, and the whole day is still 24 hours.

Now about senators.  They do not work a single day, because they really have nothing to do. Some of them do not even live in Ottawa.  Remember senator Thompson, who did not even live in Canada, but collected full salary for many years.  Do these unelected personal friends of various crooked Prime-Ministers deserve to be paid at all?  Our children are going to schools, which can not afford librarians, because of lack of $1 M, and here we are spending hundreds of millions on parasites, who do not do any job.  I am just wondering, how long this abomination would last.

Prime Minister is paid about $180,000, while Chief Justice gets $260,000.  We are told that Prime Minister should get at least as much as Chief Justice.  I agree: let us reduce Chief Justice's salary to $180,000.  Of course, it would be extremely tough on her and her family. Just put yourself in her shoes: can you survive on meager $180,000?

Chretien used argument that he gets paid less than some Union leaders, and I agree: these fat cats should be given reasonable allowance, much less than what Prime-Minister gets, especially taken into consideration that some of them are in bed with administration.  Yet another argument: Prime-Minister is paid much less than a hockey player.  There is one difference here: Prime-Minister is paid from your taxes, while hockey player is paid by his team owner.

The pay increase will cost about $10 MILLION.  If the government has the money to spare, would not it be better to spend this money on increase of the welfare paid to needy families? They need it much more than the fat cats.

In the country, where schools in many places are paralyzed by strikes, libraries closed, emergency rooms in hospitals are chronically overcrowded and people are dying because waiting lists for life-saving operations are too long, in such a country to talk about spending money on fat cats, who are already paid so much, that majority of Canadians would never attain even their present salary, is an abomination.

Idiots in public inquiries

Two teenagers were killed at John Deer plant in Ontario, during the "Bring children to work" event.  They sat in an all-terrain vehicle and driven it into a truck.  The vehicle had a warning inscribed on it, saying that nobody under the age of 16 should be allowed to operate it.  The children were 14.  Everything is clear?  Not to Ontario officials.  This nation is sick: they called Grand jury and Coroner to conduct a public inquiry.

The inquiry was really fast - just 4 days (usually it takes several years).  What do you think the jury decided in its wisdom?  First, that it was an accident – wow!  How many people might have thought that the parents conspired together to kill their children?  Second, the jury recommended that these "Bring children to work" events be continued, but that the children be under constant supervision of grown-ups.  Third, that the 14-year-olds not be allowed to operate vehicles where a warning reads that nobody under 16 should operate it – is not it remarkable in its wisdom?

Let us estimate, how much money were wasted on this idiotism.  Every witness in these kind of proceedings is represented by a lawyer, who charges at least $200 per hour.  Presuming that there were 10 witnesses and that the jury worked 6 hours per day, $48,000 were wasted just for the lawyers.  Look at the conclusions - don't you think you could make all these
recommendations within 5 minutes, rather than 4 days and for one-hundredth of the price?

If you think that the people who initiated the inquiry are that stupid think again: they just understood that they can make a lot of money from this tragedy.
Latest news

Jailers finally decided to let me know, how they are displeased with my postings: a prisoner came to my cell and beat me up.  He made it quite clear that if I do not shut up, he will kill me.  I shall not shut up.

If I die, I shall die for a good cause: expose criminal jailers.  I do not know a good English poetry on the subject, but there is a very good Russian.  The author is Maxim Gorky, and the piece is called Pesnia o Sokole. It goes like this:

0 smelyi sokol!  V bor'be s vragami istek ty krov'u, no budet vremia, kapli krovi tvoei goriachei kak iskry vspykhnut vo mrake nochi i mnogo smelykh serdets zaigut besumnoi jaidoi svobody, sveta.

0 khrabryi sokol!  Puskai ty umer, no v pesne smelykh i sil'nykh dukhom vsegda ty budesh' jivym primerom, prizyvom gordym k svobode, k schast'u!

Chretien - criminal, part 2

Alliance Party declared that the bill of sale might be fraudulent because the date might be altered.  They pretend not to understand that regardless whether the date has been altered, the document is fraudulent on its face.  Indeed, where have you seen a document where payment is not due at certain time, but "on request", and several years have passed, and no "request" to pay was ever produced.

There is yet another subject, which I raised earlier, namely, each year every company pays dividends to the shareholders.  So, the only thing to verify is: who cashed the cheques issued by the Grand Mere golf course.  To the best of my knowledge, the opposition has never asked these questions, namely,

1. Why Chretien has never demanded in writing payment due to him?
2. Who cashed the dividends issued by the golf course every year?

Sometimes I think, opposition is not interested to really nail Chretien.
Death penalty, part 2

One individual asked me to post my opinion on the death penalty.  My response in short was that there are people, who deserve to be killed, but government can not be trusted in killing of its citizens.  A beautiful illustration to this statement came in the recent news.  A man in Ontario was convicted of killing a taxi cab driver thirty years ago.  He spent several years in
jail, then was retried and acquitted.  His life was ruined, because everybody thought that he got away with murder.

He was convicted solely on testimony of revengeful former girlfriend.  Recently, students have discovered in the police files a note, stating that 2 witnesses of the murder saw 3 people running from the cab.  The criminal policeman was stupid enough to write a note stating that if this evidence was presented to the jury, the man would be acquitted.  The man was lucky: he
got a good lawyer, but imagine an alternative: he got a bad lawyer, and there exists death penalty.  He would be dead by now.

When my initial posting appeared, the individual, who requested it (his E-mail was verified and proven to be a fake) posted a statement to the effect that he expected me to be against death penalty, because, according to him, I would get it.  For his information, the death penalty is reserved not for any killing, but only to those with aggravating circumstances.  No jury would ever give death penalty to an abused person, who killed his abusers.  Even if this were not the case, introduction of death
penalty in Canada would have no effect on me, no law is retroactive (except the pay to the members of Parliament).  So, I have no personal interest in the subject.

About freedom of speech

In response to my posting on MP salaries, one man (E-mail address - fake) responded that he would be prepared to approve high MP salaries, if they adopt the law forbidding Fabrikant to post anything on the Internet.  The man has a good sense of humour.  The sad part, he did not mean this as a joke, he was serious.  Well, let us take this seriously.  I challenge everyone, who thinks the same way, to write to your MP and demand that they adopt a law forbidding Fabrikant to post on the Internet.

What upsets me the most in this hypocritical country, that it has the best laws possible, and nobody respects those laws.  Canada, as many other countries, proudly declares freedom of speech as an important human right.  It looks like many people sincerely do not understand what it means.  Freedom of speech means freedom of a repugnant speech: politically correct
speech never needed any protection.  In the old Soviet Union anyone was free to say that Stalin was great but God forbid to say opposite.

Do we have much difference in this "free" country?  You remember the trial of Zundel and other Holocaust deniers.  I am Jewish, I was alive during the war, and major part of my family was wiped out so it is extremely painful for me to hear all this nonsense, but I would be the first to say that Zundel had absolute right to say whatever he was saying.  It was stupid, stupid, stupid to prosecute him as a criminal.  This prosecution only gave him publicity he badly needed and made him a hero and martyr in the eyes of his followers.  It is about time to learn that words should be answered with words, not with fists, and not with government prosecution.

As to the man I mentioned in the beginning of this posting, the only way to shut me up is to kill me.  There is another option: stop reading my postings.

About McVeigh - part 2

It is regretful that I was right in my previous posting: I suggested there that all this story of FBI forgetting to forward certain documents was nothing but a spectacle.  Government was very upset that McVeigh decided to go on his terms and with a bang.  They were desperate to make him ask to spare his life and to deny him his request.  Regretfully, he fell for it.

Let us get to the detail.  At the first news that FBI did not forward certain documents, US Attorney General cancelled execution, and send treacherous lawyers to convince McVeigh to file a motion for a stay of execution.  It is obvious that McVeigh resisted for quite a while.  So, government introduced a heavy artillery - media.  They presented to the show "60 Minutes" several recently fired FBI agents, who were telling that FBI deliberately withheld documents, and one of agents
even mentioned that he personally has produced several exculpatory documents, which were never presented to the court.  When this agent was asked about contents of this document he said that he could not answer because of a gag order.  Excuse me, what kind of a gag order could exist for a man fired from FBI?  Obviously, it was a spectacle designed for McVeigh personal consumption, and he fell for it: two days after the show, it was reported that he decided to file the motion for a
stay of execution.  US government got what it wanted.

The next step was to arrange with the lawyers such a motion that could be denied.  The situation was such that a proper motion could not possibly be denied.  Indeed, it was Attorney General, who decided to order delay to give lawyers time to study the documents.  Clearly, one month time is an arbitrary quantity, and should the lawyers filed an Habeas Corpus motion, arguing only that one month time was arbitrary and not sufficient, Attorney General could say nothing, because it was
his initiative, and there was no way anyone can prove that one month is enough to study 4000 documents.

Instead of doing what I described above, treacherous lawyers presented a motion not based on Habeas Corpus, but on a civil statute, claiming that government has perpetrated a fraud upon the court.  When you make such a statement, you should be prepared to prove it, which lawyers did not bother to do.  In view of this kind of motion, it was easy for the judge to say that there was no evidence of fraud presented, and therefore the motion was denied.  In exactly the same way, as his first lawyer Jones betrayed him during his trial, his new lawyers betrayed him with this motion.

Had the lawyers really wanted to claim the fraud, they should have called to testify each and every FBI agent, who handled these 4000 documents and examine them under oath as to how it happened that the documents were not forwarded to the defence during the trial.  They should have also called these fired FBI agents, who participated in "60 Minutes".  A good lawyer would have no difficulty to prove that it was a fraud indeed, but these lawyers were very well paid by the
government and they did what government asked them to do: betrayed their client. McVeigh finally understood that he has been had.  Too bad.

Minister of justice and Solicitor General of Canada against Fabrikant

Minister of Justice acting of behalf of Solicitor General of Canada has filed a motion for injunction against me in Superior Court. What do you think Solicitor General wants? He asks the Court to forbid me to file complaints against murderous doctors and nurses. Have in mind that such an application cannot be filed without a personal authorization of at least the
Deputy Minister level.

The hearing is scheduled at the Court house of Saint-Jerome, room B1.02 on June 21 at 9:00 am.

Any more doubts that I am a political prisoner who is being murdered by the government?

Idiots in Child Protection Services

1 . Many years ago, in British Columbia, there was a religious group called Dukhobory of
Russian origin.  They were persecuted in Russia, and came to Canada, hoping to be free
from persecution.  They did not want to send their children in public schools, because
they had mistrust of government and were afraid that their children will be brainwashed
in public schools.  What did British Columbia government do?  Instead of trying to
understand the roots of Dukhobory's mistrust of government and addressing these
concerns, they seized the children and placed them in a virtual concentration camp, where
they were abused for several years.  One may argue, whether their parents were right or
wrong, but children clearly did nothing wrong, there was no justification in government
actions.  You do not help children by separating them from their parents and by placing
them in a concentration camp.  If you have a problem with parents, deal with parents.

2. We saw a similar case recently in USA.  A religious sect was allegedly abusing their
children with corporal punishment.  Again, we saw terrified children, screaming at the
top of their lungs, who were being dragged by heavily armed police away from their
parents.  Was there any need for such drastic actions?  Of course, not.  These children
were attending school.  Suppose, a child comes to school black and blue.  Why not to
talk to the child, to explain to him (her) that his parents have no right to beat him, to
show him a foster family which would be happy to accommodate him, while authorities
are dealing with their parents, and ask the child, if he wanted to stay there for a while.  If
the answer is yes, the child stays there, if the answer is no, try to find an alternative.  In
any case, never send armed police to grab terrified children.  I am sure, the children were
traumatized by this "help" more than by corporal punishment.  Again, you have a
problem with parents - deal with parents.

3 . The most outrageous case took place recently in Sandpoint, Idaho.  There was a family
with 6 children aged from 8 to 16, living in a house, without running water, electricity,
living a life of survivalists.  Their father has died couple of weeks ago, and authorities
claimed that their mother was paranoid: she imagined that the government was out to get
her.  Guess what: government was out to get her.  Police sent her a false invitation to
come to get food and money for her children, and she obviously was not paranoid enough
- she came and was arrested for child neglect.  If a paranoid woman, with all her mistrust
came to get food and money for her children - this does not fit as neglect.  After she was
arrested, armed police was sent to seize the children, and the children unleashed their
dogs on police and took guns to defend themselves.  Clearly, these children knew how to
take care of themselves and did not need any government help.

I have watched the media, and not a single source expressed, what should be expressed: just
how low the government is allowed to go in "child protection"?

Can one go lower than luring a mother with a promise of food for her children and then
arrest her for CHILD NEGLECT?!

Children first!

There is an old legend about King Solomon.  It goes like this.  One day, two women came to King Solomon for an adjudication of the following dispute: there was a baby, and each woman claimed to be the mother of that baby.  King Solomon had to decide, which one was the real mother.  Since there was no DNA test at that time, King Solomon has decided as follows: he ordered his men to cut the baby in two, and to give each woman half of the baby. One woman said that it was OK with her, while the other said: "Do not cut the baby, give it to the other woman".  King Solomon understood that the second woman was the real mother and gave the baby to her.

I recall this legend, because many stories I see in the media are of the same nature, except in some cases, real parents behave as the first woman: they are ready to cut their child in pieces, so that the other parent would not get the whole.

One such case was reported several years ago.  One father asked a judge to place his 9-year-old daughter in jail for refusal to come to see him, and the idiot judge was happy to oblige. King Solomon in this case would have terminated father's parental rights for good, and that should be the end of the story.  It is tough to know that your child does not want to see you, it is even tougher to know that it is your former wife, who is influencing the child in a malicious way, but in no circumstances you can hurt your child or your former wife, because she is the mother of your child, and your child needs her.  A man has to behave like
a man.  Children first.

Yet another story was quite famous: the mother was placed in jail for hiding her daughter from the father, who, as she claimed, was sexually abusing the daughter.  I have lived in Russia almost 40 years of my life, and I have never heard a single story of this kind.  I am prepared to accept that the Western world is more perverted that Russians, but it is difficult to believe the degree of perversion.  I think, it would be fair to say, that at least in 50% of cases, women invent the story of sexual abuse to get even with their former husbands.  In this particular case though, it's obvious that the husband (whether guilty or not) behaved quite inappropriately.

Here is what I would have done in his case.  I would have said, that I was not guilty, and to prove it I would be prepared to meet with my daughter in presence of any person, more than that, I would insist that someone be present so that no charges could ever be repeated.  And that would have saved everything: his wife would not have to go to jail, his daughter would not be in hiding, deprived of both parents for many years.  Is not it the same, as to cut the baby in two?  Neither the father, nor the mother had access to their child.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Is my life in danger?

Several people argued that my claim that my life is in danger is unfounded.  Their reason: it has been 3 years since my heart attack, three years I am claiming that my life is in danger, and I am still alive.  There is no doubt that to prove 100% that my life is in danger, I have to die.  The problem with this scenario is the fact that after proving my claim, I would not be
able to come and to say: "Hey, I told you so!"

There exists though a less than 100% proof that my life is in danger.  Here is the data from 1998 medical report.  I have 4 major coronary arteries blocked: Circumflex - 70%, Left Anterior Descending (LAD) - 90%, Diagonal - 95% and Marginal - 100%.  This date is from 1998; now, 3 years later, the numbers are certainly greater.  Take any encyclopaedia and look at the picture of the heart.  The main coronary artery is called aorta; it splits into Circumflex and LAD, so when both are blocked 1 00%, there is no coronary circulation and I shall die.  Nobody can deny that.  The only question is: when this would happen.  It might happen 5 minutes from now, it might happen several years from now, but it is moving in this direction, since the blockage increases with time, not decreases.

Just this year I was brought to the hospital emergency by an ambulance on January 30 and March 14, 2001. Believe me, jailers are not bringing prisoners to Emergency unless the case is very serious.

Here is a quote from the report of cardiologist Roy, where she writes about me: "... in Emergency, the patient refused Heparin i.v., refused the addition of a second line of anti-angina medication and nitrate, and ultimately signed a refusal of treatment, given the refusal of an angioplasty at the Montreal Heart Institute.  He signed the refusal of treatment and left, despite the risk inherent in this forced leave, i.e., 20% probability of a cardiac infarction in the next few days, death, etc."

So, she wrote that I had 20% probability to die in the next couple of days, and in was in 1998. Now, I explain, why I refused the so-called "treatment".  Each time they bring me to the hospital in ambulance, the only "treatment" offered me is intravenous pumping of various liquids.  I tried them when I had my heart attack, and they made me feel very sick, so I ordered them removed, and as soon as this was done, I started feeling much better.  Maximum, what these liquids claim to do, is to "stabilize" the patient.  This is not what I needed - I was stable enough.  I needed to open my arteries, and this was refused to me, so there was no pint to stay in the hospital, and I left.

It is astounding to me that majority of patients take the doctor's word as a word from God.  Here is the situation with my consultations with various doctors, which would look funny, if it was not so sad.  Right after my heart attack, I was offered by-pass surgery the next working day, which I refused, no doctor talked to me, I did not know, what exactly was to be done, etc.  It was also astounding to me that many people are waiting for many months, and I, convicted murderer, was offered operation the next day - it was too good to be true, and I was right.

I contacted several more cardiologists about possibility of angioplasty, and they all responded that I needed by-pass surgery.  The problem with these recommendation was that these people were not surgeons, they did not do surgery.  I asked to see a surgeon.  I saw C. Pelletier at Montreal Heart Institute, and he did NOT recommend by-pass surgery, writing that Circumflex and Marginal were not operable.  Then my film was shown to another cardiac surgeon Teijiera (Sherbrooke), he also did NOT recommend by-pass surgery, but with totally opposite reasons: he considered Circumflex and Marginal operable, but the other two non-operable.  The jail doctor Corbin did not bother to notice this contradiction, and even when I pointed it out to him, his response was: the conclusion is the same, so everything is fine.

So, we have about 15 cardiologists, who are not surgeons, recommending by-pass surgery, 2 surgeons, who are not recommending, but with totally opposite reasons.  Do all these Quebec doctors know what they are talking about?  I asked my wife to send my film of angiography to US under her name and to ask whether angioplasty was possible, and the top specialists in Harvard University Medical School, New York University and Columbia University all responded that angioplasty was possible indeed, and that they were prepared to do it.

I do not know, whether my case is unique, but if it is not thousands of patients in Quebec are dying due to ignorance of Quebec doctors.
About the D-day

It has been a cliche in the media to claim that the D-day symbolises the beginning of the end of the Second World War, that it was US who saved the world from Hitler.  There is nothing farther from the truth: it was the old Soviet Union, who crashed Hitler, and the end of the war started at Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.  In June of 1944, Soviet Army has already
liberated all the territory of the Soviet Union, and the war moved to Eastern Europe.

The Allied forces entered the war for one purpose: not to let Stalin grab Western Europe and to get their part of the loot.  US just repeated the trick it used in the First World war: it waited for 3 years to let both sides bleed almost to death, and then entered the war in 1917 to get its part of the loot.
About self-defence

Several people expressed their opinion that in order to use deadly force in self-defence, one has to have a loaded gun pointed to his head.  This is just not so: if a loaded gun is already pointed at your head, there is nothing you can do.  The case in point was just recently reported in the media: a judge has liberated a woman, who killed her abusive boyfriend and ruled that she acted in self-defence.  Here are some details of the case.  The woman has been physically abused by her boyfriend on several occasions and had a restraining court order against him.

Both were heavy drinkers, and they drank together, after which the fighting usually commenced.  The day of killing was no exception.  At the moment of killing, her boyfriend was fighting with the neighbor, she was not in any danger, and she could just walk away. Instead, she took a knife and stabbed her boyfriend in the back.  Was this a self-defence? The judge decided that it was.  What do you think?

Idiots in broadcasting

One day in June, I was listening to CJAD station, and I heard a very strange talk: a host named Leeza (Lisa?) was telling repeatedly that Canada was the best country in the world, and because of that it should not accept any refugee, who is sick, old, infirm, etc.  The reason: these people require care, and this will be a drain of money at the time when Canadians can not get proper medical care.  At first, I though, she was kidding, deliberately playing a bigot in order to get more response from the listeners.  But the time was passing, and she continued in the same vein, and when one listener reminded her that she sounded very much like Hitler, she just cut him off.  It looked like she was serious.

Well, the woman is not just a bigot, she clearly does not know what she is talking about namely, she does not understand that there are 3 kinds of immigration, subject to 3 totally different rules of admission.  First - refugees.  By definition, these are people, whose life is in danger in their own country.  These people can not and should not be deported under any circumstance, no matter, how old or sick or infirm, or all of the above.  Many civilised countries subscribe to this, remembering that back in the thirties, there were Jewish refugees, fleeing Hitler Germany, no country was willing to accept them, and they had to return back to Germany and to a certain death.  Civilised countries decided that a similar situation should not be repeated.  This does not mean, of course, that Canada is honestly following this rule, but it should.

Second kind of immigration: foreigners, who have immediate family in Canada: parents, spouses, children, siblings.  These individuals have priority, provided that their relatives are prepared to support them financially.

The third kind of immigration - the rest.  Here Canada, indeed, can establish any rule it pleases, for example, to require that immigrant had means to open a business, etc.  The woman host combined all 3 in one, confusing listeners and spreading bigotry against refugees.  She does not seem to understand that Canadians do not get proper medical care not because of refugees, but because the politicians are looting the country.  Sad.
A new discovery at the Discovery Channel

Discovery channel has a regular feature: someone asks a question, and scientists related to Discovery channel respond.  Recently, someone asked, how and why the water and nutrients are moving from the roots in the ground all the way to the top.  The response was as follows: the water in the leaves pores evaporates, this creates a negative pressure, and this negative
pressure sucks liquids from the ground to the top.  Presume, that this is so, then, how does the movement of liquids starts in the spring, when there are no leaves yet?  Yet another thing my little brain can not understand: negative pressure (vacuum) can lift water up to the height of about 10 meters, then, how do the trees which are higher that 10 meters survive?


Donnacona jail has maximum of 360 prisoners and about 300 employees. The total spending for the fiscal year 1995-96 was $23,236,325.  If you divide this amount by the number of prisoners (360), you will get the figure about $64,500.  This is why the press claims that it cost taxpayer so much money just to keep one prisoner in jail per year.  The public gets an impression that it is the prisoner, who gets some extreme benefits, some even think that, say, killing of one prisoner would save taxpayer about $65,000.  So, I have decided to check, how much money are really spent on prisoners and how much is spent to line pockets of the non-convicted criminals - employees of Correctional Service Canada.

Here is the summary of the main expenses::

Salary                          12,823,788
Overtime                         1,230,683
Benefits                         1,716,417
Operational expenses             5,251,249
Training                           505,477
Minor construction               1,119,247.

The major item is salary.  Why would one need to have 300 employees to guard 360 prisoners?  It is my understanding that in US they have one employee for 3 prisoners, here we have almost one to one.  Are Canadian prisoners more dangerous than  American?  When I asked one of the guards, why do they need so many, he responded that, for example, if one attacks me, they would need many guards to intervene and to save me. Nobody has attacked me so far, but I have seen quite a number of
attacks, and there was not a single case where guards would intervene to save someone.   On the contrary, they seem to like such events, it gives them sadistic pleasure of seeing someone being beaten or killed.

I still remember a prisoner being beaten in the gym unconscious.  There are three observation posts in the gym, guards are sitting there with loaded weapon, none even raised a voice to stop the beating.  When the beating was finished, several guards came to the gate to collect the body.  They did not enter the gym, they waited until several prisoners brought the body to the gate, then guards demanded that all the prisoners in the gym stepped back at least 30 meters, then they quickly opened the gate, took the body and immediately closed the gate.   There are security cameras, microphones, observation posts practically
everywhere in jail, nevertheless, when someone gets killed, guards saw nothing, security cameras malfunction, etc.

The second reason was given to me for having so many employees - to be able to intervene quickly in the case of riot.  I have seen quite a number of riots, not only nobody intervened, on the contrary, the riots were deliberately provoked by guards, who had labor disputes with the administration (see another posting of mine for details on this subject).

Overtime.  It constitutes about 10% of the salary and creates impression that even 300 employees are not enough to get the work done.  This sounds incredible, and it is, especially taking into consideration that all jobs, related to cleaning, laundry and cooking is done by prisoners. Here is a little dirty secret, how overtime is artificially created. According to the contract, all time worked after the first 8 hours is overtime, so guards are staying at work for 16 hours at a time, they do not work in total an hour more per month than they are supposed to, but they work in chunks of 16 hours, and this creates overtime.  Taking into
consideration that 90% of their time guards are telling each other latest gossips, it is not so difficult to work for 16 hours.  Over $1.2 million was wasted, while jailors claim not to have money for prisoners' food and education.

Some highlights of the operational expenses.  Jailors initially allocated $662,236 for training of inmates, they spent $528,868,
underspending about $123,000, and they still claim that they do not have enough money for education.  Yet another $912,300 were allocated for health services, the amount spent is $880,047.  What do the prisoners get for these money?  A doctor, who does not give a damn about prisoners' health.  Whenever a prisoner complains on a pain, a pain killer is prescribed, he does not even try to find out what causes the pain.  We have a dentist, who seems to get pleasure of ravaging prisoners' mouths.  He told me that I had 5 cavities, while I knew I had none.  Majority of prisoners do not understand it and let him extract teeth which could be and should be repaired.  So many inmates, young people wear dentures.  There are also a number of nurses, who equally do not give a damn about prisoners' health.  A relatively young prisoner (44 years of age) had a heart attack.  They kept him in jail for 6 hours, so that when they brought him to hospital, he was already dead.  There is an expense of $159,852 on "other professional services" and $146,900 on just "other services".  I would love to know what these are.  Jailors claim $257,212 on purchases for canteen, while clearly, it is the prisoners who pay in the final account.

There is $116,374 for office equipment supplies and yet another $311,128 for oper. equip. and suppl.  I have great difficulty absorbing these figures: jailors manage to spend over $1,000 per day on paper, cartridges, etc.; it does not look like a reasonable amount.

The amount of 387,025 was spent on building repairs, and $132,957 for equipment repairs.  I wonder whether this was the cost of the riots.  If it was, it certainly is exaggerated: it comes to over $1,000 for each cell, but not all cells were damaged, and the damage was manly limited to the sink and toilet.

I wonder, how much water and electricity one should consume in order to spend $620,255 for public utilities.  The food item in the budget is not separated between prisoners rations and the guards' rations, but I have been told that about $5 is allocated for food per prisoner per day. This does not mean that prisoner really gets that value in his rations: a lot of food is wasted and/or stolen by guards.  The amount of $225,726 was spent on inmates' clothing and guards' uniforms.  I do not know how
much a uniform costs, but inmates' clothing is being produced in jails, so it does not cost much.

The inmate pay was initially allocated $398,340, the real pay was $347,593, over $50,000 were effectively stolen.  Prisoners asked for opening of numerous useful positions, and each time jailors say no. They also use various tricks to underpay prisoners, using the fact that majority of prisoners do not check their pay sheets.

The  "minor construction " is not so minor.  One can get a lot for over $1.1 million.  It looks like someone got a lot of kickbacks, since nothing of that magnitude was constructed in jail.  I will try to find out more details and will post them.

As a conclusion, we may easily compute that jailors salary, overtime and benefits take 68% of the budget.  If we take inmate food, pay, medical care and education, we come to less than 11% of the budget.   So, killing of a prisoner would not save much since the doctor would not be fired, and the dentist would stay as well, and guards would not be fired either: they have job security.

If you really want to save money, try to fire guards, this is where the great savings are: firing of just one guard saves immediately at least $50,000 in salary, overtime, benefits, etc.