Well, I beg you a pardon for such a name of the topic, but this is one of the tricks newspapers always do to attract your attention. In fact I wanted to have some conspiracy investigaion of a well-known event Today there was a post of a hilarious nebraska woman who made a good show at some public hearings for the issue. A woman wearing white hay told a lot of statements typical for conservatives and christians and followed it with an absolute 100% insane conspiracy makng a heap of all the possible celebrities names from Judas to Whitney Houston. Here is the link. Her name is Jane Svoboda and the family name Svoboda in Russian means "freedom", so I haven't lied that much to my readers. Yet another christian whore who meddles her medieval crap with modern dignity and pride of civilized society... isn't it? I bet it isn't. I don't believe that such an image was found by someone in Nebraska and wasn't made by a specialist. Just because our dear opponent has this very woman to stuck in his mind. And the time now is January 2012. The video dates back to May 2012. May 11th 2012 to be more exact for it matters. 12:21 to be as exact as possible. Friday, which also matters. Let's have a look at the facts. Inside the article we have a link to a user aksarbent who has got his youtube channel. The video that we seek has over a million of looks it has about 8000 comments and is dated as 10.05.2012 But don't panic, please, because it is not conspiracy but a explained story on (c) rights. So far it has a link to original post at blogspot. This link was made May the 11th the original video has 16 comments 2 reposts and the first comment is dated as 2:12 PM. This site also has some other videos from the same hearing. And if we look in a more well-known mass media than the first answer from google is this blog at Guardian (I don't say that Guardian is as reliable as Times, but at least some Russians heard something if such a mass media) It was issued on May 14th and is interesting as providing different sites as sources of this video. So they refer to Gawker May 11th 2012 1:21 PM and also refers to a comment at gay's website, which was published on the May 11th 11:09 the latest and by 2-00 PM it had over 2 pages of comments. So please feel the sarcasm of guardian blogger who speaks of "viral spread" of a video. It eventually started at LGBT web-site with high attendance of the same kind and those who wait to become the same kind and only after that there appeared a video on a original source. Moreover the original video hasn't had any popularity as it was made by the boards like Gawker which spread the news within 2 hours and please mind the time! All the important news you learn once you have the time for it. And at the weekend you have the most free time then ever. So they want you to believe that it all happened just because it did. The most attendance the video at Youtube gets from the organised LGBT during the first hours (this is the most crucial moment) And after that Youtube is attended by hundred of thousands of people who just like the tag "Best in show!" and are interested in LGBT-questions. Only a couple of thousands leaves their comments but it is enough and interesting for serious press to comment. Why? Because the story has its plot. Ms Jane Svoboda has an official diagnosis of shizophrenia which was learnt the next day by a newspaper journalist (but was somehow not known by a legislative hearing). Ms Svoboda hasn't answered what she is and right after her name she started her show. Check it with other videos on the original video spot yourself. Can You see that the audience is always a part of the show but only in case of Ms Svoboda a Harry Potter like (why should they invest more money into image makers if the audience has already made its likes?) yound dude has a part of his play. Mind also that this guy is constantly talking to the other stout guy on the neighboring row. But this stout guy will not be found on any other videos form the hearing. Why so? OK let's consider that legislation power has only average people employed and all the bloggers and journalists have an IQ over 9000. Let's hope that the young follower of TV Slythereen is unintentionally part of the show and the guy he talks to came here for fun but received more than enough. Let's imagine that friday afternoon (time for a lazy friday and time for office lazy-bones to have some fun and interesting videos in the Internet was just a coincidence at let's think that an investigation of the lady who received a hundred thousands of views on Youtube was made on Saturday morning. Let's think that it all counts. And even a video operator could take a video of the lady of the angle the most convinient to observe the guy (if you saw a typical american soap opera show you will definetely remember that there are butsts of laughter which tells you when you must laugh) and in all the other cases it was better to use a different angle. Let's not pay any attenetion to different contribution of original web-sites and boards which should have by idea found this video in the Internet. But... This is the result with me on Google search of "May 2012 gay" I will just read the relevant heads and you will make the conclusions: "Half of Americans Support Legal Gay Marriage" May 8 2012 "Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal - NYTimes.com" May 9 2012 "Gay marriage opposition hits new low - The Washington Post" May 23 Gay rights in the US, state by state | World news | guardian.co.uk May 8 "BBC News - Obama's support for gay marriage splits US" May 9 I will not laugh now and tell why I do that, because I do believe that you can see a limit to a chance and a reason for a manipulation. The only thing I want you to think of is - don't blame Russian submarine for that.
Loved the looks on people's faces behind her. That old lady looked like she could not believe that such a lunatic would be allowed to attend a public event without a psychiatric nurse in attendance.
It was my understanding that they knew that she is schizophrenic, but that the rules of public discourse allow her speaking time regardless of her illness. That's the way things work over here. Crazy people have rights too. As a side note, her dialog is illustrative of the symptoms of schizophrenia. She is not "Yet another christian whore who meddles her medieval crap" she's someone with an illness that impairs her ability to reason. You can see evidence of similar symptoms all over this conspiracy section.
