Sunday, February 24, 2002
Campaigning for the Canadians, she said, began in September, when she was named a pairs judge for the Olympics. Instantly, she said, her circle of friends expanded. "I became very important," she said. "People who had never talked to me before, suddenly they were so kind, so attentive," she said. "`O.K., I understand the message.' " Subtle nudges turned into overt pressure in the days leading up to the pairs final.
After voting for the Russians based purely on merit, Le Gougne claims to have been coerced by ISU Technical Committee chairperson, Sally Stapleford (the daughter of a CANADIAN), into agreeing to a scenario to explain why Le Gougne had voted for the Russians: the French federation had pressured her to vote against the Canadians. Stapleford "[took] advantage of my emotional situation."
Normally, I would dismiss this as the ravings of an incompetent, spineless bootlick. But, seeing as how the Canadians have apparently beaten the U.S. in both men's and women's hockey, and recognizing that such an event is statistically almost impossible in an unbiased world, I am suddenly persuaded that Gougne is telling the truth! The Canadians tried and failed to get to Gougne, and they clearly got to the refs (and those guys who turn on the light when a goal is scored) in the hockey games. It's time to exclude the Canadians from Winter Olympics for a few years, until they finally clean up their act.
It is an honor and a pleasure to add my name to the distinguished list of the free thinking, civil libertarians who have already signed. ((Mr. Greenspan has written criticizing Amnesty International's stand on extraditing Mr. Milosevic.))
I don't know what kind of law Mr. Greenspan, Esquire, used to practice, but it is clear that reitrement hasn't slowed him down at all. Greenspan has devoted considerable energy to writing articles explaining, among other things, how the U.S. knew about September 11 beforehand, but chose to allow the attack to occur so as to have an excuse to...well, it's not clear what, but clearly something evil. A surprise attack could—in the most favorable light for our security services—only be explained as gross negligence. Unless as in the Pearl Harbor—perish the thought—the attack was welcomed by the government and unpreparedness was DELIBERATE! And my personal favorite, how the U.S. is worse that Hitler:
Genocide....Employment of Slave Labor....Concentration Camps....Sterilization of Citizens....Abolition of Democratic Rule....Trashing Basic Rights of Citizens....
By engaging in these most abominable activities of the Nazis, and frequently to a much greater extent, it seems the US is walking in Hitler's shoes -- or that Hitler walked in ours. Logically the US, having condemned Hitler for these very same activities, should offer the Fuhrer a belated apology. But, NO, Hitler's monstrous crimes were of such magnitude that they can most definitely and absolutely not be justified. Accordingly, there can be no apology.
It seems inconceivable that one person could be so evil. None of the modern-day tyrants, although labeled as a "Hitler," have done during their long rules a fraction of what Hitler did in the twelve years of the Third Reich. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic are minor league tyrants. If there is a deserving recipient of the title "Hitler" it truly belongs to none other than UNCLE SAM!
As far as I can tell, the same Philip Greenspan (also a veteran; similar taste in subjects) has also made a cottage industry out of reviewing books on Amazon's site, reviewing such books as Spider's Web : The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq by Alan Friedman, and Who Financed Hitler : The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power, 1919-1933 by James E. Pool. I was hoping that these reviews would also be rabid screeds, but -- sorry to say -- they aren't too bad.