Can a prisoner complain?
On paper, the situation could not be better. The law says that the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) has an obligation to "act fairly". This in general means, that prisoner's request can not be denied, unless there is a good reason to do so, and in this case, CSC is obliged to explain the reason in writing to the prisoner. In addition, the law specifically says, that it is forbidden to mistreat a prisoner, who makes complaints. More than that, jailers can not even mention in any of the documents the fact that a prisoner makes complaints. In reality, this hypocritical country has never lived up to its beautiful laws.
When I came to the system in 1993, the time limits for complaint adjudication were one week for urgent complaint and 3 weeks for regular complaints. Complaint is considered urgent, if it is related to health care, involuntary transfer or detention. After the scandal at the Kingston prison for women, judge Arbour made a recommendation, that CSC should respect the time limits for complaint adjudication. Jailers decided, instead of respecting the existing time limits, they extended those time limits: now urgent complaint has the time limit of 3 weeks, while regular complaint is to be answered in 5 weeks. If you think, that jailers now respect the time limits, think again. By the way, Provincial jailers respond to a complaint in 24 hours, second level - in 48 hours, and the third level in 72 hours. This does not mean, that those responses are fair, but at least they are fair.
I have made a quite extensive research on this subject. I have filed well over 500 complaints on every imaginable subject. I was curious to see how inmate complains are being treated. I have discovered, that whatever rule can be violated, is violated, and a prisoner can not get redress at any level, even when he is 150% right. I give below some examples of my complaints and the way they were treated.
The general rules are as follows. If a prisoner is mistreated, he can write a complaint, which is to be responded within 5 weeks by a jail manager. If the inmate is not satisfied with the response, he can write a. grievance to Level One, which has to be answered by the warden. If the inmate is not satisfied with the warden's response, he can write a grievance to Level Two, which is responded by the Provincial Commissioner, and finally, Level Three grievance is adjudicated at the National Headquarters in Ottawa. After that, inmate can write to the Correctional Investigator, who acts as an independent ombudsman. So, on paper, everything is fine, but the reality is something else.
Example one. Several years ago, I needed to send a letter to US, and I wrote an authorization to deduct $0.52 postage from my account. True to their habit of stealing from prisoners, jailers have deducted $0.90, which at that time was a regular postage overseas. It escapes me, why would they need to steal $0.32 with their average $50,000 salary - these people are pathological thieves.
First, I thought that it was an honest mistake and tried to settle the matter, to no avail. So, I decided to make an experiment: to see, how jailers would defend this seemingly indefensible theft. They could not say that my letter was heavier than usual, since the rate of $0.90 to US at that time just did not exist. I have lost at all levels. The response was: postal rates are established by Canada Post, and jailers have no power to change them.
This is what jailers typically do: a prisoner writes about a certain violation, and jailers respond about something else. The purpose is obvious: to make prisoners angry, so that they would commit another crime after their liberation and come right back. Though the system is called “correctional”, the last thing jailers want is "correction" of inmates. Their worst nightmare: there is no more crime - they will all lose their jobs.
Since I was so obviously right, I have decided to check out the objectivity of Correctional Investigator Stewart and sent my complaint to him. Stewart has responded that he agreed with the response given by CSC. My attempt to question his employees as to why CSC was right was unsuccessful: Stewart ordered his employees not to talk to me. Why? Because his position is impossible to defend in a face-to-face conversation, while he can put anything on paper. I am the only prisoner in Canada, with who Stewart refuses to speak, though this is what he is paid for.
Yet another subject of inmate complaints - guards’ misbehaviour. I reproduce below the typical response:
"After verification, we were informed that Mrs. Lafontaine, Correctional Officer, works with professionalism and applies institutional rules. The Correctional Service of Canada staff has been trained to intervene judicially with inmates. When institutional authorities note that an employee had an inadequate behaviour towards an inmate, corrective measures are taken to ensure a just and fair treatment to inmates."
Can you get from this response, what was I complaining about? Of course, my complaint was denied. Here is yet another quote:
"All employees of the Correctional Service of Canada are subjected to a very strict code of discipline. If institutional authorities note that a staff member has an inadequate behaviour, corrective measures are taken in order to ensure a fair and equal treatment to all inmates"
The cliche is clear. Whatever an inmate is complaining about, the typical response is: "A thorough investigation has been done, no evidence supporting the allegations was found." There is no specific discussion of the allegations. In the case of an inmate complaining on bodily harm, the typical response - the inmate did it to himself. In the case of an internal injury, which inmate can not do to himself, jailers have dishonest doctors, ready to cover-up for them.
Guard Amyot has deliberately broken my ribs in Donnacona jail in 1994. I was brought to the hospital (St-Francois d’Assise) and there radiologist Legare was happy to oblige: I was informed that no ribs were broken. It took me several years to get a documental confirmation that she lied. I field a lawsuit for $10 million, and I am sure that I shall never win a penny. Corrupt Canadian judges will never find me right and jailers wrong.
I did not win even 1% of my complaint, nevertheless jailers for some reasons seem to be very upset with my complaints and are using their informants to intimidate me, to harass me. Some people ask me, why am I filing all these complaints and lawsuits, if I know that I would never win? The answer is very simple: losing in court, when I am 100% right, is my victory, because my purpose is to show that there is no respect for the law in this country, that an ordinary person gets always screwed up by the rich and powerful, with the help of corrupt judges, and in such a lawless society, one has the right to defend himself, with deadly force, if necessary.
Goebbels style propaganda
1. La Presse, headlines: "Second night of bombardment". What to you think is on the photo under this headline? A smiling Afghani child, munching on a bone, and yet another smiling child behind him. Remember the terrifying pictures of bombardment in US? Bombardment of Afghans is not that bad after all!
2. The show "West Wing" has aired a Especial about terrorism. First, they made a geographical discovery: a border between Ontario and Vermont. Though we hear some murmurs about Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, we learn that the main reason for terrorist atrocities: they do not like that our daughters are being educated and can become a doctor, a lawyer, an astronaut - this is why they come and kill us. Now, can we tolerate this? Of course, not. So, we have no choice, but to kill them. How many of us do know, that several years ago, a woman was the Prime Minister in Muslim Pakistan, and the President in Muslim Indonesia is a woman right now? In the whole US history, has there ever been a woman-president?
3. Media tells us that only minority of Pakistan population objects its government support of USA, without giving any numbers. I have found in one newspaper the results of one poll: 62% of Pakistanis disapprove their government. It does not look to me like a "minority" - am I missing something?
4. Media is talking about "courageous men and women". Who do you think they are? The US servicemen on aircraft carriers. The Oxford Dictionary defines "courage" as the ability to face and endure danger. Are these people in any danger? How much courage does one need to launch a missile to Afghanistan or to bomb Taliban, who has no means to shoot them down?
5. A bomb has strayed a mile away and slammed into a residential quarter of Kabul. The media reports that 4 people were killed, but even this number is "unconfirmed". Do you sincerely believe, that a bomb in a residential quarter would kill only 4 people?
Goebbels ideas are still alive and well. Is it surprising that the
very first letter with anthrax was mailed to the company, which is called very
appropriately "American Media"? Sad part: wrong people are
Remember, how outraged was everyone, when McVeigh called innocent civilians killed in Oklahoma as collateral damage? Now everyone calls innocent Afghans killed in US bombardment as collateral damage, and nobody murmurs a word. After all, Americans are humans, and killing them is a crime against humanity, Afghans are not. Any comments?
Doctors kill more people than criminals - follow-up
In my previous posting on this subject, I referred to US statistics.
Now I came across Canadian data. Official number of people, killed every
year in Canada due to "error in medication" is over 2,500.
There is no doubt, that the real number is much higher. The source did not
state, how many people are killed due to wrong diagnosis, infections in
operating rooms, surgical errors, etc. As comparison, criminals in Canada
kill every year about 600 people.
Patriotism - refuge for all scoundrels
I do not remember, who coined this brilliant phrase (please, remind me, if you know), but it seems to be very valid right now. There is nothing wrong with the word itself, if it is understood as a tendency to defend your country. The problem arises when scoundrels of all kinds start using it to their advantage. The most publicized case of such use was McCarthy. The situation now in US and Canada reminds me of that era.
One woman professor in British Columbia dared to say publicly that US is the most hated country due to its bloody policies. Canadian Police is now investigating her: they claim that she has committed a hate crime. Since when telling unpleasant truth has become a crime? If people are ready to kill themselves in order to kill you, does not this mean that they hate you as much as possibly imaginable? What happened to freedom of speech?
I saw on TV one guy standing under a banner saying: "Foreigner, go home". The guy is white. May I remind him, that he is a foreigner as well? The only people, who can fly this banner, are native Indians.
Pathological obsession with flags, anthem and the like. I use the word "pathological" for the following reasons. I was born and lived the first 39 years of my life in the USSR. Patriotism was cultivated there to the extreme, but even there, there has never been any anthem sung at any sport activity, there were no flags on any private house or an apartment building, there were no patriotic recitals (like pledge of allegiance) at schools. Every school day started the way it should - with learning.
Merchants, selling flags, are having the time of their lives. I do not think, all this flag-buying is really voluntary. Presume, that you live on a street, where every house waves a flag, and you do not want to do it. Can you stay "flagless"? I doubt it. Intolerance is raising its ugly head. And if you are a Muslim, you will be cursed, if you wave a flag, and you will be cursed, if you don't.
The nation needs heroes, and now every scoundrel becomes a hero. Remember, everybody loved to hate Giuliani? Now he is a hero. Why? Of course, he is a hero, compared to Bush, who was cowardly hiding the whole day underground, but if you compare Giuliani to any regular citizen, what did he do to deserve it? Just ask yourself, what would be different, if instead of Giuliani, a total dumbhead would be the mayor? The answer is clear: he did not make any difference: nobody was rescued after the first 24 hours.
All the policemen are now hailed as heroes. Remember, these are the people, who raped Louima with a broom-stick, these are the people, who confiscate drugs and then sell them in the street, etc. Police is a very well organized crime, in New York, Los Angeles or here in Canada. A scoundrel does not become a hero, just because he died.
Everybody these days is eager to be photographed with firemen. Are they really heroes? They entered the towers, because they had no idea, that the towers would collapse. The best proof of it is the fact, that their top brass entered the towers. I assure you, that if the bosses have any inkling that the towers might collapse, they would have never entered themselves. Every boss is a scoundrel by definition, otherwise, he would not be appointed a boss.
I am an engineer. I understood, that the top floors might collapse, but I could never imagine, that collapse of the top floors might result in collapse of everything else. There is no doubt, that the tower construction was quite shabby. Fire or no fire, the towers should not have collapsed the way they did.
Giuliani said that the firemen saved 25,000 people. Did they really?
It is my understanding, that the people saved were those, who managed to run
down the stairs all the way and got out. Imagine a crowd of people running down
the stairs and the firemen try to go up. Were they helping these people
or were they impeding their movement down? The answer is clear. How many
people did they really save? There was a report about one paraplegic
stuck on the 27-th floor with his Jewish friend. Both perished. The
firemen were not there for them. Actually, they were not there for
I love FBI
FBI has issued a warning of likelihood of a terrorist act in the nearest
several days in US or outside US. You can not go wrong with such a
warning: if something happens on this planet, FBI would say: "Hey, we
warned you". If nothing happens, FBI would be even more proud:
"Our warning has prevented a terrorist act." If you translate their
warning into a normal English, they say: "We do not know what, we do not
know when, we do not know if, actually, we know nothing". And the
American taxpayer pays for this ignorance $10 BILLION every year. I can
give you a much better prediction free of charge: the terrorist acts have just
happened: anthrax in US and shooting of a Canadian in Kuwait (I guess, the
terrorists confused him with an American).
Idiots in FBI
It was reported that Delta has cancelled its flight to Amsterdam, because two Arab men have purchased one-way tickets. Both men were detained by FBI. I have read all this and could not believe my eyes. Since when purchasing a one-way ticket has become a crime? This proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that FBI consists of brainless paranoiacs.
I can tell you, what KGB would have done in a similar case. They would
not arrest anyone. They would place 10 armed agents on the plane and let
the plane fly. When and if the 2 men decide to start hijacking, they would kill
one and take the other alive for interrogation. Does one really need much
brain to understand that this is the way to react?
Idiots in religion
One idiot on Larry King show insisted that the only way to salvation was through Jesus. Larry then reminded him that the other religions say that the way to salvation was through their prophets, and asked him what made him sure that he was right and the others were wrong. The idiot responded that it was not his personal opinion (that the salvation was only possible through Jesus), but rather the opinion of "the most authoritative book in the world" - Bible. Larry did not have enough guts at this point to remind the idiot, that it was still HIS opinion that the Bible was "the most authoritative book".
UN got the Nobel Peace prize
UN knew about the planning of massacres in Rwanda and did nothing to prevent
them. Now awarding Nobel Peace prize to UN is a spit in the faces of all
the people massacred while UN watched and did nothing.
Let us review the facts of the NBC employee anthrax contamination, the way it was presented by Giuliani. On September 25, an employee has opened an envelope containing suspicious powder. The powder was tested, and the result was negative. On October 1, the employee has developed rash and her doctor has given her antibiotics against anthrax. Nine more days have passed, and her doctor decided to make a biopsy test, which came out positive on October 10, and Rudi made the announcement 2 days later.
Something does not fit here. If the doctor prescribed the antibiotics on October 1, why did not he order the biopsy right away? The fact that one letter was tested negative means only that you might have overlooked something else. In the fight against anthrax timing is everything, so if one person is infected, you have to presume that others could be infected too. Why did Giuliani wait until October 12 to finally announce the anthrax infection? Is not this delay equivalent to criminal negligence? He was lucky, nobody died so far. Why did not NBC itself report it? Was it not newsworthy?
Something even more funny happened after October 12. One employee remembered that there was another suspicious letter on September 18. A policeman came and took the letter, without wearing gloves or any protective gear. The policeman brought this letter to a medical testing lab, where a technician took the letter, again, without wearing gloves or any protective gear. All of them tested positive for Anthrax exposure. Total lack of professionalism on all levels.
On October 12, Giuliani has finally decided to close NBC building for
testing. Excuse me, has not the train already left, many days ago?
Whoever had to be infected, was infected due to Rudi’s inaction.
Nevertheless, he is still a hero. I just wonder how would you call a
mayor, who would react on time, who would have professional police and medical
staff - a super-hero?
Salvation new legislation
Whenever something terrible happens, it is the human tendency to do something to prevent it to reoccur. The tendency is good, though its implementation is always stupid: instead of looking into the roots as to WHY the terrible thing happened, people always rely on introduction of a new legislation. Does this new legislation work? As a rule, no. Unless the law addresses the reasons behind this terrible action, just "tightening the screws" would do no good, because when a person decides to do it, he no longer cares what his punishment would be. It is as simple as that.
Several months ago, a man in Switzerland has entered local legislation, killed several legislators, and then killed himself. Yellow media immediately begins its work: the man is declared no good, with criminal record, sexual offender, insane, anything goes. I could have never fathom what really happened and why. What did the media suggest to avoid repetition? To introduce armed guards at the legislature. Excuse me, what anyone can do against a heavily armed man, who is on a suicide mission? Nothing. No law can stop him. The only thing to do is to investigate what made him do it and to avoid provoking somebody else in the future. It is as simple as that, and you do not need armed guards.
In September, we had the WTC tragedy. Canadian Government is now introducing
a new antiterrorist legislation. Just look at the definition of
terrorism, and you will see that Indians blocking a major road or bridge, or
striking nurses now become terrorists. Just ask yourself a question,
whether this legislation would have prevented the tragedy? Obviously
not. Do stiffer penalties deter terrorists? Not those who are
prepared to die. So, what does Canada need to do to be safe from
terrorism? NOTHING! Just stay away from US and its Politics, and
you will be 150% safe. Take example from Iceland: it does not even have
an army, because it does not need an army. Canada does not need any army
Do not read my postings!
Whenever I post something, there are several categories of responses. The response, which I call normal - people agree or disagree with the contents of my posting. The category of abnormal responses include 1) people writing that my posting is boring, 2) people just cursing , 3) people eager to "educate" the reader and referring to a web site where a complete collection of all lies, used by yellow media, is posted. The interesting thing in this "abnormal" category: majority do not use their real name and/or give fictitious E-mail address. If you are an honest person, why would you need to hide your identity?
It is astounding, how much energy all these people spent, cursing "a convicted murderer, raving on the Internet", as yellow press put it. I guess, if it really was "raving", nobody would pay any attention. The "abnormal" people write that my postings occupy precious space. To the best of my knowledge, they do not pay for that space; I am also not aware of anyone being denied the right to post, because Fabrikant's posting occupies the space. So, my advice to all these "abnormals":
Do not read my postings!
DO NOT READ my postings!!
DO NOT READ MY POSTINGS!!!!
You certainly have better thing to do.
A Russian airplane exploded over Black Sea, killing all passengers and crew. Ukrainian Army was conducting missile launch exercise at that time, so initial guess was, that one of the missiles made the plane explode. Ukrainian government denied any possibility of such event, claiming that the missile range was much below the distance to the plane. Only after the pieces of the missile were found, Ukraine has admitted accidental shooting of the plane.
Recall, that some time ago, a similar event took place over Atlantic: a
plane exploded, killing everybody. At that time, US Army was conducting
missile launch exercises, and they denied shooting down the plane. Their
reasoning was the same: they could not possibly shoot the plane, because the
range of their missile was insufficient to reach the plane. Do you now believe
that the plane exploded due to a mysterious spark near the fuel tank?
Once again - how to end terrorism
CNN has broadcast an interview with the Egyptian Ambassador. The reporter asked the question, can we end the terrorism just by accepting the demands of the terrorists. He added to it that his question was theoretical, and that nobody in his right mind would ever accept terrorist’s demands. Clearly, he expected the Ambassador to answer in negative. The Ambassador instead answered something else, like, nothing can justify taking innocent lives.
I suggest that you ask yourself this question. Here is what bin Laden demands: US armed forces leave Saudi Arabia, US lifts sanction, which has already murdered many Iraqi children, and establishment of peace between Israel and Palestinians. Now I suggest, that you ask families of people killed on September 11, whether they would prefer satisfy terrorists’ conditions and have their loved ones alive, or whether they would prefer the present situation.
Even now, ask yourself, whether it is preferable to have all this paranoia
and keep US Army in Saudi Arabia, or it would be preferable to get them
out. If you are a US citizen, do you really need to keep your soldiers
there? Does it make your life safer, when you know that Iraqi children
are dying due to lack of medicaments and malnutrition? And last, but not
least, there exists a UN resolution 246, which says that Israel should return
all occupied territories. Should not this resolution be finally
enforced? And in exchange, you will live in peace. Is not this
picture much better than the current paranoia?
In my previous posting, I have made a parallel between the movie "Wag the dog" and Bush’s behaviour. Several people responded that the movie contents have nothing to do with present situation. They say, that the president in the movie was caught with a girl, and needed a war to distract people’s attention from the incident. These little details are not important. The important parallel is as follows: Bush was perceived as a dummy, he was perceived as a figurehead doing no job, while others governed the country. This is as bad, as being found with a girl. His approval rate was quite low. He needed to boost it, and a war is the best way to do it. He did get a war, and his popularity is now 90%. Tell me, that I am wrong to say that WTC tragedy is the best thing, which could possibly happen to Bush.
Some people also indicated that the war in "Wag the dog" was fictitious, while this one is real. Well, it does not matter, whether the war is real or fictitious, as long as people perceive it as real. For example, the war with Iraq was fictitious, but it was perceived as real. Why do I call the war with Iraq fictitious? Because Saddam and US in public act like the worst enemies, but in their actions, Saddam always does all the dirty job US needs, and US effectively protects him from his enemies. Here are the facts.
In 1979, Iran has taken US diplomats as hostages. US needed help, and Saddam was ready: he started a war against Iran. Ten years later, Arab states, like Kuwait have become too independent, did not buy enough of US weapons. Saddam is there to help: he occupied Kuwait. Now all little Arab states need US help, and US is ready to oblige. US troops accumulate in Saudi Arabia. While they are coming, they are very vulnerable, and Saddam could attack them and drown them in the sea. What does Saddam do? Nothing. US finished troops accumulation and started military action against Saddam. His army did not fire a single shot. Saddam sent several missiles toward Israel, but none against US army. Why? Because US also needed to scare Israel into valuing US help, and Saddam was ready to oblige, but he has not launch a single missile against US. Can there be a better proof that the war was fictitious?
Iraq army retreated. US could have easily entered Baghdad and kick Saddam out. Not only they did not do it; on the contrary, they helped Saddam to kill every opponent of his during uprising in Basra. After the war, CIA collected all Saddam's enemies in the North under pretext of uniting people to overthrow Saddam. In reality, as soon as all his enemies were collected, CIA betrayed them and allowed Saddam to kill them all. Strange bedfellows, aren’t they?
Now, if I convinced you that the war with Iraq was indeed fictitious, I return back to "Wag the dog" posting. Some people responded that they did not think much about Bush prior to September 11, but that they saw him rising up to the occasion. This reminds me Goebbels phrase: "We are lucky that people do not think". Just ask yourself a simple question: what good did he do? He failed to protect over 5000 innocent people from death. As a head of state, he is personally responsible for their death. Had this happened in Japan, their Prime Minister would get on his knees, apologize to the nation and resign. What did Bush do? The whole first day, he was behaving like a low coward, hiding underground, though his safety was not in any danger.
What does Bush do next? He arrests over 700 mainly innocent people, while at the same time, he fails to protect his citizens from anthrax attack. Now, just ask yourself a simple question: what in US would be worse now, if US President were a total dummy?
Now, why did so many people change their unfavourable opinion of Bush to a favourable one? They were brainwashed by the media. Whenever Bush makes a speech, media uses only the best words to describe him. There are no more Bush jokes. Even the most respected journalists are not immune. If you watched Woodward at Larry King show after one of Bush's speeches, you understand, what I mean. Larry asked him about his opinion on Bush’s performance (have in mind that Bush does not write his speeches, and can afford the best speechwriters in US). Woodward diplomatically responded that he was not good at giving grades. Even he was not brave enough to criticize Bush, while majority of yellow journalists sings only high praise to Bush. Is it surprising, that in this situation, significant number of people gets brainwashed into believing that Bush is a great president. There is not a single journalist brave enough to say that the king is naked. Sad.
Recently, one individual has made a posting, where he wrote that I have sent him a virus. It was explained to him, that I did not send anything to him; virus infected my computer, and this virus was sending itself to everyone. I even apologized for his inconvenience. He did not believe me and called me a liar. His great brain did not seem to realize that anyone, who would want to harm him deliberately, would not use the real name or E-mail address, when sending him a virus.
Recently, I have discovered, how my computer got infected. I reproduce below the E-mail received from Dr. Wessel office (Germany), which speaks for itself. I do not expect the man to apologize.
From: "Walter Wessel" <[email protected]>
To: "Fabrikant" [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Virus
you are right, we have not sent this mails. We are sorry, but we hope that we
have killed the virus now.
Unfortunately, Dr. Wessel is away on vacation and will return not until October 16, 2001.
(for ZAMM Editorial Office
Why the ocean water is salty
I have made a posting, arguing that if the rivers were the reason of the oceans being salty, then all the lakes would be even more salty, because they are smaller. One individual responded that the lakes are not salty, because they have outgoing rivers. Just look at the map: you will see all kinds of lakes, many have no outgoing rivers and are not salty.
I also wrote that had the rivers been the reason, the water would be saltier at the river entrance, not far away from the river, as is the case with pollution. The man responded that pollution is biodegradable, while salt is not. I disagree again: mercury is one of the pollutants, and it is as permanent as salt.
The man also asked, what was my point. My point is: we need to learn to admit that we still do not know many things, instead of giving an obviously wrong explanation.
About 30 years ago, Obraztsov made a very funny cartoon in the USSR, The
title was "Creation of the world". Obraztsov showed God
creating beautiful animals, like antelopes, lions, tigers. Satan sees
this and makes all repugnant ones: spiders, rats, snakes. God makes
oceans, rivers and lakes. Satan takes a big salt dispenser and tries to
spoil God’s creation by salting the water in oceans. He managed to salt
all oceans, and some smaller lakes. God catches Satan while he is salting
the Aral Sea and takes his salt dispenser away. This is why majority of
lakes remained not salty. As unscientific, as this explanation is, it is
at least somewhat funny, especially when you see, how Obraztsov did it.
Does “stepping on toes" make you safer?
I have made several postings about FBI stupidity. It was astounding for me to read the responses effectively supporting lawless FBI actions. The argument was: we are in a war, certain civil liberties can be suspended in these circumstances, and if in order to provide safety you have to "step on someone toes", it is OK. This is exactly big IF. Over 700 people have been arrested at the moment of this writing. All are presumed innocent, since none was charged with any terrorist crime. Some were beaten in jail. If they were beaten up by criminals, this was deliberate on the part of FBI, since these individuals are to be held in protective custody, which means - no physical contact with any other prisoner.
Just ask yourself, how "stepping on toes" of innocent people would
make you safer? Sooner or later, you will have to release them. In
the best case, they will go on with their lives; in the worst case, they would
decide to take revenge for the beating and join the terrorists. To the
best of my knowledge, these 700 arrests did not stop terrorists from sending
America strikes back
This is the typical cliche, which one can see on the TV screens. What
is missing in this cliche: strikes back at WHOM? I see killed civilians,
injured children, Osama is alive and well. More than that, if the anthrax
comes from him, it is more fair to say that it is Osama, who strikes back.
Canada on guard
Yet another cliche, and again, what is missing – on guard against whom? Nobody is threatening Canada as such. USA is the most hated country in the whole wide world; Canada is one of the least hated countries. Is Canada absolutely safe? Yes, in the sense that nobody would try to deliberately harm it, but certainly there is no guarantee, that a letter, cross-contaminated from US Post office would never come to Canada and infect someone here.
Your safety is not related to your security arrangements, but rather to whether you are hated sufficiently strongly that several people would be ready to kill themselves in order to harm you.
An example of stupid paranoia: the trip from Windsor to Detroit, which took usually 15 minutes, now takes 6 HOURS! Why? What are they looking for? Was the September 11 attack in any way related to the Windsor-Detroit crossing? No. So, stop it.
Did MacAulay violate secrecy?
Solicitor General MacAulay declared that the recent US warning about possible terrorist attack came from the information provided by Canada. He claimed that Canadian intelligence has been listening to communications between terrorists, who spoke "in code" and that this code has been broken. One does not need to have much brain to understand that if you are listening to an enemy, communicating in code and you managed to break the code, you would in no way reveal this to your enemy, because such a revelation would stop your intelligence for quite a while.
MacAulay denies that he damaged his security services. Is he telling the truth? I am sure he is, because he was lying when he bragged that Canadian intelligence broke a code. They are all clueless, but do not want to admit it. All those warnings serve this purpose - they have no information of any kind. Previous warning was close to October 11 - month from the original attack, the second warning was close to Halloween - also a likely date for an attack.
The more specific threat to California bridges is a part of the same spectacle: to show that FBI is not clueless. It is. Just ask yourself, how armed people at the entrance to any bridge can save it from a suicide bomber? I assure you, that the next *serious* warning will be around November 11, then December 11, then Christmas, etc.
Send me $25 million
FBI announced $25 million reward for information on anyone, who helped bin Laden. I have a name for them: Ronald Reagan. There was nobody who provided more help than Reagan, and they do not have to go far for the proof of his guilt – just get into the archives of CIA and the State Department. So, FBI, send the check in my name to the following address:
prisoner # 167 932 D
Quebec, Canada J0N 1H0.
What do Osama and Myers have in common?
Some time ago, the top US military man Myers was asked about the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan. He responded that another number was in his mind - the number of Americans killed on September 11. Now, imagine that bin Laden is asked how he felt about the number of Americans killed. I am sure, he will respond in exactly the same way, as Myers, namely, that there was another number in his mind - number of children killed in Palestine or Iraq.
Do you think it is possible to explain to Myers just how close his way of thinking is to that of Osama? Can he understand that two wrongs do not make right?
The first analogy, which comes to mind, is that of David and Goliath. Have you ever seen David as small as Osama and Goliath as big as USA?
The second analogy is the plagues of Egypt. So far, we have seen two. Would it take 10 for US government to understand that it is doing something wrong?
I am sure, you do not like the analogies. The truth is always hard to swallow.
Free (?) country
Both US and Canada, when describing itself proudly use the adjective FREE. Well, are they? Almost 1200 people (at the moment of writing) have been put in jail in US. None is charged with any crime. None has access to a lawyer; people are kept incommunicado. How can this happen in a FREE country? Is not this kind of thing happening in non-free non-democratic countries only? I have heard Americans saying that they are at war, and in these special circumstances certain sacrifice of liberty in exchange for security is permissible.
The question though is: are you more secure due to the fact of 1200 people
placed in jail? Not according to the warnings, based on "credible
information". Not according to the news about the new cases of anthrax.
There are 2 options: 1) there are many more terrorists in US in addition 1200
already in jail; 2) the 1200 in jail have nothing to do with terrorism, and the
terrorists are roaming free, because FBI is clueless. Now, which one do
you think is right?
About our national heroes
First, hero Giuliani decided to reduce the number of firemen working at ground zero from 300 to 25. He explained his decision by desire to save firemen from possible death, because they were not following security rules. Second, heroes firemen accused Giuliani of lying, they claimed that the real reason was Giuliani's desire to save some money, and they were right: if Giuliani was concerned with security violations, all he had to do was to tell heroes firemen to respect the rules.
Heroes firemen claimed that all they wanted, was to get their fallen friends home, and they were lying too, because when Giuliani offered them to come and recover their fallen friends without being paid, they did not accept it and started demonstration of protest. Third, heroes policemen were trying to stop heroes firemen, who did not like it and punched heroes policemen in the face. Media loves to show us, when two hockey players are punching each other, they even sometimes show it in a slow motion. Did anyone see a hero fireman punching a hero policeman? Surely, they have that footage, but neither American, nor Canadian and not British TV showed it to us. So much for the free press.
Twelve heroes were arrested. Do you think any of them will be charged with a criminal offense?
FBI - KGB
Several Arabs were arrested in New York, because FBI has intercepted their telephone conversation, where they celebrated the September 11 attack. I just wonder, what was the crime they committed and what happened to freedom of speech. I must tell you that such arrest could not have happened in the old USSR after Stalin. It could have though happened at the time of Stalin. So, my fellow Americans, this is where you are - in the Stalin’s USSR.
There is though one difference: Stalin's justification for his draconian actions was the fact, that USSR at that time was the only country in the world with Communist regime, surrounded by hostile states, doing everything in their power to overturn Communism. He claimed that the country survival was at stake, and it was indeed. The Great Patriotic War was the war of survival. Over 20 MILLION civilians were killed, large portion of the European part of the country was in ruins, in just one city, Leningrad, over 900,000 civilians perished of starvation or froze to death.
Compare this to your 5000. It is a microscopic event on the world scale. Your country’s survival is in no way threatened, your way of life is in no way threatened. You yourself made your life terrible and terrifying. You have better chance to be struck by lightning than to die on an airplane or of anthrax. Relax. You had several buildings destroyed and several thousand people killed. On the country scale it is nothing. And as a reaction to this nothing, you introduced regime similar to Stalin's KGB. I just wonder, what would you have done, had you been in the same situation, as the USSR - the only country among enemies wanting to destroy you? I guess, your GULAG would have been much worse than Stalin's.
Who really needs help?
There was an extensive collection of money for the families of the new heroes - firemen and policemen. As far as I know, all the families are guaranteed for life the salaries they received prior to tragedy, and they get it tax-free. So, financially, they did not suffer at all. Why do you need to collect money for them? There are though families, who suffered financially: over 400,000 people had lost their Jobs in the past month. I do not hear anyone collecting money for them?
Health Minister Rock has ordered about a million Cipro pills from the generic drug manufacturer Apotex for $1.50 a pill, though he knew perfectly well that the patent-holder was Bayer. Bayer threatened to sue, so Rock ordered pills from both. A scandal started, Rock made public an affidavit from one of his employees, saying that the initial order was placed with Apotex, because Bayer refused to provide a million pills, which Bayer denies. The employee’s name on the affidavit is blacked-out, and nobody asks Rock, why? I can tell you why: because any deponent of an affidavit is subject to a cross-examination, and this is what Rock is afraid the most.
Rock claims that he acted out of concern for the health of Canadians, hurrying up to place his order and breaking the law. Give me a break! There was not a single case of anthrax in Canada, and if ever a stray cross-contaminated letter would come to Canada, the number of people infected could be counted by fingers on one's hand - you DO NOT NEED A MILLION PILLS! Besides, he could do it legally: all he had to do was to apply to the Patent Commissioner and lift the patent. Rock never answered the question, why he did not do so. He is a lawyer, would you believe he did not know what he was doing?
The media and Opposition say that Rock panicked. This is stupid. There was no reason to panic. Here is what really happened. Rock worked in the past as a lawyer for Apotex. He decided to give them business in exchange for a fat kickback. He did not go to the Patent Commissioner for a very simple reason: he wanted also to place his order with Bayer as well, and to get his kickback from Bayer too. It is as simple as that. It is not the first time he is doing trick like this. Remember his attempt to prosecute Mulroney? He deliberately made it in an illegal way, so that Mulroney could sue him for defamation. He settled the lawsuit robbing the taxpayer of $10 MILLION, and have no doubt that he got a good part of that amount.
The recipe is very simple: a government official deliberately does something illegal, "the victim" sues (or threatens to sue), the official settles for a huge amount of money, and both parties share the loot. This is what Day did as well. He, also a lawyer by education, wrote a libel letter against his friend - yet another lawyer. His friend sued him for libel, Day settled for $700,000, taxpayer paid, and the crooks shared the loot. Poor stupid criminals: they risk their lives to rob a depanneur of $30, while politicians rob millions and risk nothing.
How teachers should be paid?
Minister of Education, in his wisdom, decided to pay teachers 90% of the salary, claiming that they do not work full day. This is what happens, when the person in charge of education knows nothing about education. As bad as USSR was, the Minister of Education there has always been a Professor with a Doctorate in Education. Is not it about time to introduce a government, consisting of people who actually have a background in the field of their respective portfolios?
Let me explain to you what the teaching job is. I started teaching at the University level (back in the USSR) in 1962 at the age of 22. I had classes between 6 and 8 hours per day, every day. I have made a discovery: it is extremely draining to speak in a loud voice for 6 hours every day. As young and energetic, as I then was, I was coming home so tired, that I could not even speak. If you do not believe that speaking loud for a long time is a hard work, try it. And teaching at the university level is easier, than at a public school, because you do not have any discipline problems at the university level.
As a comparison, here is a description of some other professions. A Professor at Concordia has 4 hours per WEEK class time, and this IS a normal load, because a good professor has many other things to do: prepare his next lecture, supervision of graduate students, research, etc. Let us see, how busy our heroes firemen are. In the city like Montreal, you have less than one fire per day. Divide it by number of fire stations and take into consideration that they spend on average less than 2 hours on each fire, they are busy less than 10% of their time. Should they be paid 10% of their regular salary?
Prison guards come to jail and watch TV almost all the time, except for the counts, which take total of 20 minutes per shift. They work about 5% of the normal hours. Should they be paid 5% of their regular salary?
And at the top of the list are our Senators: they do not have to come to work at all, and they still collect full salary. Is not this nice?
Call a spade a spade
There is a good Russian word "slovobludie", which does not have an exact equivalent in English and which translates literally as "prostitution of words". Americans and Canadians just love it. Let me give you examples.
They do not say "jail", they say "institution"; they do not say “prisoner", they say "inmate"; they do not say "poor", they say “disadvantaged” or "less fortunate"; they do not say "black", they say "African-American"; they do not say "to lock-up in an asylum", they say "to keep in a safe custody". How do you think they call their anti-terrorist legislations "The Patriots Act"? How do they call bombing of Afghanistan? First, it was "Infinite Justice", then someone told Bush that only God can give infinite justice, so he renamed it "Enduring Freedom". I suggest to call all the above "Infinite Enduring Hypocrisy".
How do you call the final competition between 2 strongest sport teams of the same country? Everywhere it would be called as this country championship, but not in the US - here it is called World Series. Americans just can not settle for anything less now, can they?
Why had the towers collapsed?
The NBC Dateline profiled several survivors from the WTC, who got stuck in the elevator. They took the metal tool, used for window-washing and managed to scratch through the wall of the elevator shaft, then kicked the wall with their shoes and got out, thus saving their lives. Good for them. When I saw this show, it has become clear to me, why had the towers collapsed: the builders cut corners, used inferior materials, low quality welding work. No normal wall could be scratched through in 10-15 minutes, no normal wall could be just kicked through. Now you understand why everything crumbled into dust – it was made of dust!
The building carcass was made of steel. Powerful steel columns were welded together. The fire created high temperature above it; the temperature below it could not be so high as to melt everything. Just look at the picture of collapse - the towers crumbled, as if they were made of playing cards! When a normal building is destroyed, you see big stones; here, you see dust. Compare the picture to that of Pentagon. It was burning for a long time, and the temperature there was as high, as in WTC. Nothing collapsed at Pentagon. After the fire burnt out, the final damage was equal to the initial damage caused by the plane, even windows were intact. You may say that Pentagon is 5-storey high, while WTC was 110. Well, several small buildings at WTC collapsed into dust as well, and they were not even hit.
Someone stole many BILLIONS on the construction of the WTC, and this someone should be held responsible for so many dead people.
Honouring policemen (?!?!)
Community of Laval has paid homage to their heroes - policemen. Let me tell you recent news about our heroes in Canada. In Saskatoon, several natives were found frozen to death outside the city. One survived and told the story, how he was placed by 2 policemen in their vehicle, driven out of town and released in an isolated place in freezing temperature, without proper clothing.
The 2 policemen were put on trial. What do you think the charge was? Attempted murder? No, of course, not. The charge was sequestration. Excuse me, sequestration means HOLDING someone. Their crime was RELEASING someone, releasing in such a way, that his life was in a grave danger. Taking into consideration, that several people did freeze to death, it should be called attempted murder, but hey, our police have the license to kill. Nobody was charged with those murders. And then again, the policemen are white, and those killed are natives, and natives are not humans, are they? Not in Canada, and not in US.
And here are some news from Toronto. Several high-ranking police officers were suspended: they were caught doing what police does best - stealing money, which were earmarked to be paid to police informants. Have no doubts, that these revelations are nothing, but the tip of an iceberg of crimes committed by our heroes - policemen.
Still want to honour them?
Questions for Bush
Did you notice the journalists at any press-conference lately do not ask any "difficult" question? What question would you ask, if you were a journalist? Here is my suggestion to ask Bush:
1. Suppose Osama is in your hands, and you have to put him on trial. Are you going to tell the court that your proof is classified and that the jury should just trust you that Osama is guilty?
2- What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
3. You said that those, who are not with you on fighting terrorism are with terrorists. Is it possible to be a decent human being, and at the same time to disagree with your methods of fighting terrorism?
4. One of Great Americans said, that the people, who a ready to sacrifice their freedom in exchange for greater security do not deserve either. Your anti-terrorist legislation claims to be doing exactly that. Any comments?
Some people are more equal than others
When anthrax was discovered at the Capitol, it was immediately closed,
everyone tested, etc. Nothing was done at the Post office. CDC
claims that they had no idea that someone could get infected handling a sealed
envelope. Was it really so difficult to verify this possibility?
Not at all. Just take an envelope, place there some anthrax, seal it and
then bang on it. After that, check the air in the lab. You may do
it at home: use tale or dry flour.
Two attitudes toward the flag
American attitude. Sign of patriotism - wave the flag, place it on your house, on your car, paint it on your license plate, on your tie, on your underwear, and at the top of all this - wrap naked Pamela Anderson in it. The only thing, which was not tried as yet (or, may be, it was tried but I just do not know about it) - to paint the flag on toilet paper.
Soviet attitude. There was no store, where one could buy a flag - flag was not for sale. There were no flags on private houses or apartment buildings, no flag on cars or tie or (God forbid) underwear. Flags were flying only on central or local government or party buildings. Flags were given to enterprises and military units. If a military unit loses its flag, it is disbanded. An honor flag was given to a unit inside an enterprise, which shown the top productivity. A picture of a naked woman, wrapped in Soviet flag would be considered as obscenity and a flag desecration.
Cotler is considered as famous fighter for human rights. He was Law Professor at McGill, and now he is MP in Ottawa. Recently, he again attracted attention by calling a press-conference and demanding that China be denied Olympic Games, because it abuses human rights. Nice, is not it?
What I noticed though about all these so-called fighters for human rights - they are fighting for human rights elsewhere, not in their own countries. It was mentioned on TV, that Canada has by now imprisoned over 800 Arabs, no charges are filed against any of them. At the same time, USA imprisoned over 1200 Muslims. Taking into consideration that Canadian population is about one-tenth that of American, Canada's imprisonment rate is equivalent to 8000 US prisoners. In terms of illegal imprisonment, Canada has "overperformed" US more than 6 times. Do we hear a word from Cotler on this subject? Not at all. Anything in the media, Civil Liberties Union? Nothing. Have I ever left Soviet Union?
Recently, Cotler has given an interview on CBC radio. He was asked question on the so-called anti-terrorist legislation. He responded that he supported this legislation, because he considered it to be a pro-human rights legislation. Why? According to Cotler, this legislation will improve the security of Canadians, and security is one of human rights. I just love his logic. Using his logic, USSR was the top human rights defender: Soviet population had 100% protection against all terrorists. I assure you, that nothing like September 11 could have happened in the USSR. Even if an airplane were hijacked, within 5 minutes 2 jet fighters would be around it, and if it disobeyed orders, it would go down.
Do you want to establish a Soviet-style security in Canada? You can go
even further than that: torture was officially forbidden in the USSR, so why
not introduce torture? Israel did. In the interest of civil
liberty, of course: some people under torture confess, and this saves lives.
How many people really died?
I am puzzled: at the beginning, the estimation of the number of people killed at the WTC was 4000 plus, then, several weeks later, it climbed to over 5000, several weeks more, and we hear the number 6300. Then the numbers began sliding down: 5000, then 4000 plus. Each time a new number was announced, there was no explanation as to what happened to the previous estimation and why the number has changed. Did I miss it?
Could it be that the changing numbers reflected the fact that over 1000
Americans decided to claim their life insurance, while they were still alive?
Is our civilization in danger?
Bush declared that he is waging war to save the world civilization, which is endangered by terrorists. No more, no less. To the best of my knowledge, the last time human civilization was in danger - it was Hitler. By the end of 1941, he managed to conquer most of Europe, his army besieged Moscow and Leningrad, his aviation bombed England; Italy and Spain were already ruled by fascists, and Japan was his staunchest ally in the Far East. Though US has declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor in 1941, it did not move a finger until summer of 1944, when it was clear, that Hitler lost, so US was to enter the war to get its spoils.
Now, is the situation now in any way similar to that of 1941? The whole Europe is in no danger, and neither is Africa and Asia. Is US in danger? It was said on numerous occasions, that even Afghanistan can not be conquered, without ground troops, and neither can US be conquered. Are there any ground troops to act against US? None. Is City of New York in danger? No. Is borough of Manhattan in danger? No. They say, that never in the past has US lost that many lives. This proves only one thing: US has never been in a great calamity, and nothing else. You have many times more killed each year by drunken drivers. Compare 5000 with 20 MILLION lost by USSR. What is interesting: not a single reporter dare to express any doubt about Bush’s claim that the world civilization was in danger.
Much noise is being produced about anthrax. About 25 years ago, there
was a major leak of anthrax in the city of Sverdlovsk. In total, less
than 80 people died, and this - without any treatment, because Soviet
authorities did not want to admit such a lapse. You lost so far 4 people.
Compare this with over 100 THOUSAND being killed every year by medical doctors.
Americans claim to be very strong under extreme adversity - it would be correct
to say, that Americans never had an extreme adversity and are extremely weak,
declaring any microscopic adversity as major disaster.
USA fights for women’s rights
First lady has delivered radio address. It was so touching to hear how
concerned she was about the denial of elementary human rights to women of
Afghanistan. Of course, it was touching for people, who have no
memory. To those who do remember, it was a new lesson in hypocrisy: 20
years ago, it was the Soviet installed regime, which provided for Afghanistan
women all the rights imaginable, it was USA, who spent BILLIONS to kick Soviets
out, and with them disappeared the women's rights. Funny?
Why has the airplane crashed?
I do not know, why it has crashed, but I know that the so-called wake disturbance can not possibly be the reason. Here is why: you saw on numerous occasions various "Birds" - units of planes flying extremely close together. If wake disturbance created any danger, these planes would all crash - they are flying not 8 km apart, but thousand times closer. What disturbs me the most, is the manner in which the whole thing is presented. CNN showed a video, where a small plane was flying in and out of what was called wake disturbance, claiming that the plane experienced jolts. These wakes were somehow made visible for a long distance, creating impression that the wake disturbance is still there long after the plane is passed.
There were two falsities here. The visible trail after an airplane is not the wake disturbance, but the exhaust gases from the engines. Second, the main wake disturbance is not two whirls from the wings, but the wedge-like (cone-shaped) disturbance, similar to the wedge you can observe in front of any moving ship (in water). The energy of this wake is much greater than a very little whirl coming from the wings. It is very disturbing to see a scientist on TV, failing to explain all this to the public.
One specialist on TV was asked a question, how to explain the fire, which witnesses saw prior to the plane crash, and he responded that the fire was due to the fallen engine. Well, WHY DID THE ENGINE FALL? Indeed, even presuming that the little wing wake could make rudder fall (which is absurd), why did the engine fall?
Ask yourself a simple question: suppose that the flight 587 crash was a result of a terrorist action, would Bush ever allow this to be known to the public or he would do everything in his power to convince public that it was an accident? It would be a political disaster, if after jailing over 1200 people, after all the "victories" in Afghanistan, Bush had to admit that Osama still can strike and strike hard.
The situation reminds me of a scene I observed many years ago in Samarkand (Uzbekistan). I went to a peasant market. They sell there melons by slices. I noticed there one peasant. His melon slices obviously fell on the ground and there were traces of sand on them. He was bubbling continuously in broken Russian: "Tistyi-tistyi", meaning "Clean-clean". All the US media propaganda reminds me of that peasant - they are bubbling in perfect English "wake disturbance - wake disturbance".