How jailers steal from prisoners - follow-up

In my previous posting, I described how jailers make money on prisoner families' misery. They make prisoners' families pay exorbitant amounts for collect telephone calls, and get from Bell Canada 11% of the money paid by prisoners' families. I have requested the detailed information, according to the Access to Information Act. It was over a year ago. Finally, I got some partial information. Jailers deliberately did not give me the text of the recent telephone contract. They also did not provide similar information on TV cable contract with Videotron, falsely claiming that they did not have this information. They pay for TV every month, and they do not have this information, - something here is very non-kosher.

Here are some examples. The telephone bill of Cowansville jail for the month of May 1996 was as follows:

††††††††††† Service charges††††††††††† $1886.70

††††††††††† Equipment rentals†††††††† $2503.29

††††††††††† Long-distance calls†††††† $1136.52

††††††††††† Total††† $5526.51

They got credit for the money robbed from inmates' families in the amount of $4519.02, so they had to pay only $1007.49. Inmates' families subsidised 82% of jailers' telephone expenses. Bell has received profit of about $41000 per month from inmate families' misery. Have in mind, that majority of inmate families is very poor, and they have committed no crime.

It is also of interest to mention that jailers paid in 1996 quite special rates. Here is an example: a telephone call from Cowansville to Ottawa, duration of 52 minutes in the daytime cost $1.30, which translates into less that $0.03 per minute (and this is a full rate, without deductions), while prisoners at that time had to pay 14 times more, namely, $0.35 per minute plus $3 for operator services. I suspect, that jailers are doing the same crooked things with their cable TV contract.


Low-lifers of Belfast

Some very troubling pictures are coming from Belfast. Catholic children are harassed by Protestants, who do not want children to pass by their houses on the way to school. Children are escorted by their parents and police. They are terrified. There is another, safe way to school, but it leads to the back door of the school, and Catholic parents insist on going through the front door.

This is one of those conflicts, where there are no "good guys": it is one group of low-lifers fighting another group of low-lifers, and do not hesitate to use children as pawns in this fight. It is also sad, that yellow media do not ask the right questions in their interviews. The right question to ask the Protestant is: "You have problem with adult Catholics; don't you think, it is low for you to harass children?" The following question should be asked of Catholics: "Is it worth to expose your little children to terrifying situation, which can be easily avoided by going through another door?"

These Catholic parents should have their parental rights annulled due to deliberate endangering of their children. This is not Alabama fight for desegregation. This is a little lousy quarrel on which way to take to school, where both sides have displayed extremely low moral qualities. A normal parent would never expose his children to any danger for the purpose of advancing his fight. Even if there were no safe way of going to school, a normal parent would not send his child to school at all. Children come first.

We all know about deadly fight between biker clubs. They kill each other, but they never attack or harass any of family members. If the organised crime has the decency to exclude children from their fighting, should not the so-called law-abiding citizens do the same?


Does bringing of a loaded gun to school mean intent to kill?

Recently, NBC Dateline aired a show about a 14-year-old boy Sean Botkin. His story, though very different from mine, has certain peculiar similarities. He was bullied at school, because he looked different and because his ancestors came from Russia. His grades plummeted, he was too proud to tell parents, that he was bullied. He complained to the school principal, to no avail. There were constant fights between him and his parents, who did not understand the reasons of his misbehaviour.

One day, he threw a stone at the children, who were bullying him. The stone missed children, but damaged a nearby car. Sean was arrested for damaging of private property. Nothing was done to the bullies. Can you imagine his outrage, when he, the victim, was in danger of being placed in jail, while the real criminals (bullies) got scot-free? Two days prior to his trial, out of desperation, Sean took his father's loaded handgun, brought it to school, took a whole class hostage and demanded to get in touch with a police negotiator. He was lucky, that the teacher in the class was behaving in a friendly manner and avoided provoking him into shooting. He surrendered peacefully, and nobody got hurt.

Here are the similarities between our cases. Sean was bullied for several years; I was mistreated for 12 years. Sean was accused of an offence and threatened with jail, while he was just acting in self-defence; I was accused of contempt of court and my life was threatened ("anything can happen in jail"). Sean took loaded gun to school 2 days prior to his trial; I took loaded guns 1 day prior to my trial. I was not as lucky, as Sean was, since Dr. Hogben had an assignment to try to provoke me, and he succeeded. Had he behaved differently, nobody would have been killed at Concordia University.


Bayomi number 3

On August 14, 200 1, I have received an E-mail from Glenn T [email protected], where he wrote: "I too will post anything you want posted with in(sic!) reason - I wonít post death threats or anything like that". He wrote also that my right of free speech was more important to him than his moral convictions. I decided to check him out, so I sent to him one of my postings. Two weeks has passed, no posting appeared, so I asked him whether he did not have enough courage. This is what he responded: "you were fooled into thinking that some one(sic!) will help you." He also blurted it out that he spoke to his friends. As illiterate, as the man is, he is still dead scared.

This hypocrite tells me to "post an apologe(sic!)". He teaches me: "You do not have to be sincere, you donít even have to believe it but it will go along(sic!) way in you getting, hopefully, parole some day". If I could lie and cheat, I would have been quite successful in this country and I would not be in jail now. The problem is, that I am not capable of doing this kind of things.


Re: About human cloning

Savard [email protected] wrote:

>††††††††† The difference is that we're keeping someone alive who has a problem, not inflicting a

>††††††††† problem on someone by deliberately bringing that person into existence in an unsafe

>††††††††† manner.

The difference is only in our imagination. Here is one situation: a pregnant woman is told that her baby is severely deformed and will die soon after birth. You continue to support her, if she chooses not to abort the foetus. This is moral, because it conforms to your definition of "keeping someone alive who has a problem". Second situation: you have an embryo in a dish and a woman wants it to be implanted in her womb, and you can not refuse, because again, it is the case of "keeping someone alive who has a problem". If you do not implant an embryo, it will die. Now, the question is: can you or should you refuse to implant the embryo, if you know that it is defective? Using your own logic, you can not refuse.

Now about cloning. There is no doubt, that there is a risk of creating a severely defective child, but the same risk exists for any woman over 40, as well as those, who are known to have defective genes. Would you forbid mentally retarded to procreate? It is almost sure that their children will be defective. This country has quite a shameful history of forced sterilizations.

All medical innovations are inherently risky. The first heart transplant recipient lived just several days. There is no doubt that his life was shortened by this transplant, but this procedure paved the way to many others, and now thousands people are saved every year.

We allow killing of millions perfectly healthy foetuses every year (abortion), and if this is moral, why is it immoral to kill a defective one? It does not really make any moral difference, that the scientists have created the foetus. The killing of the foetus is either legal or it is illegal, regardless of how it was created. Here is my understanding of the situation. Any human cell (egg, spermatozoa, etc.) is the property of the person from whom it was taken, and this person can do with it whatever he wants. This right of property continues until this cell (or group of cells, including foetus) can survive on its own. From the moment it can survive on its own, it becomes a separate human being and has full protection of the law.

The cloning will and should proceed. It will be unsuccessful at the beginning, as everything new in human innovations, but it will be perfected, and it will become as normal, as in-vitro fertilisation is now.


Did God create a human being?

According to Bible, God created Adam, and then from his rib he created Eve. Recent research established, that there is a part of our DNA, which comes unchanged from the mother. If all women had the some mother (Eve), then all women in the world should have this part of DNA the same. Anyone knows, if this has been checked and what was the result?

By the way, if Eve was really created from Adam's rib, this was the first case of human cloning. One thing, though, is not clear: anyone cloned from a rib of a male would be a male too. Even if God somehow managed to create a female, she was obviously a twin sister of Adam, and they were in an incestuous relationship.


Why the oceans are salty?

Some time ago, I have made a posting on this subject, contesting opinion of one professor that the reason for oceans being salty: rivers bring salt to the oceans. Several people responded in support of this opinion. One even suggested the following experiment. If we pour some water in a jar, and leave it for a long time, water will evaporate, and some residue will appear. We can continuously add water to the jar, and after a long time, water will become salty. The writer referred to a professor from an Ivy League university.

I like this experiment. I suggest to expand it as follows: to have two jars, one kept always full, and the other kept half-full. Since the rate of evaporation is proportional to the area, it will be the same for both jars, but the half-full jar will obviously become with time more salty than the full one, because proportionally, greater part of it will be evaporated. If this model is applicable to an ocean, it should be applicable to any lake fed by a river. Since lakes on average are much more shallow, than the ocean, the lake water should be much more salty than it is in the oceans, which we know to be wrong: majority of lakes are not salty at all. The only logical conclusion: the jug experiment is not applicable to oceans.

We know that all rivers bring pollution to the oceans, and the ocean pollution is much stronger close to the river delta, and is much less far away from it. The same should be true for salt, if it were rivers bringing salt to the oceans: the water should be more salty close to the river delta and less salty far away. Again, we know, that quite opposite is true.

Some arithmetic is useful. If you compute the amount of water, brought to the oceans by all rivers, and divide it by the total amount of water in the oceans, you will get a number much smaller, than the same quotient for a lake. This is why lakes are usually more polluted than oceans. Again, if rivers bring salt to the oceans, they also bring salt to the lakes, and lakes should have been much more salty, than oceans, which is not true. I rest my case.



Waco all over again

It was reported in the media that one Beck has shot and killed one of the Sheriff Deputies, when they tried to serve him with a court document. Beck was accused of stockpiling weapons. After that, SWAT team has fired several teargas canisters into Beck's house, it caught fire, and Beck died in this fire. The yellow media reporter said: "It is unclear whether the teargas canister ignited the fire".

The yellow media at its best. They went even further in the case of Waco murders. They claimed that Koresh himself started fire. Here is what really happened. Since Beck has killed one of their own, police decided to become judges and executioners. They did not fire just teargas, they also fired incendiary devices, which started fire. Beck was disabled by teargas and had no chance to get out. He was burned alive. Exactly the same thing happened in Waco on a much greater scale. How long Americans are going to tolerate their police behaving as judges and executioners?


An observation on human behaviour

As you know, several homeless individuals were allowed to live in an abandoned building, belonging to the city of Montreal, rent-free. Several people came to the building shouting insults at these homeless individuals, shouting that they have no right to free housing, that they should find jobs and live like everybody else, etc. What astounded me the most, if you offer these vigilantes to live in this dilapidated building for free, they would refuse.

Yet another thing astonishes me. These homeless people, even if they get welfare, receive less than $10000 per year. At the same time, you have Senators, who do not do any work, and waste about half-billion (that's BILLION) per year, and it does not bother those vigilantes at all. Why don't they come to the Senate and tell the Senators to get a job?

These vigilantes are not bothered by the fact that $150 million were wasted by Gagliano on his cronies, who received the advertisement contract. They are not bothered by $15 million wasted by Chretien on his friend Romanow, they are not bothered by $10 million wasted on Hughes, several million spent by Chretien on his recent trip to Genoa, etc.

People, start counting. Don't waste your time on couple of bucks, go after millions and billions.


Is polygamy a crime?

It was reported, that Green, polygamist from Utah, was sentenced to 5 years in jail for having 5 wives. The reporter called polygamy bizarre and revolting custom. I remember time, when homosexuality was a crime and was called bizarre and revolting. Is not it time for us to grow up and to understand a simple thing, that there can be no crime without a victim? No matter, how revolting some actions might look, government has no business intervening in the relationships between two or more consenting adults.

Who benefits from Green's incarceration? Nobody. None of Utah polygamists will stop their lifestyle. Nobody will prosecute them, as long as they keep quiet (reminds me of Soviet Union: Green was persecuted, because he was vocal about his lifestyle). Enormous harm is done to his children, who are deprived of their father. Taxpayer will have to support him in jail, and his 5 wives, and 29 children. Stupidity at its best.

Majority of men are not capable to live in peace with just one wife; Green has managed to live in peace with five. We should applaud him and ask for advice.

In order to emphasize absurdity of the situation, imagine a slightly different one: six lesbians are living together in a polygamous relationship. They have 29 children, conceived, using invitro fertilisation. Would any of them be prosecuted for polygamy, and if yes, which one? Or should all six be prosecuted? The same question can be asked about 3 or more homosexuals living together in polygamy.


Jailers are preparing to celebrate my death

One guard told me recently, that they know, that I shall die soon, and that they are preparing to celebrate this event. It made me very proud: when so many scums of the earth hate your guts, you must be a very good person.

I foresee responses to this posting, like: "I am not a prison guard, I am a decent human being, and I shall also celebrate your death." Well, if you are really a decent human being, then you are a severely misled person. I suggest that you educate yourself about what really happened at Concordia University, and then ask yourself, what would you have done in a similar situation.


Medical doctors kill more people than criminals

I have heard a quite astounding statistics: according to official reports of American Medical Association (AMA), hundreds of thousand people are being killed each year in US due to medical errors. This number is much above the number of people killed by drunk drivers. Criminals end up distant third. Have in mind, that the real number of fatalities due to medical mistakes is much greater than the number, which AMA admits. There are also cases where medical doctors deliberately kill their patients, just for the thrill of it. Remember the case of Dr. Shipman in England, who killed over 250 patients, and he would have never been caught, had he not forged the will of his last patient. God knows, how many other Shipmans are out there.

You may say that medical doctors and drunk drivers do not want to kill people, while criminals do. First, in some cases, doctors do want to kill their patient, and just pretend doing everything in their power to save the patient. The case in point - the premeditated murder of Tina Diaz (see my previous posting - about a year ago, available on my web site). There is also no doubt, that Canadian Mengeles do murder me deliberately. Second, not everyone convicted of murder really wanted to kill. Many were provoked or acted in self-defence. Third, I do not think, that for victims and their families it is much better to be killed due to medical "error": in the case of a criminal, they at least have some relief, knowing that the criminal is in jail. In the case of a medical doctor, not only you can not put him in jail, but corrupt judges will also protect him, if you try to collect damages. (you can read more details on this in my other posting "Medico-judicial Mafia").

In Montreal, less than 70 people are killed per year by criminals. Can you imagine, how many thousands of people are being killed by medical doctors? Remember the case of a little boy, who died painful, torturous death, because several doctors could not (or did not want to) diagnose appendicitis? Remember yet another case of a young man killed by IV, which pumped too much liquid? Imagine, how many more people were killed, and we just do not know about them?


Medico-judicial Mafia

I have recently discovered several cases, which prove organised crime type relationship between medical doctors and judges: medical doctors kill people, and then bribe judges to get them off the hook. The case referred to the most, is the case Robert vs. Brassard (150-05000333-908), where Ms. Robert tried to sue Chicoutimi hospital and several doctors for murdering her husband S. Rainville. The fact that Mr. Rainville was murdered came from the Coroner's report. This report was the main document proving the medical malpractice, so her lawyer tried to introduce this report in evidence.

It has been my experience that all doctors-murderers are defended by the law firm McCarthyTetrault. Their lawyer presented a motion demanding that Coroner's report be thrown out as irrelevant, and a corrupt judge did throw the Coroner's report out. The judgement states that this report is irrelevant to the case. The criteria for relevance: the document should be capable of influencing the final judgement, and judge decided that Coroner's report can not possibly influence the final judgement. I was tried for murder, and Coroner's reports were presented at my trial, and it never crossed my mind to declare them irrelevant. When a murderous doctor is on civil trial, Coroner's report becomes irrelevant.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of Ms. Robert. Her husband was murdered; she learned about it from the Coroner's report, which was her only proof of wrongdoing. A corrupt judge has thrown out his report, so now she has no proof and is bound to loose her case. Her lawyer tries to appeal the judgement. Court of Appeal (case 200-09-000707-908, judges Tourigny, Proulx, Chevalier, May 17, 1991) not only confirmed the lower court judgement, but went even further by prohibiting even to mention the existence of the Coroner's report. No person in his right mind can believe that this kind of nonsense judgements could be delivered without huge bribes to the judges.

The precedent of Robert vs. Brassard is now used everywhere to get murderous doctors off the hook. One example is Cote and Couturier vs. Jean-Talon Hospital and Dr. Sasson Moulavi (case 500-05-13840-895). Here parents are suing hospital and a doctor for murdering their daughter. Their lawyer tried to introduce documents related to an investigation of Dr. Moulavi's behaviour in this case. Judge Deslongchamps refused to admit these documents, judgement of August 13, 1993) claiming them to be irrelevant on the basis of Robert vs. Brassard precedent. Have no doubt, that Deslongchamps was paid handsomely for this judgement.

There are doctors, who maim people on a regular basis, and neither College des medecins, nor courts are doing anything to stop them. One such example is Dr. Paul Giguere. He claims to be an oto-rhino-laringologist, with an office at 44 Cote du Palais, Quebec, Quebec, G1R 4H8. He has maimed many people, was subject of numerous disciplinary complaints and lawsuits. One such case is Ampleman vs. Giguere (200-05-011210-999). Ms. Ampleman has become an invalid due to his operation on her jaw. She had persistent extreme pain, could not open her mouth, was suffering from numerous infections, spent a lot of money on various medications, without any result. In her lawsuit, she mentioned that Giguere was subject of numerous similar lawsuits. Giguere was defended by the same McCarthy Tetrault, whose lawyer demanded that all mentioning of other lawsuits be excluded as irrelevant. Yet another corrupt judge Journet was happy to oblige. Ms. Ampleman has appealed her case, and yet another corrupt judge of the Court of Appeal Rousseau has dismissed the motion (case 200-09-002626-999).

I foresee someone responding to this posting by saying that I am waging a personal vendetta against doctors because they are murdering me. Yes, it is personal, but my facts are still true. I gave the case numbers, so you can check by yourself - all cases are now available on-line. You may also say: "Doctor such-and-such has saved my life, how dare you call doctors murderers". Well, I do not call ALL doctors murderers, but some of them definitely are. I am sure, that infamous Dr. Shipman has saved a number of lives during his career, he was one of the most respected in the community, and this did not prevent him from killing over 250 of his patients.

One may also claim that my criticism of judges is personal. It is, but again, it is the truth, and nothing but the truth. According to Canadian law, prisoners in jail have exactly the same right to get medical treatment of their choice, as any law-abiding citizen. If you think, this is wrong, change the law, but in the meantime, respect it. I have pursued jail doctor Corbin for denial of medical care, which made me an invalid. Legal Aid paid legal expenses, which means that I had an appearance of right. Nevertheless, corrupt judge Rolland has declared me vexatious pleader, not just in this case, but in general. Not only this is illegal (no Quebec law recognises such term), it is also immoral. How low a human being must be, if he declares a prisoner, who is trying to save his life by legal means, to be vexatious?


Walking dollar signs

I have seen on TV that E-Bay is now selling "real pieces of the World Trade Center". Wow! These people are nothing but walking dollar signs, with no heart, no soul, and with brain occupied with one subject: how to make money, and all means are good. These people would sell their mother, without hesitation, "if the price is right".


New scientific article

This posting is addressed only to specialists in Applied Mathematics, Function Theory and engineers with an advanced degree.

I have posted on my web site my yet unpublished article "Computation of infinite integrals involving three Bessel functions by introduction of new algebra." Though the whole article is not yet published, some of its results were published (regretfully, with some misprints) in the latest edition of Gradshtein and Ryzhik "Table of Integrals, Series, and Products", formulae 6.522.15-6.522-18, 6.525.1-6.525.3, 6.621.5-6.621.19. The article also points out some inaccuracies in the existing formulae. Regretfully, they were not yet corrected in the last edition of the "Table ... ".

If you are interested to read the article, please, send an E-mail to [email protected], and you will receive the URL of the web site, on the condition that you will not post it. You are free though to communicate it in private to any interested colleague.



CIA - the best in the world (?)

White House spokesman was asked whether US President is satisfied with the CIA performance. He diplomatically responded that CIA is the best in the world. My little brain has great difficulty understanding this. As far as we know, there were 4 attempts of plane hijacking, none was prevented, so terrorists were 100% successful. Now, presume that CIA did not exist, and ask yourself a question: how different the latest events would have been? Since the terrorists could not be more than 100% successful, the answer to the previous question is clear: existence of CIA did not make any difference.

You can also ask another question: how different the events would be if the best in the world CIA was replaced by the worst in the world? The answer is clear. Do you think, anyone in CIA will be at least reprimanded for this horrendous loss of lives? On the contrary, they are getting additional $20 BILLION. Would this amount of money make US more secure? Just look in the past to extrapolate the future: in the first bombing of the World Trade Center only 6 lives were lost, now, it is in the thousands. What will be the next number?

I have a simple suggestion, how to end terrorist activities. Take these $20 BILLION and give them to Palestinians. I guarantee you 100% that this gesture will end all their terrorism


Can a prisoner get killed with impunity?

In August of 1992, 1 was accused of contempt of court, because I dared to call Chief Justice of Quebec Chief Injustice. At that time, the President of our Association Dr. Hogben told me, that the hearing was fixed, that I will be put in jail, and "anything can happen in jail", which I understood as a death threat. Several people indicated, that I was just paranoid, that there was no danger to my life. Well, was I?

In the past 9 years, I have witnessed a number of murders, only in one case someone was charged. According to the law, when someone gets killed in jail, Correctional Service is obliged to investigate the incident. I decided to use the Access to Information Act to get the reports of such investigations. On or about October 31, 1998, inmate Sheppard was killed in Leclerc jail, and the newspapers reported that inmate Lawrence Stocking was killed in the Special Handling Unit in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines. I requested access to the reports on the investigations of these murders. I got a very "castrated" report on the Sheppard's murder, and jailers told me that there never was an inmate Lawrence Stocking. Usually, they do such tricks, when I misspell the name or the place of murder. If anyone can figure out what I did wrong in my request, please, let me know; Stocking was obviously killed for criticizing jailers.

Of course I appealed jailers' refusal to the Information Commissioner Honorable (read: DIShonourable) Reid. This crook ordered his employees not to talk to me over the telephone. The official reason: "to better serve me"; the real reason: his dishonest and dishonourable behaviour is not possible to defend in a telephone conversation, while on the paper, he can write any nonsense, and if I write again, raising reasonable objections, he responds that he has nothing to add, and refers me to his previous letter. This trick is widely used everywhere in this hypocrite country.

Now, I will discuss the report received (X2 1410-2-376, dated February 22, 1999). Over 70% of the report are blacked out. The title page proudly displays the words "Accountability, Integrity, Openness". The Investigation Board consisted of 2 jailers Pierre St-Onge and Alain Jacques, plus Samir Rizkalla as a community member. I was at that time in Leclerc jail, more than that, I passed the guy killed about 10 minutes prior to his murder. He was playing basketball in the gym. I exited the gym and went for a walk in the yard. About 25 minutes later, loudspeakers ordered everyone to get back to their cells, and I had to pass the gym. I saw Sheppard on the gym floor. A nurse was pretending doing CPR. The gym floor was obviously washed: there was not a drop of blood anywhere on the floor.

Every activity in jail is being monitored. In Leclerc jail gym, there were 3 guards, watching everyone and 4 cameras, recording everything. How in this situation a prisoner can be killed, and the guards managed not to see, who did it, and there is nothing on video-recordings? The answer is very simple: The guards were ordered to look the other way, and the cameras were either switched off or obscured. No murder in jail can take place, unless guards either order it or turn deliberately blind eye.

The report is remarkable not so much for what it says, but rather for what it does NOT say. For example, there is no discussion in the report, how on earth 3 guards in the gym managed not to see the murder (the gym was almost empty at that time), there is no discussion of the contents of security cameras recording. On the contrary, the Board praised jailers:

"In the Board's view, the staff s response was rapid, effective and commendable. The Correctional Officers were able to contain the situation by sounding alarm immediately, by calling the ambulance, by bringing assistance to the victim before the nurse arrived." (Three lines after that are blacked-out) "The Board reviewed the process (one line is blacked-out) ... found that everything has taken place in accordance with the law."

Three guards were COMMENDED for not seeing who killed Sheppard! What does it mean, "to contain the situation"? There was nothing to contain: a prisoner was killed; those, who killed him, ran away - there is nothing to contain. The Board also invented an excuse: " ... the officers, assigned to the activities, were not aware of all responsibilities vested in them under the Post Orders for the area". Wow, the guards did not know that they have to watch prisoners, so they played cards!

Now, was I really paranoid imagining that I could be killed in jail with impunity?


Would you send your son to fight a war?

It was a radio talk show, and people were asked to say whether they would send their sons to fight a war. Majority responded yes and without reservation, one even said that he was prepared to enlist himself. Here is my answer: I would agree to send my son to a war only on the condition, that Chretien's son would fight side-by-side with my son. Since I know, that Chretien would never do that, then my answer is a resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I have heard both Chretien and Day saying casually, that "lives will be lost", "some blood will be spilt". I wonder, would they say the same thing, if the life lost would be theirs? It is astounding, how many people are prepared to die, fulfilling the orders of scoundrel politicians, while these politicians are sitting in underground bunkers, sipping whisky, in total safety. There is a very simple way to end majority of wars: the leader, who declares a war, should go to war himself or to enlist his son to go into an attack in front of everybody. This is what Stalin did during the Second World War (it was called the Great Patriotic War in the USSR). Stalin's son was taken prisoner, and Hitler offered Stalin to exchange his son for a German general. Stalin refused, saying: "I do not change a general for a soldier". Stalin's son died in the Nazi concentration camp. I have very little respect for Stalin as such, but in this particular case, he certainly behaved as a leader should.


God bless (?) America

Every speech these days ends up with the same refrain: "God bless America". People sing a song, containing the same words. My little brain has great difficulty understanding this. It seems to me, that all these people are out of touch with reality: did not they see the horrendous tragedy of September 11? Did it look like a God's blessing? Did not they get the hint?

I would have understood, if these people come to a Cathedral, shook their fists and shouted at God: "You, bloody scoundrel, why the hell did not you bless America? Where were you, when thousands and thousands died needlessly?" No, on the contrary, they sing glory to God. Media called me insane, paranoid, out of touch with reality - aren't all these people completely out of touch with reality? If there exists an event, proving that there is no God, Holocaust is the best, September 11 is quite convincing too. If you classify the number of people killed during centuries versus the reasons for murders, religion will be the undisputed leader: majority of people killed around the world are killed in the name of God.

I foresee, that someone will respond that God can not be blamed for Holocaust or for the September 11 tragedy, because God gave us free will (typical Jewish response). If this is so, then what has happened with God Almighty? If he is totally powerless to intervene, what is the point to pray or to ask for His blessing? We come to nonsense.

I foresee another type of answer: we are here to serve God, not to question his moral qualities. God is always right, even when he is wrong, he is right to be wrong. Using this logic, we have to conclude, that God sancioned Holocaust, that he blessed the terrorists to do what they did. We came to another nonsense.

John Lennon understood that religion is the main evil in the world. In his song "Imagine", he described a peaceful world, where there would be no religion. Not in his life, and not in mine.


Can the war against terrorism be won?

The war against terrorism will be no more successful, than the war against drugs. Both wars can not be won, because the means of war do not address the root reasons. The drugs trade will exist, as long as there is a demand and huge profits to be made. Since we can not eliminate the demand, we can only cut the profits by legalizing all drugs and regulating them.

The terrorism did not appear yesterday. If it could be defeated, it would have been defeated long time ago. We know about terrorism in Ireland, in Spain, in Algeria, etc. If we dare to recall, many leaders of Israel were terrorists themselves, Nelson Mandela was called terrorist by South African government, etc. Now, that they are in the government, we say that they were not terrorists, but rather were fighting for a just cause. Guess what, the 19 people on September 11, believed also that they were fighting for a just cause, so just, that they were ready to loose their lives for it.

Unless and until we address seriously the reasons, why people sacrifice their lives to kill others, we shall never end the terrorism. Canada proved, that this can be done. If you recall, there was some terrorism about 25 years ago, related to Quebec desire to separate. Canadian government was smart enough to agree in principle to this separation, and this ended the terrorism. Spain can end Basque terrorism in the same simple and effective way: agree to their separation. There is no valid reason to keep together people, who hate each other: you either reconcile them or separate them. The alternative is an infinite war, loss of lives and destruction usual attributes of human stupidity.



Welcome to the real world, America!

Americans are in love with records, so in the case of the World Trade Center disaster, they declared that never in its history during any past war had USA lost as many as 6000 people during just one day. One small town has declared that it lost more lives (28), than in the whole Second World War. I regret to disappoint them, but this only means that USA has never fought any war seriously. They entered both the First and the Second World War at the end, for the sole purpose of making a good profit, and they did make a good profit. Here is some arithmetic. During the Great Patriotic War, Soviet Union lost 20 million (MILLION) people during over 1400 days of war, which comes to over 14000 people killed per day, each day, every day, 1400 days in a row, day in, day out. Donít you ever forget it.


CIA and FBI clueless

A huge award of $25 million was announced recently for information, leading to arrest of the terrorists. The enormous amount proves only one thing: both FBI and CIA are clueless. They have arrested over 480 people, under various pretexts, and they are fishing blindly. I would not be surprised, if at certain point in time, several people arrested would crack under pressure and give false confessions. This reminds me of the U.S.S.R. in 1937: there were numerous public trials of the so-called "enemies of the people"; each and everyone publicly confessed of being "capitalist agent" and none was.

Both CIA and FBI proved to be inept on numerous occasions. Remember bombing of US troops in Lebanon? Bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? Bombing of 2 embassies, Navy ship Cole, and the list goes on. Some people say, that CIA and FBI have prevented many terrorist acts. Name one. Donít tell me, it is a secret: when you catch someone, you have to put him on a public trial, you have to accuse him of terrorism, so it can not avoid being reported by the media. When Ressam was caught at the border with explosives, it was number one news. Sadly, he was NOT caught due to a brilliant work of CIA or FBI; it was elementary vigilance of a Customs officer.

FBI is desperate to show its usefulness, so it plays spectacles. The first such spectacle was played the day, when the airports were opened. Several hours after that, both Kennedy and La Guardia airports were closed again. Media announced arrest of two groups of people, who had tickets purchased September 11, used false identifications of airline pilots, had knives and box- cutters in their possession. Bravo, FBI! They have averted at least 2 new hijackings!

When I have heard all this, especially that the individuals were removed from the planes by SWAT teams, it was obvious to me, that the whole thing was a hoax, a public relations exercise. I could not believe that the terrorists would be that stupid to try the same scenario. I was right: couple of days later, media shyly and quietly mentioned that all arrested were released, that they have never used false identifications, and did not have knives or box-cutters in their possession. Wow, if this is so, why were they arrested in the first place? The explanation is very simple: FBI is frantic to show public that it is useful, so they have no choice but to play a spectacle. Since the names of arrested were never released, and there have never been any interview with them aired, I suspect that the arrested were also FBI agents, playing their parts in the spectacle.

One resident doctor from Texas was arrested and kept in jail for 2 weeks. Media announced that he, with 3 other Arabs, has purchased one-way tickets to Los Angeles, without asking leave from his hospital. Even if this was true, you can not go with such nonsense to court. If you suspect him, place 10 armed air marshals on that plane, let him start hijacking, and then arrest him. When he was quietly released, there was no mentioning of any tickets. He was lucky not to crack under pressure and not to give a false confession. You might have seen on LCN channel the Norfolk murder case, where 4 people seem to have made false confessions, and they all were convicted, with no material evidence linking them to the murder.

Two individuals were arrested and their names were released. According to the media, they had box-cutters with them plus about $20,000 cash. Now, what can you do with this? They are held as material witnesses. Witnesses of what? According to the law, you can detain an individual, as material witness only in exceptional circumstances, when there is a concern, that the witness might destroy evidence. In this particular case, there is no evidence that they are "material witnesses". Besides, if they are material witnesses, you can not force them to testify, unless you give them immunity from prosecution. It was stupid, stupid, stupid to arrest them: if you suspect them of being accomplices, place them under surveillance, let them do something criminal. How long can you keep them in jail?

Yet another FBI stupidity: they are now searching every car coming to US from Canada. If I am a terrorist, and I know they are searching every car, I just would not go, so what is the point to hold everybody for 6 hours? They are not going to do this idiotic search all the time, soon they will stop it, and then a patient terrorist can go again. It is even more idiotic to search every vehicle entering New York. If I am a terrorist, it does not make any difference to me, where to make an explosion, I shall go to another city: you are not going to search all cars entering all cities in America, are you? Besides, Israel is doing this all the time; does it make its citizens safe?


Surrender bin Laden to us!

In International Law, when one government makes a request to another government to extradite a suspected criminal, it has to provide evidence, that the individual has indeed committed the crime. This is exactly what Afghanistan has responded to USA. Bush refused to provide any proof, saying that it was classified. None of the yellow media reporters asks a simple question: "Suppose, bin Laden is in your hands, you have to put him on trial, how do you plan to prove your accusation, if your proof is classified?"


Which is the most hated country on this planet?

I have heard on several US talk shows the host posing a question: "Why do they hate us so much?" The guest usually responds that the people, who hate USA, are uneducated, envious of USA's affluence, power, etc. Other guests responded even in a more ridiculous way: one said that she lived in Middle East for many years, and that majority of population there "admires USA". Wow! I suggest to make a global poll, and I assure you, that out of 6 billion people, at least 4 billion would name USA as the most hated country. If you sincerely do not understand why, let me give you a couple of hints.

People do resent USA's affluence, but not the affluence as such. They hate USA, because its affluence is the result of robbery of other countries. People do resent USAís power, but again, not the power as such, but rather the way it is being used. Let us look into the history of how USA became rich. They started with genocide of native people. Then they declared proudly that everyone is born equal, which did not prevent them to buy, sell and exploit other human beings (slaves). They entered world wars at the end just to get the war spoils. What are the sweatshops, established by US companies abroad, if not just another form of robbery? You might say, that without those sweatshops these people would be dying of starvation, and you would be right, BUT robbing of desperate people is much more repugnant than robbing of rich people. Did I get through to you?

Now let us recall, how USA is using its power. For many years, it has supported bloody dictatorships all over the world. In exchange, all these dictators allowed USA to rob their countries. USA interfered in internal affairs of countries, which US government did not like, and all means were good, including murder and military coup (remember murder of General Schneider in Chile?). Several people noticed that September 11 was 28 anniversary of the bloody coup in Chile, orchestrated by CIA. Remember Clintonís bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan? Clinton claimed to have an "absolutely reliable information", that this factory was producing biological weapons. Since then, it was established with certainty, that the factory did not produce any weapons, nevertheless, USA never apologized, did not compensate the loss, millions of poor people in Africa were left to die due to lack of simplest medication. Do I need to continue?

Some people say: "USA is helping the whole world, why donít they appreciate it and hate us instead?" Imagine that you are robbed of all your money, and the robber gives you couple of bucks for transportation home. Would you be thankful to the robber for his "help", or would you still hate him? This is exactly what USA is doing: robbing billions, and giving as help millions, of which significant part never reaches people, but rather is being embezzled on the way.

It breaks my heart to see innocent people being killed for the crimes of their governments. I wonder, if one day Americans would understand that their real enemy is their government, whose actions created terrorism in the first place.

I understand that many would hate what I wrote. Well, if you hate the truth - too bad. Get beyond the stupid rhetoric: you have a large number of people, ready to die in order to hurt you - you have a problem, and this problem is inside your country, not outside: it is your own government.


Plot to kill Bush?

It was reported, that terrorists have plotted to kill Bush. I do not believe, they are so stupid: Bush is the dumbest president in the whole USA history. If he is killed, anyone, who replaces him, would be much smarter, than he is. So, if you really hate USA, do not touch Bush.


Past weeks revealed the best of USA

Let us name, one by one, the best of USA shining in this tragedy.

Shortly after the tragedy, E-Bay started selling "real pieces" of the towers. After a public outcry, they stopped.

Numerous people volunteered as rescue workers. Later, it was discovered, that their purpose was to rob the bodies of the valuables. A number of people figured out, that the people killed were pretty well off, so they managed to get into the morgue to plunder the bodies.

Cons of all kinds started collecting food and money "to help the families of the victims". Clearly, the families were not so poor, as to be in need of food. Official charities pooled in. The official amount collected so far is about half-billion. So far, I have heard of no family receiving a penny. Judging from the interview with United Way President, they are not to receive any soon. He said, that the families are in such mourning that " you can not just throw dollars at them". Wow! Try it. I do not think that the families would be offended, if you "throw" at them couple of millions. Here is my prediction: major part of money will be stolen, one way or the other.

Much was said about Canadian hospitality in accepting international flights, which were diverted from USA. There were reports, that airport hotels doubled and tripled their prices on this occasion. I guess, Canada showed its best as well.

Mayor Giuliani was hailed as a hero. In order to appreciate the grandeur of his heroism, ask yourself, what would be different, if some dumbhead was there instead of him. Could you rescue less than zero people (I do not mention 5 people rescued within the first 24 hours)? How could he allow criminals to plunder the bodies of victims? What is this idiotism of searching every car coming to New York? How come, many people (at the moment of this writing) still can not return to their apartments? How would you classify a mayor, who would avoid above faults - a superhero?

There is a factual blackout of the media coverage of the rescue process. In any other event, we would have had a helicopter hovering over and showing what is going on. Instead, we have several 10-seconds staged episodes, and these episodes raise more questions than they answer. In each episode, I see about 40 people, either doing nothing or moving, as if in slow motion. This is the way people move, when they have nothing to do, but do not want anyone to notice this. I saw one or two small machines, lifting one metal bar at a time, and loading it on a truck. My question is: why don't you place 1000 people all over the perimeter, get a hundred of machines, etc.?

We were told that the rescuers were so exhausted, that they had to sleep right there on the ground. If this is so, why don't they get more rescuers? Many people said on TV, that they offered to volunteer, and they were told that there were enough rescuers. Do you understand the logic of this? Rescuers are working 12-hour shifts. Does this make sense? Why would not hero mayor make 4-hour shifts, so that rescuers be 3 times more productive? A tired person is not a good worker. Is our hero mayor trying to save money at the expense of lost human lives? Let us spell it out: the September 11 tragedy was the best thing that could happen to Giuliani: he was quite unpopular, and now his popularity is above 90%.

I recall the situation, when one of the buildings was declared to be in danger of collapsing, and all the rescuers were ordered out. I saw all of them running as fast, as they could, I did not see a single person, who would say: "I am staying, I want to risk my life!" More than that, one of the running rescuers was asked by a reporter, what had he seen there. First, he did not want to answer, then he said, that just before they were ordered to leave, he had heard a tapping of a woman in the rubble. There has never been any follow-up on this in the media. I guess, the woman had died.

There was also a case, where someone was to be signaling with a flashlight from the inside of a collapsed building, which was declared to be a hoax. I do not buy this story. Yet another story of a woman, claiming to have received a cell-phone call from her husband stranded underground. The woman was declared insane and placed in jail. Well, if she is insane, jail is certainly not the place where she belongs. Yellow media never followed-up this story. My impression is that Giuliani just wanted to shut her up and to intimidate her by placing her in jail.

In general, if the rescue is being done honestly and seriously, what could be a justification for the prohibition of the permanent presence of the media with cameras? I do not believe for a second, that out of 6000 plus people, not a single one got into a pocket where he could live for several days. Giuliani faked the rescue.

And last, but not the least in the recount of Americans showing their best is the intimidation, vandalism, beatings and murder of Muslims and Sikhs, their property, their mosques and temples. (by the way, there is no intimidation of Muslims in jail, it looks like criminals are behaving more responsibly than the so-called law-abiding citizens are.) There is no doubt in my mind, that this is done with full complicity of the corrupt police.

Terrorists are killing innocent people, if you in response start doing the same, you are no better than them. Not only it is immoral, it is plainly stupid as well. Imagine a situation: a terrorist comes to 2 families to ask for money. One family was beaten up, their business was burnt, etc., and the other family was treated with respect and dignity. Now, which family is more likely to contribute the money to terrorists?

Please, remind me, if I have missed any of the shining USA features.


Terrorists are attacking your freedoms, are they?

The last time I checked, it was your government taking away your freedoms. Over 480 individuals are kept in Jail, being accused of nothing. It flies in the face of American Constitution, and your "free" media is keeping quiet about this. I heard not a single voice saying that FBI is breaking the law.

Bill Maher said something, which was judged to be politically incorrect, several stations cancelled his show. What happened to freedom of speech? If you donít like what he is saying, donít listen to him. Freedom of speech means freedom of a repugnant speech, politically correct speech does not need any protection. You can say, that your policemen are heroes, but God forbid to say the opposite. Terrorists are not doing this to you, - your government is.

It is my understanding, that US government is asking Congress to allow indefinite detention of individuals, without trials and without showing reasons for such a detention. Wow, even Stalin did not go that far. His trials were farce, but at least, he had those trials, and they were broadcast live.

Had a similar tragedy happened in Japan, its Prime Minister would get down on his knees and apologize to the population, and after that, he and his cabinet would resign. I do not expect Bush to do the honourable thing.


About government sanctioned assassinations

Prior to the tragedy, US government on numerous occasions has declared its disapproval of Israelís policy of government sanctioned assassinations. Right after the tragedy, they are talking about adopting this policy to fight terrorism. Wow! I am not telling this to bring credence to Israel, on the contrary, US government is as stupid as that of Israel. Why do I call them stupid? Because this policy just does not work.

Let us go back to Munich Olympic Games. Israeli weightlifters were brutally murdered by terrorists. Israel claims to have hunted all of them down and killed. It might make someone feel good, but did it change anything? Did it resurrect the murdered weightlifters? Are citizens of Israel more safe now? I bet you know the answers.

I am Jewish, most of my immediate family was killed by Nazis, and I feel great shame each time I see an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian boy. This is certainly not what my relatives died for. A soldier can use deadly force, when his life is in danger. A boy, throwing stones at a soldier, certainly does not endanger his life: he can take a plastic shield or he can get inside a vehicle. You would not allow an American or a Canadian soldier to kill your child for throwing stones, would you?

The whole world was terrified to see a father and son under Israeli bullets (I must note here, that I was surprised to see the father keeping his son in front of him. If I were there, my son would have been behind me). Instead of finding and punishing murderers, government started lying that it was not Israeli soldiers shooting.

Is it possible to make peace with Palestinians? You bet! First, Sharon himself should be extradited to The Hague, and be placed in the cell, next to Milosevic. He is a war criminal, he arranged bloody massacres of innocent civilians in the camps Sabra and Shatila. Second, they want a part of Jerusalem, give it to them, it is nothing, but a bunch of ugly stones. Not only they are not worth loosing one life; they are not worth spilling one drop of human blood. There is no God! There has never been one: men created God, not the other way around. If after Holocaust you still believe in God, you are damn fool.


How can you Judge a religion?

Someone on TV said that you can not judge Christianity on people, like McVeigh, and you can not judge Islam on the terrorists. I agree. I suggest to judge a religion on its immediate representatives - priests. I have met in my life only Christian priests of various denominations and Jewish, so I can discuss only what I know.

Catholic priests are prominent by a greater than others proportion of paedophiles. It is understandable: they are not allowed to marry, so many paedophiles find becoming a Catholic priest to be a good way to make a living. How does God tolerate this quality in his representatives?

I have heard one priest telling the audience that those perished "are now among angels with God", in a better place, than they were before. If this is so, then why are we blaming terrorists? They actually moved people to a better place. How can one listen seriously to all this nonsense?

Billy Graham and his son, both appealed to the listeners to deliver themselves into the "God's loving hands" and were assuring them that "God will never forsake you". Well, where was he on September 11? Did he see people jumping to their death? Did "God's loving hands" save them? Over 6000 people perished terrible death, if this is not forsaking, what is?

One preacher on TV explained the tragedy as God's punishment for the sins, namely, pornography, drug use, prostitution. Now, this explains it, but again, one has to conclude, that the terrorists were nothing but God sent people to punish for sins. You should not fight them. The level of stupidity is astounding.

My personal communications with Christian priests in jail was due to the fact that I am being murdered by denial of medical care. First, I spoke to Protestant Huish. At the beginning, he pretended to be outraged and he told me that he would fight for me. He even mentioned the 'do not killí commandment. Several days passed, he was not doing anything. When I asked him, what has he done, he responded that he made a call, and that he was waiting for an answer. He is still waiting. I suggested that he should protest, he did not have the guts to do it. Then I tried to talk to Catholic priest. He referred me back to Huish, though I told him, that Huish was not doing anything to help me. I wrote a letter to Cardinal Turcotte. This "noble" priest refused to speak with me, and after numerous reminders wrote that he was not a doctor. I never said he was, I asked him to protest the denial of medical care.

Jewish priests are notorious for their dishonesty. During Holocaust, they were collaborating with Nazis helping them to exterminate Jews: they provided Nazis with lists of names and addresses of Jews, they were telling Jews to obey all Nazi orders, etc. Nazis would have had difficult time rounding up Jews, had not Rabbis given them all necessary information and instead of telling Jews to run away, they were counseling them to come voluntarily for registration. Many of Rabbis saved their skin on betrayal of their own people.

In my case, I tested them too. There is Rabbi Silberstein, who is paid to oversee the conditions and treatment of Jewish prisoners in Quebec jails. He is so scared of jailers that he would be prepared to say any lie to defend them. Here is a little example. I have told him, that Jailers were giving us kosher milk frozen, while general population always gets regular milk fresh. He immediately told me that he himself was buying frozen milk. I asked him to name me a store, where he buys such milk, and of course, he could not, because he was lying as usual.

As far as my medical care is concerned, he did the trick a Huish: he called someone 3 years ago, and he is still waiting for an answer. Fish is usually smells from the head, so I decided to check at the top. I called Chief Rabbi Niznik. He pretended not to know who I was, and when I told him, that I was being denied medical care, he responded: "Well, you must have done something". Would you believe that he sincerely did not know what I have done? Whatever I have done, I am entitled to the same medical care, as any other Canadian citizen. This is what the law says. If you do not like the law, change it, but in the meantime, respect it. Niznik did not give a damn either about Canadian law, or about 'do not kill' commandment. Scoundrel and hypocrite.

I foresee here, that someone will sarcastically respond that I was the one who did not respect the 'do not kill' commandment. Yes, and this is why I am in jail. This does not give anyone the right to kill me, and this is what jailers are doing for over 3 years by now, with help of jail doctors, corrupt judges and politicians.

I have heard on numerous occasions that the only way to salvation is "through our Lord Jesus Christ", and then I have heard that the only way to eternal life is through Allah, and that all "infidels" will be damned. Now, they both can not be right, can they?

So, Judge religion on its representatives - priests, and you will come to the right conclusion.


Coward terrorists and brave President Bush

In his first statement, Bush has called terrorists cowards. English is a foreign language to me, so I decided to check what this word means. The Oxford dictionary defines coward as a person "having little or no bravery". Now I have to look up, what the word brave means. According to the same dictionary, a person is brave, if he is "able to face and endure danger or pain". The dictionary does not say, whether this ability to face danger should be directed towards legal or noble actions. Now you decide by yourself, whether terrorists were cowards. I shall concentrate of President Bushís bravery.

What did Bush do, when he first heard about terrorist attack? He jumped into Air Force One and, accompanied by 2 fighter jets, went to Louisiana military base, and immediately went into an underground bunker. Was he at any time in any danger? By that time, there was not a single plane in the air. Even if there was one, he was protected by two jets. He was underground for couple of hours, then he decided that the bunker was not deep enough, so he jumps into his plane, and flies to Nebraska, where the bunker is deeper. Pataki was at ground zero, and President Bush was underground. Ask yourself, what would a paranoid coward do different from what Bush did?

Everybody understood, that his behavior was less than commendable, so FBI invented the myth that Air Force One was targeted by terrorists. When they were asked, how did they know it, the response was, that it was top secret. Ask yourself, how on earth Air Force One could be a target and why? First, it is almost impossible to find on the ground. Second, even if you find it, it is extremely difficult to hit, and even if you hit it, the President is most probably not there, so what is the point, when you can hit White House of Capitol? It is even more difficult to find and hit Air Force One in the air, especially, if is escorted by two fighter jets. The whole story was invented to create impression that Bush was in danger, so that his behavior would not look as cowardly as it was.

He finally managed to get to the White House in the evening, and immediately went underground there. Have in mind, at that time, there were only birds flying over both USA and Canada. From where any kind of danger could have possibly come? The man is a pathological coward.

I watched his speech to the Congress. It reminded me of Stalin speeches: long applaud every couple of sentences, speech with no substance - mainly slogans, and the main nonsense: "If you are not with us, you are with terrorists." I have a surprise for him: I am not with terrorists, but I am certainly not with him, I am with common sense.


Wag the dog

"Wag the dog" was the title of a movie, where US President, in order to improve his ratings, started a war. This is what his father, Bush senior did. I have in the past made a posting about Saddam Hussein being US agent. I remind the main facts. When Iran has hijacked US diplomats, Saddam started war against Iran. Could USA expect anything better than that? Ten years later, Arab countries started displaying independence from US, old friend Saddam is ready to oblige: he attacks Kuwait. Bush senior prepares war, his popularity is dramatically up.

Armed forces accumulate in Saudi Arabia. Saddam can attack them, while they are deploying and very vulnerable, he does not. Then Bush starts the war, it is unbelievably successful, and I mean unbelievable, because Iraq army just does not shoot back. US still manages to loose about 150 people, killed by "friendly fire". A popular uprising starts in Basra. Instead of letting people to topple Saddam, USA lets Saddam to kill the rebels. The war ends. CIA collects all Saddam's enemies in the North of the country, under pretext of preparing them to overturn Saddam. Inreality, when they are all assembled together, it betrays them to Saddam for slaughter. You remember the comedy USA played at that time: bombing him in the SOUTH, while he was slaughtering his enemies in the NORTH. Saddam reminds me of many informants, which I have seen in jail: they are talking all the time, how much they hate the guards, that they want to kill them all, and in reality, they are prepared to do anything the guards tell them to do.

Now let us move to Bush junior. He is a live proof, that anyone can become a US president, though he gives this phrase a quite unintended meaning: he looks like a dumbhead, he speaks like a dumbhead, he is a dumbhead. Let us be blunt about it: the terrorist attack was the best thing, that might happen to him. His popularity jumped to over 90%. He was mocked on every show, no more. It is a terrible thought, but what if CIA and FBI knew very well about the coming attack and did nothing on Bush's order, to "wag the dog"?


Applause in the Parliament

You might have noticed, that in every TV sitcom a laughter is heard almost after every phrase, whether it was funny or not. This is a psychological trick: it has been noticed, that hearing a laughter makes us think that the situation was funny indeed.

We have seen on numerous occasions Day getting up in the House and asking one of his dumb questions, and then his people applause enthusiastically, as if he said something smart, and then Chretien gets up and says something even more stupid and irrelevant, and Liberals applauding even more enthusiastically. The idea here is the same, as in sitcom: hearing applause makes us think that something wise was said.

Here is my suggestion: stop this psychological game; let us forbid any applause in the House. This is not a theatre, it is supposed to be a place, where legislators are to discuss the most important issues of this country - let them have their discussion in a business like atmosphere, donít waste time on stupid applause.


And they called me paranoiac!

It was reported in the news, that one Arab passenger during a flight from Los Angeles to Toronto was caught smoking in a lavatory (passengers said that he was smoking in his seat). He allegedly said something hostile to USA. There was no violence or threat of violence. The plane turned back to Los Angeles, accompanied by 2 fighter jets, ready to shoot it down. When the plane landed in Los Angeles, a SWAT team stormed the plane, pointed loaded guns to the passengerís head and have taken him away. One passenger very witty called his crime as "smoking while Arab".

It would have been hilariously funny, if it was not so sad. These people suffer from acute paranoia. The man was unarmed, he did not threaten anyone. What was the need to turn back? What was the need for 2 fighter jets? What if a gun of one jet misfired and shot the plane down? What was the need for a SWAT team? How can you justify pointing a loaded gun to the head of an unarmed man? What if the gun misfires?

And they called me paranoiac!


FBI - can it act more stupid than that?

At the moment of this writing, over 600 people are kept in jail by FBI for several weeks, while Congress is debating government request to pass a law, which would allow ONE WEEK detention, without laying charges. Clearly, several weeks detention is illegal, yet we hear nothing from the so-called watchdogs, like Civil Liberties Union or Amnesty International.

Now, let us drop the issue of legality and try to use common sense. Is it feasible, that such an operation had over 600 people having any knowledge of it? Terrorists are not that stupid. I do not believe that even 10 people on this planet knew anything about the planned operation.

The situation reminds me of USSR in 1937. Stalin at that time organized murder of a very popular leader Kirov. NKVD(KGB) was given wide powers to clean up the country of enemies of the people, and "clean" they did. If you did not like your neighbour, you could have him killed or jailed for a long time, by inventing any story. One man denounced his neighbour for using a piece of a newspaper with Stalin's photo to wipe his behind (there was no toilet paper at the time in the USSR). The man was jailed for 20 years. He was lucky not to be shot. It sounds like an anecdote, but it is not.

If you think, that what is going on in USA is very different from USSR in 1937, think again. If you do not like your Arab neighbour, you can put him in jail very easily. Just call FBI and tell them that you think, that you saw once a man, looking like Atta, entering your neighbour's house. That is it. Your neighbour will be arrested, and if he is not strong enough, he will confess to anything FBI wants him to confess.

On October 1, I watched NBC Dateline interview with Texas doctor, who was kept in jail for 2 weeks. Why was he arrested? He had the same family name, as 2 of the terrorists, he bought tickets for the flight to San Diego for himself and 4 other people with Arab names, he visited Boston, he spoke on telephone with someone named bin Laden, and he wired $10,000 to someone.

Investigation showed, that his name is as popular as Smith in England, that 4 other Arabs were his wife and 3 small children, that bin Laden is also a popular name, and the one, he spoke to, has nothing to do with Osama, his visit to Boston was professional one, and the $10,000 was a legitimate transfer. Could and should all this be verified BEFORE the doctor was arrested? How long does it take to verify that 4 other Arabs were his wife and 3 small children?

Now, presume for the sake of an argument, that 4 other Arabs were grown-up men, that bin Laden, he spoke to, was related to Osama, that $10,000 went to Organisation, which USA considers terrorist, and that he refused to explain, why he visited Boston. Does all this make him guilty of any crime and does this justify his arrest? Of course, not. Does presumption of innocence mean something to you?

Could it be, that Texas doctor was gay, and 4 other men were his lovers, and he did not want anyone to know about it? Suppose, that he had a lover in Boston and does not want anyone to know about it. Even if he spoke on the phone with Osama, this does not prove him guilty of anything. Suppose, he is interested in Osama's views on religion. Every terrorist Organisation acts as a registered charity, he could have given $10,000 sincerely thinking that his money would go to charity. Remember, government has to prove someone's guilt, and do it beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody has to prove his innocence.

The yellow reporter did not ask the doctor a single question about details of FBI questioning him. The doctor though made a general statement, that he was treated "very professionally" that FBI agents are his "friends", that he understands, why he was arrested, etc. This is the most scary part of the interview: this is what people in the USSR, who managed to get out of NKVD(KGB) jails alive were saying. They were so scared, that they were uniformly singing high praise for KGB, while everybody knew, that they were beaten and tortured.

One thing though slipped in the interview: the doctor mentioned that he was transferred to Brooklyn Detention Center, and that there he was afraid to be killed, from which I conclude, that he was placed in the general population of criminals. This is a no-no, and constitutes top unprofessional behaviour: people, like this doctor, should have been kept in a protective custody, which means no physical contact with any other prisoner. There is no doubt, that FBI deliberately placed him in general population to scare him into a false confession.

This is how any police Organisation gets false confessions. They take the most scared person, and they tell him: "We are your friends. We do not want you to die, but we have such-and-such, who will testify in court, that you were a mastermind of terrorist activity, so you will be found guilty and executed. We are prepared to accept your confession, that you did participate in terrorism under threat and implicate couple of your friends". Sadly, many people fall for it, and chain of false confessions continues.

I do not recall FBI arresting someone, just because his name was McVeigh, do you?


Long live airline sloppiness!

Ashcroft announced that FBI has found luggage of Atta, which did not make it from the connecting flight. In this luggage, they found a letter, which contained instructions to terrorists on how to behave and what to do to avoid detection. Clearly, they would not have found the letter, if airline was not sloppy and did deliver Attaís luggage to the connecting flight.

One thing though bugs me: if this is really an instruction to terrorists, then item one in any such instruction should be: "Do not keep with you any document, which, if found, would betray you". I do not believe for a second, that terrorists were so stupid as to keep with themselves a document, which could compromise them.


Idiots in Astrophysics - follow-up

Majority of people, who responded, did not understand the main argument of my posting: they wrote that the idea of the Moon origin due to a collision of the Earth with a large object was not new. I was not talking about the idea. The woman claimed to have been able to get a computer simulation of the process of formation of the Moon. This means, that she found the size of the object, its speed and direction of the impact, she did model the process of impact, she knows, how many pieces of the Earth were cut off, their direction and velocity, she could model, how these pieces of the Earth got together and formed the Moon, etc. My posting was saying that this claim is a fake, and I provided the reasons why.

I wrote that contemporary technology does not allow measurements of distance between the Moon and Earth with accuracy of 3 centimeters. One individual responded that it can be done: just measure the distance between the same points now and a year later. This is the problem: there is no way you could point your laser at the same point twice. Even presuming, that laser ray is needle thin all the way, your breath is enough to move the laser several kilometers on the surface of the moon. Have in mind also, that both Earth and the Moon are moving during the measurements.

In many cases, I wrote about one thing, and people responded to something else. For example, I wrote, that there is no law of nature, which would justify decrease of the Earth rotational speed due to the increase of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. One individual responded that the Earth does slow down due to atmospheric friction. What does one have in common with the other?


Michel Auger gets promotion

Reporter Auger used to cover little criminals in Montreal. Now, he covers really big criminals, like Bush and Chretien (during his visit) in Washington.


Why do they hate us so much?

Someone on TV said that it makes no more sense to investigate, why so many people hate Americans, than to investigate, why the Nazis hated the Jews so much. He even said that to investigate the reasons for hatred would be equal to a justification of this hatred. I am Jewish, and I disrespectfully disagree: it makes sense to look into the roots of any phenomenon, and such an investigation is not equal to a justification. Here is my understanding of the roots of anti-Semitism.

Strictly speaking, the word means hostility against Semites. Though Arabs are also Semites, the term has never had any anti-Arab meaning. So, it is a legitimate question: why does anti-Semitism exist? Historically, the hatred toward Jews goes back to the birth of Christianity. The first Christians were Jews. They were prosecuted, tortured, eaten by lions, etc. And then, they came to power: Christianity was adopted by many nations, now persecuted have become persecutors.

They have forgotten, that Jesus, and Mary, and all Apostles were Jews, they remember only, that Jews crucified Christ, so let us kill the Jews! What can be done about all this now? Educate people. First, descendants of any nation are not responsible for actions of their forefathers. Second, strictly speaking, it was the Romans, who crucified Christ. Third, Christians themselves claim that it was God's plan to sacrifice his own Son to redeem the sins of the mankind, so Christ crucifixion was a part of God's plan (I personally could never understand, why Almighty would need all this: if He is Almighty, couldn't he just forgive human sins, without all this atrocity of killing his own Son?).

Second big reason for anti-Semitism: large number of filthy-rich Jews, who obtained their money by criminal means. People do not care much, if John Smith becomes rich by criminal means, but they resent Bronfinan doing the same. It is the problem, that majority of people do not associate Jews with Einstein, but rather with those rich and powerful criminals. (I foresee here some sarcastic idiot writing: "The main reason for anti-Semitism is Fabrikant". Don't waste your energy!)

Nazis used this to the fullest: they told German population, that the source of their miseries are filthy-rich Jews, who are sucking blood of German workers. In addition, they found "scientists", who claimed that Jews were inferior race, and needed to be exterminated, for the good of mankind. Germans understood very well the profitability of killing Jews: they took all the valuables, including gold teeth, tattooed skin, even body fat was used for soap. Nothing was wasted.

Third big reason: criminal activity of the government of Israel. Killing of Palestinian children should stop. In general, soldiers can not shoot at civilians, unless their life is in danger. I just wonder, how many more innocent civilians will be killed, before the people of Israel would finally understand, that violence only breeds violence, it does not protect them from future attacks. They have to make peace with the Palestinians. There is no alternative.

So, it makes sense to investigate the roots of any hatred. Using of force does not eliminate the hatred, addressing its reasons does.


Idiots at large part 3

1 . It was reported that numerous radio-stations came to an agreement: not to play the Lennon's song "Imagine". Why? Because he dreams there about people living in peace with each other, without being poisoned by religion. Even in Soviet Union they did not come to that level of stupidity!

2. One show had a joke about one policeman. This joke was deleted, because it was deemed to be disrespectful toward police, since certain number of them perished in September 11 disaster. For God's sake! They are no heroes: they entered the WTC, because they had no idea, that the towers would collapse! Had they known, none would enter. They are the same criminals, who raped the black guy with a broom-stick, they are the people, who confiscate drugs from the dealers, and then turn around and sell them on the street, they are the people who shoot innocent bystanders, they are the people, who plant evidence, and then come to court and lie through their teeth. Get real!

3. An 81 year-old veteran has committed a crime: he dared to ask the security people at the airport, whether they were looking for a bomb in his wife's purse. They call it "get tough with airport security". As far, as I understand, the train has already left. How on earth mistreating of an elderly man would improve airport security?


Brave President Bush

Washington airport was closed for 3 weeks. Brave Bush was so scared, that he did not allow any plane to fly from there. Now, one may ask, why? Why would not it be enough to search every passenger, and let them fly? Because paranoiac Bush is not afraid of passengers, he is afraid of his own pilots. This is why he needed 3 weeks: his FBI was screening all pilots on the subject, whether any of them could decide to crash into the White House. Finally, he allowed selected planes to fly, no foreigners though, even Canadian pilots are not trusted.

And they call me paranoiac!