Thursday, December 01, 2016

The LaMia Airlines Crash And The Pilot's Catastrophic Negligence

So, basically, he ran out of gas.


This is incredible. They could have topped up in Bogota, or even other airports, had they wanted to.


I have a couple of questions/observations.


(a) The co-pilot must have known what was happening. She would have recognized the danger as much as the pilot. But she was (i) young, (ii) the captain was also the co-owner/founder of the airline and (iii) in any event the Captain always has control of the plane.So she had no ability to overrule the pilot's decision to proceed to Medellin with insufficient fuel. I imagine she was upset. I think the cockpit voice recorder will have some very telling information.


(b) Why did the Captain not declare an emergency until the last moment? I think I know (all speculation, of course). Rules for aircraft require that planes carry a fuel reserve that allows them, in the evnt of an emergency, to reach their furthest alternative landing site PLUS thirty minutes extra fuel. By the rules, the LaMia jet should have easily been able to get to Bogota (it is less than an hour away by air). The Captain would have known these rules and knew that he had not complied. He knew he had taken off with insufficient reserve fuel. Had he declared an emergency he would have been exposed upon landing to an AeroCivil investigation and they would have discovered immediately that he had left short on fuel.


So, he deceived the Medellin Control Tower and said only that they were suffering a "Fuel problem" (sure was...he didn't have any!). He gave the Air Traffic Controller in Medellin no opportunity to give him a landing priority because he never told her what was really happening. When he finally owned up to the fact they were out of fuel, she gave him immediate priority but by then it was too late.


(c) The Colombian response was great. Apart from the attempt by air traffic to get the plane on the ground, the rescue personnel (volunteers, Red Cross, Firefighters, Police and others), the hospital and health care professionals, the investigators have excelled. Even the media, for a change, deserves credit in how they have covered this tragedy. Finally, of course, the response of the people of Medellin has been wonderful. The gathering at the football stadium last night was emotional, yet dignified. Mejor imposible.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

CASTRO'S DEATH: A SILVER LINING EXPOSING HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT

I have often said that it is a dark cloud that doesn’t have a silver lining.

As I have seen the obituaries about the death of Fidel Castro, I have been trying to discern a silver lining to his life. And it is difficult. Usually when a person, but especially a historical personage, dies we celebrate their life and mourn their loss. With Castro it is the reverse since we must mourn the fact that he existed and celebrate the fact that, finally, he is gone.  What a sad legacy it is to leave behind, that one’s death is a net benefit to humanity.

And yet even with Castro there has been, for myself at least, a sort of silver lining to his existence. I have realized that it was in reading comments by, and thinking about, Castro’s apologists and sycophants that I drew some conclusions about many of those who claim to be supporters of human rights. The conclusion I have drawn, reluctantly, is that many of those who pound the table for “rights” mean not a word of what they say.

Let me explain.

Castro’s legacy is a horror for the Cuban people. In setting himself at the top of the State he denied to the Cuban people everything that makes us human.

  • ·         As humans we are born with minds and the ability to think and feel. He seized control over minds and determined what people were permitted to think and feel. He determined on behalf of an entire people what they would be allowed to think.
  • ·         As humans we are born with the ability to speak our thoughts and express our ideas and feelings. Castro seized control of what Cubans were allowed to say, write, draw, sing, perform and especially to laugh about. A measure of freedom is whether we can laugh at our leaders…we joke about Santos, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Trudeau as we want…I defy you to find a Cuban who would dare make a joke about Fidel Castro in downtown Havana. There would be nothing funny about the results.
  • ·         As humans we are born with the ability to reason and form opinions and beliefs. Castro arrogated to himself the power to control how Cubans were allowed to apply their powers of reason and what they could or could not believe.
  • ·         As humans we are born with the ability to learn, to read and to write. Castro took steps to ensure that every Cuban could read and write but then in his arrogance took control over what they were allowed to read and write. Imagine the dreariness of life if you learn to read but the only thing permitted is the grim lies and propaganda of Granma. That is the literacy given to Cubans by Castro…as though an animal in a zoo suddenly aware he is in a cage.
  • ·         As humans we have the ability and innate desire to love, to form families and plan for better futures for our children. Castro determined who you could love (if you were gay, watch out!) and inserted the state inside the family so that what was best for the family was not decided in the home but by Castro’s dictatorial bureaucracy. And children were taught to betray parents who spoke wrong opinions, while parents learned to fear their children for they were the state’s eyes and ears inside the home. The destruction of the family, by perverting the innate love we have for our families, was an essential part of Castro’s State control.
  • ·         As humans we seek to do better for ourselves and our families and to make our own decisions using our own human free will. Castro deprived Cubans of the right to use their free will, to enjoy the products of their labour and to pass on a better life to their families. He effectively enslaved an entire people.
  • ·         Most of all, as humans we are born with the ability to dream…to dream of a better future for ourselves and our children. Our dreams are our own, personal and held deep inside our souls. Castro clawed his way into the souls of every Cuban, extracted their dreams and stomped them under his hobnailed boot. He denied to Cubans the right to have their own dreams and replaced them with HIS dreams. And so, through his indoctrination, and terror, he turned the dreams of Cubans into nightmares. Nightmares that drove 20% of the population to risk their lives to flee their island home. 

All that makes us human, therefore, Castro sought to control and DID control. Those who failed to bend died, disappeared, suffered torture, saw their families suffer…sometimes all of these. First and foremost, Castro was a killer and surrounded himself with killers (when Che Guevara told the UN General Assembly that to make a revolution you had to “break a few eggs” he wasn’t kidding…though it wasn’t eggs he was talking about, but the tens of thousands of butchered Cubans). Those he didn’t kill he tortured and jailed.

Those who had the temerity to protest, even in recent years old ladies, were beaten. And continue to be beaten.

So, the act of being human, doing what as a human is our instinct, indeed our BIRTHRIGHT…thinking, speaking, expressing, opining, loving and even dreaming…these are the acts that Castro suppressed, punished and sought to stamp out. His totalitarian thuggery sought to destroy everything that makes us human, that defines our humanity. He sought to replace it with a dismal, dark mutation of humanity created from his own perverse ego.

And yet I look around and see those, particularly on the left who mourn his death and write glowing words about the great “El Comandante”, his iconic revolutionary zeal, his achievements in education (really indoctrination) and health care (mainly for the elite as it develops).

And here, of course, we arrive finally at the silver lining. Because those who extol the great Castro include many of those who I have had to listen to over the years talk about how we need to protect and expand human rights. We need to protect women’s rights, worker’s rights, rights to health, rights to protest, rights to oppose (you choose…Iraq war, Trump, police brutality, voter identification, Wall Street…) pick your poison.

And yet many (not all) of those who demand those rights are the same as those who idolized Fidel Castro and mourn his passing.

These ideas cannot, in any rational mind, co-exist. He who sought to destroy any vestige of humanity and its expression in the free will of the Cuban people cannot and could not have been a legitimate hero to anyone who sincerely believes in and cares about human rights and human dignity. No LGBT activist can sincerely laud Castro. No worker’s rights supporter can honestly cheer for the man who enslaved an entire country. No free speech enthusiast can honour the thug who sought to wring out of a vibrant Cuban culture any vestige of spontaneity or joy arising from their own dreams and imagination.

So then what could I conclude? Reluctantly, I conclude that there are those who claim to support human rights among us who say the words but do not sincerely mean it. They use the words as tools…as tools to make themselves feel virtuous about themselves (“I am so good…I support human rights!)…as tools to make themselves look good in the eyes of others (“See how good I am? I support human rights!)…as tools to look cool (“How do you like my Che hoodie?”)…and as political tools to bludgeon political opponents and to gain political power (“Follow me! I am the one who believes in human rights and will protect yours!). These last are the most dangerous because, once they get power anyone who actually believes their words may end up against a wall. You could ask a lot of Cubans who made that mistake but they ended up against a wall.

So that is the silver lining…from Castro’s existence I have a standard by which I can measure those who sincerely believe in human rights and those who are at best hypocrites and at worst tyrants-in-waiting. The former will say “I denounce Castro because I believe in human rights” while the latter will say “I love human rights, now let us drink a toast to the memory of the great Fidel Castro”.

It is regrettable that so many Cubans needed to suffer for this silver lining to be revealed.

Finally, if it is not clear, when P. M. Justin Trudeau purports, on behalf of Canadians, to express condolences upon the death of Castro he does not speak for this Canadian. I have always said that I fear Trudeau’s shallowness (until the arrival of Donald Trump on the scene maybe the least knowledgeable national leader) will manifest itself in some great show of ignorance. His Castro eulogy may be of this nature…making both himself and the country look stupid.


My eulogy for Castro would be two words: 

Good. Riddance.

Friday, August 12, 2016

LOSING OUR RIGHT TO ACT UPON OUR CONSCIENCE

I believe there is a problem that has reached Colombia, but which has not originated here. It has to do with the lie that those who wish to have certain "rights" recognized only want respect for themselves and their ability to live their lives peacefully.

This is a falsehood.

Those behind the fight for recognition of  same-sex marriage do not want just that.

Those fight for the "right to choose (abortion)" do not want just that.

Those who lead to fight for the right to "die with dignity" do not just want that.

And those who insist upon the right to “self-identify” as to gender, do not want just that.

They want...indeed DEMAND…that those who disagree with these ideas to not only go along and comply with their views, but to actively participate in the violation of their personal consciences.

This is why same-sex marriage activists seek out bakers/photographers who, for reasons of conscience, do not wish to participate in such ceremonies, and force them to do so (even though there would be many others available who would be happy to participate), or be run out of business.

This is why doctors, nurses and institutions who oppose abortions are being forced to actively participate in them. In the US, the federal government seeks to force nuns to provide abortifacient drugs to their employees. In Colombia a decision protected nurses from being forced to participate in abortions, but why?  Because the “pro-choicers” have been trying to force them to do so. Forced compliance.

This is why doctors and health care facilities who conscientiously disagree with euthanasia are being forced to participate actively in providing and procuring euthanasia under threat of losing their licenses (this is what Canadian doctors, for example, are now faced with).

And now, if my 17 year old daughter joins a gym in Canada or the US and tries to take a shower, some guy can “self-identify” as a female and go in the shower with her. And if I have the temerity to object, I am supposedly the bigot.

I deny that I am a bigot.

But people are being frightened into compliance and participation against their consciences.  We are seeing tactics that are not only horrific but totalitarian. We see lawfare applied against dissenters, so that people buckle-under under the threat of economically unsustainable litigation.  We are seeing the criminalization of dissent in many countries. For example, in my former life as a lawyer I defended people against state-sponsored lawfare of the most obscene kind.

Worse, we see the Orwellian distortion of language and redefinition of words to create weapons against conscience. To me the most striking today  is that "dissent” has now come to be re-defined as “hate”. If you dissent, you are a “hater”.

I deny that if I dissent, or if I am worried for my daughter's safety, I am a hater.

Rather I am a free man in a free country with not only the right to hold views based upon my conscience, but to act upon my conscience. And I deny to anyone…individual, group or state...to inquire into, or opine upon, how or why my conscience was formed. If it is based upon religion, lack of religion, history, genetics or the roll of a die it is no one’s business but my own.

So, those who call for respect for opposing views make a valid plea but I am very afraid that the situation is devolving to the point that we need to do more to protect our right to a conscience than just beg for respect. Some resistance, such as the march the other day, may become necessary.


Otherwise, I am not sure for how much longer I will be able to say “I am a free man in a free country.”

Friday, May 20, 2016

JUSTIN "HAYSTACKS CALHOUN" TRUDEAU

I wrote this in response to a friend's post on Facebook. Facebook seems to not want me to publish it, so I will post it here.

I read your post and I would like to respond, in my usual calm reasoned way.

In looking at the media reports the “analysis” has followed the usual pattern…partisans are pro or con Trudeau’s actions depending upon their partisan inclinations. So, you think it is much ado about nothing, while Mulcair and his minions engage in performance art by wandering into Parliament wearing neck braces. How witty.

But there is a lot more to this than the trivializing that everyone has been doing. My starting point is with Jean Chretien. There is a saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely, and Chretien’s government showed that. I was infuriated with him, though I always voted for him, due to how he cut the power of MP’s and concentrated power in the Prime Minister’s Office. He was able to do that because the Opposition had fragmented. The Conservatives and Reform parties split the vote so that the Liberals were always able to “go up the middle” and for about 10 years won huge majorities. In the absence of opposition in Parliament, Chretien, and his handlers, were able to do anything and everything they wanted, and one of the things he wanted was to weaken the role of MP’s. The wanted to move to an Executive government model, at the expense of a Parliamentary model. And they did it in spades. This extended down through the Liberal Party structure so that constituency organizations were weakened and rendered more and more irrelevant. In the end, their role in candidate selection, for example, became little more than rubber-stamping the Leader’s choice, rather than finding a local person to represent the area in the government. In those days I was deeply involved in fighting to preserve the role of constituency organizations.

This leads to my huge disappointment with Harper. Nobody remembers his positions in the days of the Reform, Alliance and Conservative opposition years. He was very strong and adamant about strengthening the power of individual MP’s. He talked a lot about more Private Member’s bills and reducing the number of confidence votes so that MP’s would be freer to vote against their party. He also talked about having the Senate elected, something I support very strongly. I did not vote for him, but I had great hopes for him in this regard once he came into office.

Yet, when he came to power, Harper became, in many ways, far more authoritarian than Chretien. He REDUCED MP’s powers, and even made it impossible for Cabinet Members to speak freely and openly about their portfolios.  I remember you yourself complaining about Harper’s dictatorial tendencies.

So along came Justin “Government In The Sunshine” Trudeau. This guy campaigned on the excesses of Harper’s anti-democratic tendencies and promised much more openness and freedom for our MP’s. He promised a return to better recognition of their representative function. It was going to be all sweetness and light.

Except now we see Motion 6.  It reduces even further the ability of Parliamentarians to participate in debate and to dissent from government policy. The role of the Official Opposition (a supremely important role…it is their DUTY to oppose) was/is to be even more marginalized so their ability to resist a majority is more truncated than ever. So, over the years, what I have seen is more and more power concentration in the hands of the PMO and the Prime Minister himself (and really his handlers since I have my doubts how much Justin himself understands what is going on…but that’s another rant. He just has no depth. As Meathead once said to Archie Bunker “Deep down, you’re shallow.” That is how I see Trudeau).

And so, it is in this context that we see what happened in Parliament the other day. Like every other spoiled little leftist, Justin Trudeau wanted his way. NOW!!! And when he didn’t get it he pushed and shoved. He apologized, of course, but it is in his reactions at the moment that we see his true self, and the left in general.

This is where I part ways with you about the incident. You say that there must be passion about any reform and that is what people say who want to bring about change, so OK. But Parliament is not the place for that, at least insofar as it involves physical force. Parliament is a place for debate and words and arguments...passionate angry, but not vulgar. And if you cannot swear, you sure enough cannot make physical contact. It’s not a hockey rink (…more like curling, actually). One of my great heroes is the late Spanish Prime Minister Adolfo Suarez. He was the first democratic Prime Minister after Franco and was faced with an attempted coup by the Guardia Civil. The coup leader stormed into the Cortes (Parliament) with his machine gun. All the MPs dove into hiding…except one. Adolfo Suarez. He stood in his place, not yelling, crying, pleading…nothing. Stoically standing there on the dignity of Parliament. And at that moment he saved Spanish democracy.

For sure Suarez was more provoked than Justin Trudeau, yet he stood on the dignity and decorum of the place, rather than falling into petulance and shoving opposition dissenters.

So there is the first thing…Trudeau has no deep understanding about the nature and traditions of Parliament, and the importance of decorum and civil conduct. This is the first time in my memory that I can recall a member of the Canadian Parliament physically contacting another MP…and he did twice. It doesn’t matter if the second one was an accident because it arose out of his first act.

Answer truthfully, Nikki…what would you have said if Harper had done this? We both know. Yet Harper never assaulted anyone (apart from his assault on good taste, when he wore a utility vest to that Summit in Mexico. That felt like a punch to the gut).

Another thing that Trudeau forgets is that Parliament is a “PARLIAMENT”. He is nothing more or less than just another MP himself. Every one there is an MP, equal, and every one there is elected by Canadians. So he cannot just push around another MP because he does not like how he chooses to dissent from the government programme. Those people are elected….Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and PQ…they are the representatives of constituents who have chosen them in an election and they are entitled to respect. Opposition is especially entitled to respect because, in obstructing, they are complying with a constitutional duty and obligation. Moreso, when the guy they are opposing is in on 39.5% (more on that later).

You might argue that “But but but Trudeau is the Prime Minister. He has a majority. The government has a right to get things done and those yecchhy Conservatives cannot just try to hold things up!!”

But the Grits have not exactly arrived on the wings of Golden Eagles...they got 39.5% of the vote. It works out that they got a majority of the seats but Justin doesn’t speak ex cathedra. And if he doesn’t like the opposition’s tactics, he can appeal to the Speaker…who is from his party (and, incidentally, a former hockey teammate of mine, bye the bye).

What Trudeau did is not a minor thing because it reflects a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the institution which he is so fortunate to be a part of.

And that leads to the third point, which was the subject of the debate in the House of Commons at the moment in question. As you say, the assisted killing bill is a really important matter. I agree with that and I suspect that a majority of Canadians also agree with that. The thing is you cannot pretend that everyone who thinks it is important shares the same views as you. This is an extremely difficult issue and involves many many different points of view. It may force doctors who are against it to choose between giving up their careers or their souls. (I myself am not sure how I feel…it may surprise you…I have imagined that being in a permanent coma might be a lot like being buried alive…knowing what is going on but being able to do nothing… and I am not sure I would want that). There are a lot of people who agree with the basics but are horrified at how far down the slippery slope the Dutch and Belgians have gone…people being euthanized just because they are tired of living, children being euthanized (I think we should now call it Youthanized) based on PARENTAL consent.  Some say the Liberal model is more restrictive than the Europeans, but I am old enough to remember how restrictive Justin’s father’s abortion bill was and now we are the only industrialized country in which the state of the law allows babies to be killed right up until they stick their heads out into the delivery room (actually, in some provinces, it seems they can kill the babies up into the 4th trimester). There are those who say that we simply cannot legalize allowing some people to kill others, and they have a valid point that needs to be heard. This is not a closed debate, no matter how much the left wants it to be, and the public and their elected representatives have a right to be heard.

And Mr 39.5% has no right to shut that down.

And the point is that this is a real DEBATE that has not been decided by the people. This legislation was forced into existence by the decision of 9 unelected judges-self designated masterminds who have taken it upon themselves to overturn a long standing statute passed by elected representatives of the people. I defy anyone to find assisted dying in the Charter of Rights and I am pretty sure Chretien and Trudeau (Pierre) didn’t think it was there when they put it forward. Yet unelected judges discovered this right and now we are faced with this situation.

And so this is what we have: a Liberal government, with a majority elected with 39.5% of the vote (which Trudeau himself thinks has questionable legitimacy…otherwise why would he be trying to change our First Past The Post electoral system?) dealing with an issue that neither the public nor their representatives have really had a hearing on. Trudeau tries to cut off debate on this serious, deep and moral issue that many people feel strongly about, and to ram it through using Parliamentary tricks…a la Harper.. and when one representative has the temerity to try to slow things down…to salvage a role for Parliament in this important issue…Justin Trudeau takes it upon himself to shove and push and pull him…just the fact of laying hands on him is enough…and swears at him (like his Dad) and then hits, carelessly or accidentally or otherwise (who knows what was in his hot head at that moment?)  another, female, MP. So, Trudeau on this important issue, ruled on by 9 unelected judges tries to ram it through Parliament with a majority based on a 39.5% vote (that is with 60.5% voting AGAINST him. Do the math) and when faced with an iota of resistance loses his temper and shoves and swears at those having the temerity to dissent. Typical leftist.

No. It’s not trivial. It is a symptom of the increasing and unending arrogance of government, of all parties. The people, and their non-Cabinet representatives, in the view of our “betters” are nothing more than tools and sock-puppets.

In my opinion, this was bad. 

Monday, April 25, 2016

RHODEN FAMILY MASSACRE: QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS

On the morning of Friday, 22 April 2016 news reports of a massacre in rural Pike County, Ohio were appearing in headlines. Eventually it was learned that eight members of the Rhoden family had been murdered "execution-style" sometime, it was assumed, over the previous Thursday night-Friday morning. One woman, killed in her sleep, was found with her four day old baby alive beside her. It was implied that others had been killed in their sleep as well. In fact a total of three children ranging from four days to three years were left alive. A sixteen year old boy was, however, among those murdered. 

The killings took place over four different properties, spread over a number of miles in and around the area of Piketon and Peebles Ohio. These are towns having populations of around 1000-1500 people (the entire county has under 30,000 people) so we are looking at small, close-knit communities where people know each other and a lot about each other's business. 

It was clear, despite the early reports providing few details, that this was a well planned out operation aimed at executing a family...yet not their very young children, Hmmmm.

Though little was being said, it was obvious that this had to be about something more than just a "normal" crime of passion. Drugs, family disputes, revenge were all possible motives.

This past weekend we finally got a big clue. The Ohio Attorney-General disclosed that law enforcement had discovered a sophistcated marijuana grow-operation, spread around three of the four crime scene properties. So now we are getting somewhere. 

Although, officially, law enforcement is not confirming a link to drugs, a large sophisticated drug-grow operation sets alarm bells ringing, no? 

Here is a list of thoughts, questions, concerns and ideas that have come to me after only a modest amount of thought. 

Imagine what more the professionals in law enforcement could add to the list.



·       WHICH FAMILY MEMBERS WERE INVOLVED?

(a)    ARE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE TRADE?

(b)   HOW COULD PEOPLE NOT KNOW WITHIN FAMILY SINCE THE OPERATION IS DESCRIBED AS “SOPHISTICATED”

(c)    WERE INNOCENTS KILLED?

(d)   ARE PARTICIPANTS IN BUSINESS STILL ALIVE?

(e)   IF SO WILL THEY TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT?

(f)     ARE THERE OTHER RHODEN PROPERTIES?
·        
HOW LONG IN BUSINESS?


(a)    REAL QUESTION IS HOW DID THEY ENTER BUSINESS?

(b)   WHO DID THEY SELL TO?

(c)    DID THEY TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE’S MARKET?

(d)   IS THERE SOMEONE WHOSE MARKET THEY TOOK OVER?

(e)   HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY MAKE?

(f)     WHO TOOK MOST MONEY?

(g)    WHO WAS PAID (PARTNERS/EMPLOYEES ETC)?

(h)   WHO PAID-OFF?

(i)      SOMEONE KICKED OUT OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS MAY HAVE TALKED?

·       
  WHERE DID THEY MARKET?


(a)    LOCAL

(b)   OHIO

(c)    EXPORT?

(d)   IF EXPORT A LOT OF QUESTIONS:

1.       TO WHERE?
2.       TO WHOM?
3.       HOW MARKETED?
4.       TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

(e)   HOW PICKED UP AND TRANSPORTED?

(f)     STORAGE AND DRYING?

·       
  WHO DID THEY SELL TO?

· DID THEY INVADE SOMEONE’S MARKET?

(a)    IS THERE SOME ORGANIZED CRIME IN THE PICTURE?
(b)   MAFIA
(c)    MEXICANS (MEXICANS ARE EXPANDING NORTHWARD AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO THEIR M/O)
(d)   CENTRAL AMERICAN GANGS

· WAS SOMEONE TRYING TO ENTER THEIR MARKET?

(a)    SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO ONES ABOVE

· SETTLING OF ACCOUNTS?

(a)    SOMEBODY OWED MONEY?
(b)   ON DEBT?
(c)    ON SALE?
(d)   WHO EXECUTES A FAMILY FOR MONEY? MARKET? (BACK TO MEXICANS?)

· WHO ARE BIG NAMES IN LOCAL/REGIONAL DRUG TRADE?

· WHERE DID THEY GET EQUIPMENT?

(a)    PARTICULAR EQUIPMENT NEEDED.
(b)   ESPECIALLY IF INDOOR, LIGHTS, IRRIGATION, VENTILATION, SMELL SUPPRESSION ETC
(c)    IF OUTSIDE, GREENHOUSE (OHIO HAS WINTER!!!)

· HOW COULD NO ONE HAVE NOTICED?

(a)    ODOUR
(b)   COMING AND GOING OF PEOPLE FROM GROW-OP. (THEY WOULD ALSO SMELL)
(c)    UTILITIES. HYDRO, WATER BILLS WOULD GO UP SUDDENLY
(d)   OWNERS WORKING?
(e)   IF WORKING, WHERE? INCOME? VEHICLES REFLECT WORK?
(f)     CHRISTOPHER SR. HAD TWO PROPERTIES CLOSE BY.

1.       WHEN ACQUIRED?
2.       HOW PAID FOR?
3.       WHO OCCUPIED PREMISES?

(g)    TAX ASSESSORS?

(h)   ROUTINE POLICE PATROL

(i)      DOGS


· WHAT ABOUT POLICE?

(a)    WHY THIS OPERATION NOT ON POLICE RADAR?
(b)   POLICE SAY FAMILY NOT KNOWN TO POLICE IN CRIMINAL CONTEXT
(c)    HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR NON-CRIMINAL PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED IN EXTENSIVE, COMPLICATED DRUG GROW OPERATION? NEED CONTACTS ETC.
(d)   THE COMMENT THAT POLICE DID NOT KNOW FAMILY FROM CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND GIVEN HOW EXTENSIVE THEIR DRUG GROW OPERATION IN AND HOW SMALL IS THE COMMUNITY. MAKES NO SENSE.

· HOW DID KILLERS GET INTELLIGENCE ON FAMILY? (WHO LIVED/WORKED WHERE?  HOURS OF COMINGS AND GOINGS?)

(a)    PIKETON, PEEBLES,PIKE COUNTY SMALL AND RURAL

(b)   LOW POPULATION

(c)    SMALL  SCHOOL DISTRICT

(d)   SAME NAMES EVERYWHERE

(e)   SEEMS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM LOCALS

(f)     BUT IF OUTSIDER CAME IN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO LIVED WHERE, WOULD BE NOTICED?

(g)    WHO LOCAL WOULD KNOW?

1.       OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
2.       GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
3.       LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

(h)   BUT IF QUESTIONS START BEING ASKED ATTENTION WOULD BE DRAWN. SO WHO WOULD NOT ASK QUESTIONS?

1.       LOCAL PERSON(S) INVOLVED IN PLOT


· WHO LOCAL COULD BE INVOLVED?

(a)    SOMEONE WANTING TO GET IN ON BUSINESS

(b)   SOMEONE EXCLUDED FROM BUSINESS

(c)    SOMEONE BRIBED?

1.       LOCAL GOVERNMENT
2.       LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
3.       LAWYER HIRED TO DO RESEARCH

(d)   YOUNG PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA???

(e)   LAWYER HIRED TO DO RESEARCH

(f)     PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR…BUT AGAIN QUESTIONS DRAW QUESTIONS: EYEBROWS WOULD BE RAISED AND TONGUES WOULD WAG.


· ARE FAMILY MEMBERS STILL INVOLVED?






Tuesday, January 19, 2016

VALID REACTION TO CHARLIE HEBDO VULGARITY SHOULD NOT LEAD US TO IGNORE SERIOUS ISSUES


The first point I want to make is that the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/charlie-hebdo-alan-kurdi-cartoon-1.3403085 )reaction and the reaction of others to this cartoon is exactly the right one. Disgust and denunciation. We need to rely on people’s sense of decency to react properly to this type of screed. I oppose censorship, and blowing up the publisher because freedom of expression is a fundamental value, but freedom to express does not include the obligation to listen. Turn off or don’t purchase is a valid manifestation of OUR free expression.

That said, the comment that only 18 arrests took place in Cologne requires some examination and honest assessment. First I disagree with the expression “only” 18…that is a lot. I remember that Ontario Hydro boor outside a Toronto Soccer game last year being vilified. He was just one guy, but he was rightly excoriated as was the entire vulgar subculture he represented.

But the real problem is that it wasn’t “only 18”, or even “only 21” (the new number). The actual statistics in Cologne are astonishing. The latest number of complaints in that city is 809, of which 521 are sexual assaults including at least 3 rapes.

On that one night.

In that one city.

But Cologne was not the only city where this happened. In Germany, it happened as well in Dusseldorf, Hamburg and Frankfurt. It happened in Helsinki, Finland. It happened in Salzburg, France. It happened in Vienna, Austria and in multiple places in Sweden (more comment on Sweden below).

The technique used was the same in all these places. Large groups of Middle Eastern men (Germany has now admitted that the vast majority of these were refugee claimants, so far as they can tell) would break off into groups and surround the women. They formed a ring around the women and the men on the inside would molest, grope and otherwise assault the women, while the men on the outside of the ring prevented anyone from coming to the aid of the women, including police. The number of attacks overwhelmed the Cologne police such that they could not address the attacks and protect the public. Because the women were so terrified and the other witnesses were the participants, there are virtually no witnesses who can come forward and identify the individual attackers.

This is why there have been so few arrests in the face of this mob of sexual assaults.

You might recall this same technique was suffered by CBS news reported Lara Logan, who was raped in Cairo when covering the Arab Spring. Her account of what happened to her mirrors what the women of Europe suffered on New Year’s Eve.

Another casualty of this horrific even is the truth. Originally Cologne’s police were ordered to cover this up and avoid mention of refugee participation in this (this order ended up costing Cologne’s police chief his job). Interestingly, in Sweden last summer something similar happened. A swarm of sexual assaults by Middle Eastern men occurred during a five-day music festival in Stockholm. Again the police covered up the attacks and who did it.

I recall many years ago some would say that women, if they didn’t want to be harassed (or worse) by men, they should wear less revealing clothes. Feminists screamed that this was blaming the victim. (to be clear, I support the mini). Yet, today we hear that the Mayor of Cologne is now telling women to travel in groups and not alone, and to be careful where they go and who they find themselves close to. The Viennese police chief has said something similar and been attacked.

So, in order to be politically correct, we are supposed to immediately abandon our values? I have always hated political correctness (which is, to me, a soft way of saying fascism). I think it can kill us in the end.

One German politician has stated that the New Year ’s Eve attacks must have been coordinated. Maybe. It might be easier to believe this than to think that it is ingrained in Middle Eastern culture (though I keep thinking of what happened to Lara Logan, and the general treatment of women all around the middle east).

But let me worry about something. If there IS a cultural component, and since we know that over 70% of the refugees are able bodied young men, is it realistic to assume that this cultural component will disappear the minute they cross some border?

I don’t know.


I do know that I hate the kind of vulgarity represented in the Charlie Hebdo cartoon reproduced. But that does not mean that we must be completely politically correct and ignore real questions that can arise out of a clash of cultures.