Friday, August 31, 2012

In The News ( What is A Legitimate Rape ?

In The News :

In a Recent ( Late Summer 2012 ) News Story, a Senator or Senate Candidate ( ? ) asserted that ( Rephrased for Clarity ) : Women that are ‘Legitimately’ Raped rarely become pregnant because their bodies respond to The Stress of The Rape by causing a Miscarriage.
- - -
Is this True?
It seems to me, from what i’ve heard, Getting Pregnant is actually much harder than it is usually assumed. Very often women will become ‘Unexpectedly’ pregnant, but many women try & try & try to become pregnant without success.
There is only a small window of Opportunity after Estrus/Ovulation for The Egg to become Fertilized, So that to determine how true this is;
You’d have to assemble a large case file of Violent Rapes by Strangers, ( 2000 or so ) & then Determine which of these were in this Window of Opportunity after Ovulation, & of Those; How many would be Expected to have become Pregnant ?
It is also my understanding that Many women that do become pregnant in a ‘Friendly’ Manner, endure a Miscarriage so soon after Fertilization that they aren’t aware that they ever were pregnant, discovering that their ‘Period’ is a week or so late; Or perhaps several weeks or months later, when they experience what is known as a ‘Missing Fetus’.
So after you churn through all these numbers; Do women that endure a Violent Rape by A Stranger, become pregnant less often than a Control group of ‘Friendly Sex’, Casual Sex, ‘Date-Rape’ Sex, Low Coercion Sex, Incest Sex, Violent Sex by an Acquaintance, Drug Facilitated Rapes, Statutory Rapes, Age Inappropriate Sex, Caste Inappropriate Sex, Teaser Sex, UnReliable BirthControl Sex, Obligatory Date Sex, Returning a Favor or Loan Sex, Prostitute Sex, Peer Pressure Sex, ‘I didn’t know that I was having Sex, Sex’, Sperm in The Bathwater Sex, Sperm on The Outside of a Condom Sex, Sperm introduced to a Vagina during Cunnilingus Sex, Shared Vibrator Sex, Sperm on a Tampon Sex, Artificial Insemination Sex, Fertilization outside The Body, accompanied by Egg Implantation Sex, Or ‘UnDefined’ Sex ?
The Reason that i am making a distinction between Violent Rape Sex by A Stranger And Violent Rape by an Acquaintance is that it is entirely reasonable that The Violent Rape by An Acquaintance may result in Mixed Feelings, which would essentially skewer The Arguably Small Statistical Effect caused by The Stress of The Violent Rape. It might also be entirely relevant what The Environment of The Rape was, How Attractive The Rapist was, How Famous The Rapist is, &/or Whether The Rapist used a Knife, Gun, Rope, Fists or Convincing Threats. All these Factors ( And Others ) should be included in The Complete Study.
- - -
Another Aspect of this ‘MisStatement’ Fiasco was in The Many Media Analysis’ that followed;
The Expression; ‘Rape is Rape’ was used.

When is Rape, Rape ?
Obviously; Many ‘Statutory’ Rapes are not Rapes at all.
But there are many even more confusing ‘Soft’ Rapes.

What if a Sexually Precocious 12 year old girl with very large breasts, & an IQ of 160, told a Seriously Retarded 30 year old man that she was 18 & in love with him, prior to sexual intercourse.
Then After this Casual Sexual Encounter; The Man is Traumatized by her Indifference in The Following Weeks.
Who raped who?

i also find is very annoying that while The ‘Legitimacy’ of Sexual Contact is Based on a Sliding Scale of Appropriate Ages that Varies Widely from State to State, Country to Country, Culture to Culture, Historical Period to Historical Period; These are all Ostensibly Based on The Maturity of The Girl ( Rarely The Boy ) - - - But there is No Quantitative Spectrum of What Maturity Consists of. Certainly Not a Legal Standard, that would allow An Accused Rapist or Victim to be Measured for Their Maturity.
If you allow that Women can Rape Men ( or at The Very Least; Emotionally Traumatize a Man through Casual Sex ) Then it must often by The Case that An Emotionally Mature Women takes advantage of an Emotionally Immature Man, Not only for Sexual Gratification, but for Financial Gain, Or to Leverage Some other kind of Advantage over The Man.

What is The ‘Crime’ of Inappropriate Sex ?
An UnWanted or UnPrepared Pregnancy.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Social or Employee Politics.
Emotionally Traumatic Aftermath.

What is my Solution ?

Eliminate The Crime of Rape.
Eliminate The Crime of Virginity Theft. The most curious thing about Virginity Theft; Is that it was/is rarely considered a crime against The girl, but as a crime against her father, betrothed husband or perhaps, husband or other male kin, whose investment in The Girl has been substantially diminished or ‘Ruined’.

Retain The Crime of Assault. Whether Physical or Emotional or Both.
Retain The Crime of Inducing a Non-Consensus Pregnancy. Which could be applied to Men & Women Equally ! A man might easily claim that he is The Victim of A Non-Consentual Pregnancy if The Woman Assured him that she was using BirthControl when she knowingly was Not !
Retain ( or Create ) The Crime of Disease Assault. It seems obvious to me that people that knowingly spread Herpes or Other Communicable Diseases ( Not necessarily restricted to Sexually Transmitted Diseases ! ) should be held accountable under The Concept of an Assault.
Create The Crime of Teaser Sex. This is when a Man or Woman teases a Partner into A Casual Sexual Relationship with The Tacit or Implied Promise or Assurance of A Long Term Romance. This would most commonly be used for The Prosecution of ‘Underage’ Sex, in which A Younger Partner may believe that The Older ‘Aggressor’ is ‘Seriously’ in Love with them. / But it would also Exclude An Older Partner that either was seriously in Love with a younger partner, -Or- Shared an Emotional Confusion of Their Romantic Potential. Such as when a 26 year old male believes that he is in love with a 14 year old girl, but has neglected to consider that she is at a transformative stage in her life & will be a significantly different person in another year or two. In this case; He would be just as victimized by his own Emotional commitment as she is.

The Punishment of These ‘Crimes’ would be much more ‘Relatively’ Appropriate & in Confluence with Similar Situations that are Free of The Sexual Component.

Just how Legally Culpable should someone be for Emotional Confusion ?

Poltical Advertising

Political Advertising

Ads that are disingenuous or insincere or state out & out lies,
are just wrong.

Mean spirited ads against your opponent are just wrong.
You should always speak charitably about your opponent,
And all The more so; if they are mentally disabled or clinically insane.

Political Advertising should be fun!
Your Own Ads for yourself, your positions or programs Should be light hearted and emphasize how you & your ideals are going to help america, The world, humanity, The environment, wild-life, And The Deep Future.
Your own Ads should always include :
smiling, laughing, giggling children,
puppies playing with kittens,
Wide Blue Skies with Billowing White Clouds,
A Entirely Unique Theme Song,
You in casual attire, without shoes, throwing a Frisbee,
Doing chores around The house,
helping at a soup kitchen,
picking up dog poop,
painting a watercolor landscape,
talking about simple, common problems that deserve simple solutions,
reminding everyone that america needs both
The Rich Capitalists
and The Common Rabble that form The Backbone and Foundation of our Economy
and That we all need to care for our Elderly,
disabled, Wild-life, The environment
& The Future.
Playing with Technologies that won’t be available for at least another 10 years.
Changing a Diaper or giving an Elderly woman a sponge bath.
Visiting a Court House and relaying a few anecdotes about how The justice system is severely broken.
Spinning a Large World Globe and giving A short history of The World.

So long as you are scrupulously Honest and Accurate with your ‘Attack’ Ads,
And they are light-hearted; It is permissible to introduce a sprinkling of Kookiness.
Such as:
A Series of Ads FOR your Opponent that feature a wide range of citizens espousing The wonderful features & aspects of your Opponent.
If you believe that your opponent is advocating some policy that will hurt The american people, The world in general, The environment or sell our future to cannibals from Mars;
Then you DO NOT Attack those positions, you find sincere citizens that accurately describe these policies and why they are good for (x.
This series of Ads should feature a very wide spectrum of citizens, The Filthy Rich, Poor Dirt Farmers, Evangelical Christians & Moslems, School Children, Talking Chimps, Schizophrenic Homeless Nudists, Supermarket Sackers, Astronauts, Amish Dwarves, Street Thugs or Convicts on Death Row, Starving Poets, Police that are interrupted from beating up skateboarders, Domestic Terrorists working in their bomb factory, Scientists working on heretical or seemingly absurd projects; and so on.
The common theme of all these ‘interviews’ is that The speaker will always introduce some very subtle tangental idea of their own, that would strongly suggest that they are, quite insane.

How Angels Work—

Saturday, August 11, 2012 1:15:51 PM
How Angels Work.
About a Week or two ago i noticed that my kitchen sink, cold water ( ? faucet was leaking a tiny bit. About a Measuring Cup full every 12 hours or so. So i decided that i would fix it myself, and tried to turn off The water under The sink, but The handle would not turn at all, in either direction. And this faucet handle was one of those kind that has The spokes and are commonly found on outside garden hose faucets. If you turn one of these too hard, or incorrectly; they will just break apart. This has happened often enough to me that i am certainly convinced that it is a very prevalent design flaw, and whenever you run across a design flaw like this that has existed for many, many, many years and is not being remedied by anyone; It is there for some purpose.
Is it simply there to sell more faucet handles, or something else?
i suspect something else, but even i can’t fathom what this something else is!
So anyways; i ran over to Ace’s Hardware Store where i was sure that they’d have some kind of ‘Outer Sheath’ that could be placed over one of these faucet handles and turn it without breaking it. It seems like a very obvious idea to me. Not only to keep The Faucet Handle from Breaking, but also, just to get a better grip on it. But they had no such device and apparently had never heard of such a thing ( ?
So i got a Rubber Gasket dealie meant to be used on Jelly Jars, and returned home with some other things, washers and something else i think ( ? ( i would have to look in The Bag to see what else i bought, but it is out of arms reach at this moment.
And then i procrastinated.
i didn’t really have any confidence that The Rubber Gasket Thingy would work, and i was trying to think of something else…
And then.
A Very Scruffy Man came to my door a few days ago and told me that they’d need to turn off The Water for a few hours and i said; ‘No problem, take as long as you’d like.’ and then i went back to my nap.
And a few hours later, he came back to tell me that The Water was back on,
And About A whole day later; It suddenly occurred to me that i should have taken that window of opportunity to change The washer in The Kitchen Faucet !
But i didn’t.

Is The Interweb UnReliable?

While most internet users believe that Wikipedia is Unreliable, i have always considered it to be an entirely reasonable and concise source of information most of The Time. My greatest consternation is The many of The entries that i recalled and were interested in, were incomplete and often neglected to include or use illustrations to make a particular topic clearer.

But two things happened recently which have caused me to lose All Faith in The Internet !

One was when i accidentally came across an apparently ‘real’ news item that revealed The Death of a Major Media Whore. i didn’t even particularly like this particular Media Whore, but i was somewhat interested in this item and attempted to follow this up with other sources, of which, there were none. My first impression was that this was such a recent & breaking story, that The principle news & media outlets hadn’t had time to ‘format’ a proper story onto The internet !

So i thought, i will just wait until The evening news comes on The TV and there will be a full story on this. But there was none. The next day i again tried to find some news on this death, but i could not find any ! ?
Finally; After about 3 days ! i realized that Not Only was this A HOAX ! But If i were to type into Google The Name of Any Celebrity and The Word ‘Dead’ or ‘Death’; Google would return a ‘News Story’ that revealed The Death of This Celebrity !
It was only when i tried to click on some of The Accompanying Tabs on this News Site that i discovered that None of them Worked, and The Death of The Selected Celebrity was reported to have happened very recently, such as, Earlier Today.

The Second Thing that has Shaken my Faith in The Internet was what seemed like Numerous Stories that were ‘Reliably’ reporting that Amazon would soon Release The Kindle Fire II.
It seemed to me that i was finding this news on many different websites, but when i finally realized that The Predicted Release Date had come and gone, i also realized that this news was coming from one or perhaps two web-sources. i should have been tipped off that None of The Other ‘Major’ Technical News & Media Outlets were mentioning this; But i hadn’t yet come to believe that The Internet would so egregiously try to deceive me !

The Third Thing that has recently soured me to The point of emotional collapse,
Is that Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon & iTunes do Not, for any fee or Subscription Price, feature Recently Released Commercial Films !

iTunes comes closest, but you can only buy The films for exorbitant prices !
The ones that you can rent ( Watch Once ) are from several years ago,
And Netflix is Far Worse. The most recent films that they have on Direct Viewing, are 5 or more years old.
Hulu+ is apparently only for TV Programs,
And Amazon is very confusing. The Films come up, but there is no button to access/watch them ? !

i would like to go back to Netflix Mail Service, but i recently had several DVDs stolen from my mailbox and no longer trust The Post Office.

Back in 1999 when The End of The World was though to be eminent;
i thought that i was perceiving that The world was bunching up in The corners like carpeting being pushed in from The doorway, which proved to be illusionary, or subjectively inaccurate,
But now i think it is really happening this time.

UnSpecified Rant ( Logic Sanity Taboos ) ?

As A Crazy Person ( Myself )
i am particularly Interested in : What is Crazy ?

i have already decided that ‘Logic’ & ‘Reasoning’ are Bunk.
That is; Formal Logical Reasoning is Seriously Dysfunctional.

The Purpose of Using Formal Propositional Logic
Is to be Absolutely Sure or Certain of Some Carefully Constructed Argument.
In Actual Practice, We know that No Such Argument Exists,
Various People may be Absolutely Sure of Some Principle, Hypothesis or Ideology, But The Fact that many ‘Reasonable’ People Vehemently Disagree with them, This Strongly Suggests that this Idea of An Irrefutable Argument is Itself ‘Mistaken’.
There is No Such a Thing.

My own Formal ‘Irrefutable’ Argument that Logic Itself is Bunk;
Proved with Formal Propositional Logic is this :

Let us first allow that there is A Formal Propositional System of Logical Reasoning, Which, When used Properly; Can Produce Irrefutable Arguments.
There are Several very Serious Problems with ‘Properly Using’ This System of Logical Reasoning; The Most Conspicuous is that The Creator of The Argument must first ‘Subjectively’ Assign a Truth Value to Each Propositional Variable.
In Classical Propositional Logic; These Truth Values are Either True or False;
Which is Problematic in The Real World. There are many Variables that you’d like to use in An Argument, Whose Truth Value is Initially in Dispute, or Deeply UnCertain. Even Any Given Culture’s Most Axiomatic Assumptions about The World, Human Nature or Philosophical Assumptions are Amazingly InCalculable, or Irresolute.
Using Fractional Propositional Logic; Which has its Own System of Logical Functions with which to ‘Operate’ on Fractional Values of Truth. This System allows Truth Values to Hold a Value of 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 And The Functions; AND, OR, IFT, XOR and such, Produce Results that Always stay within this Range.
The Result is that your Propositions may be ‘Sort of True’ or ‘Mostly False’ or ‘Who Knows’ and Retain your Logical Structure.
The Final Result holds to This Premise; and May Provide A Solution that is Unsatisfactorily Vague. It will fall short of The Desired Irrefutable Argument, but in Real World Situations; It may provide a Conclusion or Judgment that is Entirely Consistent with All Facts and Stand Up to A Critical Attack of He Said, She Said.

Two :
Along with this ‘Real’ Logical Reasoning System, There Exists a More Familiar System of Jiggery Pokery Logic, which is Routinely used by Ordinary People to ‘Prove’ their Personal Opinions & Religious Views. This system is rife with ‘Logical Fallacies’ in which One or More Steps of The Argument Assert Something that even The Most Superficial Reflection Upon It will Cast a Serious Shadow on its Validity.
Nevertheless; Such ‘Lay’ Arguments are extremely Pervasive, Used Extensively in Advertising, Cultural or Social Indoctrination, Cult Tutelage &/or Any Family Decision that is in Dispute.
A Carefully Established & Well Constructed Jiggery Pokery Argument may appear just as Strong & UnAssailable as A ‘Real’ Logical Argument; But more Importantly; Anything; Anything at All may be ‘Proved’ with A Jiggery Pokery Argument; While Real Logic can only Prove True Things.
If A Particular Section, Premise or Step of The Jiggery Pokery Argument is Attacked Successfully; The Jiggery Pokery Argument may Simply ‘Resolve’ this Weakness with An Additional Jiggery Pokery Argument, Recursively & without Limit.
Although These Jiggery Pokery Arguments are ‘Just Wrong’;
It must be Conceded that They are Often Held to Be ‘Accurate’ or ‘Valid’ by Many People, and while you, or A ‘Professional’ Logician may believe that you would not be swayed or Convinced by such Bogus & Frivolous Rationalizations or Justifications, It is entirely reasonable that you have already fallen pry to these Beliefs and are UnAware that you have Stumbled in this Manner.

The Point is That : If The Purpose of True Logic is provide Certainty in your Decision Making, and Jiggery Pokery Logic Countermands that Functionality, And are Often ( Even Occasionally ) Indistinguishable from Truly Logical Explanations & Assertions;
Then The Functionality of True Logic is Compromised.

Thus: Logic is Bunk.

Ethics is The Examination & Determination of What is Right or Wrong;
And The Tool that is Used to Make these Distinctions in Reason & Logic.

So; By Extension, Ethics are Compromised.

Sanity is The Assumption that there exists a Standard of Behaviour which is Universally ‘Good’ for Both The Individual & The Community, Society or Culture.

Which requires a Logical Approach to Tease Apart The Many Slivers of ‘What is Good’. It is often easy to determine that something is ‘Good’ for ‘Me’ right now, But will it be Good for Me tomorrow? Is it Good for my Neighbors? Is it Good for Strangers Two Blocks Over? Is it Good for ‘Outworlders’?

And since Logic is Broken; All attempts to Use Reason to determine what is ‘Good’ is Deeply Flawed.

The Definition of Sanity is Deeply Flawed.

It is Most Evident when Examining what is Commonly, Or Universally thought of as ‘Good’ or ‘Sane’ or ‘Crazy’.

It should also be Introduced that there exists a Particular Kind of ‘Universal Beliefs’ that are held to be ‘Really, Really True’; And are Not.

These Beliefs have a Very Quirky Functionality, and since they are taught to The children of a Given Society or Culture from their Earliest Moments of Inclusion in their Communities, They are Not subject to The Necessity of Being ‘Reasonable’ or ‘Explained’. They are simply True.
Unambiguously; Inarguably True.

These Beliefs are Called Taboos.

Most Taboos are well entrenched into The Legal & Judicial System of A Society and Carry Very Severe Penalties for Violating them.
It seems very odd to me though; that If these Taboos are So Obviously ‘Wrong’, Then only a Crazy Person would Violate them. Which is -Exactly- How their Violations are Considered. Breaking a Taboo is Not simply Infringing on some Rule; No. Disregarding a Taboo is Proof Positive that The Offender is Clinically Insane. Never mind that each Society has their own Taboos, Most of which are completely different from Culture to Culture. A Taboo in Canada may be perfectly acceptable behaviour in Mexico.
And everyone ( ? ) seems to be aware of this; And doesn’t change anything.
If you Defy a Taboo in your own Community, While it is Well understood that such a Crime is only Wrong ‘Here’, It is Still Very, Very Wrong.

Some people ‘Rationalize’ this as evidence that Everyone Else, In all The Other Countries, are Completely Insane.
Many People really believe that The People in Other Countries aren’t even ‘Real’ People.

Taboos Do Have real Functionality though. They allow everyone in A Community to Immediately Know if Someone is Crazy, and Potentially Dangerous. If you see someone violating a Taboo; Then they are Obviously Crazy or An Outworlder, and they may pose a Threat to your Safety. Avoid them. Tell your Parents or The Authorities that there is A Crazy Person over there.
You don’t have to be a Clinical Psychiatrist or Lawyer to make an Evaluation like this; You simply have to know What is Allowable and What is Not.

One very kooky aspect of Taboos is that Nearly Every Taboo has a Sister Behaviour that is perfectly OK, Even in The Society that Enforces The Primary Taboo. There are also Certain ‘Contexts’ in which a Taboo can just be Turned Off like Light Switch.
In Contemporary America for Example;
It is Forbidden for A Woman to Display or Allow to be Seen, Her Areola or Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for A Man to Display Their Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for Magazines to be Sold that feature Predominant Photographs of Women’s Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for Animals to Display their Feminine Nipples,
And while it is Considered Very, Very Wrong for An Adult Man or Woman to Suckle On A Human Woman’s Breast, or Drink Bottled Human Milk, It is Perfectly OK to Drink The Milk of A Cow or Goat, But Not A Dog or Cat.
A Grown Man may even openly suckle The Teat of a Cow or Goat on National Television for Comedic Effect, and Such a Man may be thought of as ‘Eccentric’ or ‘Goofy’, But This Behaviour would not be Criminal or Socially Ostracizing.

Murdering People is Considered Very, Very Wrong; But there are Many, Many Exceptions to This Prohibition, and Those that eagerly Adhere to The Proposition that Murder or Killing People is Very, Very Wrong; Often Equally Believe that The Exceptions are Permissible or Appropriate, And they find No Contradiction in These Beliefs.

This should now Establish my Foundation of My Initial Question:
What is Crazy ?

If A Society is going to Allow The Idea of ‘Sanity’ or ‘Insanity’ to hold important positions within The Legal, Educational or Social Services & Systems,
Then They Should have Real ‘Functionality’.

The Idea of What is Crazy should Not be Completely Arbitrary.

Which it is.

In Recent ( Summer 2012 ) News;
How can our Society believe that James E. Holmes could methodically plan & then perpetrate an attack on a theatre full of people, killing a dozen, and wounding far more, and Not be Insane. How can our society believe that he was exercising The Same ‘Logic’ & ‘Reasoning’ that anyone else may choose to make a Baloney Sandwich or Watch an Old Episode of Gilligan’s Island ?

There are people that are ‘Mad-Dog’ Crazy, frothing at The Mouth, Ranting Incoherently, Running around in Circles, Painting with Feces, Using Dead Bodies as Sculptures, Compulsively Masturbating, Enjoying The Company of Children or Violating Victimless Taboos.

But each of these is commonly performed by Artists, Poets & Grade School Teachers.

There doesn’t seem to be a Clear Definition of What is Crazy.

i have this ‘Other’ idea that while The Legal System defines Insanity as A Persons Inability to know The Difference between ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’.
It is my contention that Everyone, or Anyone that Breaks a Law or Taboo can not make this Distinction; Based on The Very Simple Assertion that If you Believe that Something is Wrong, They you won’t do it.
You may ‘Understand’ that other people may believe that wearing mismatched socks is Deeply Wrong, You will wear mismatched socks without any apprehension whatsoever. You clearly do not understand that wearing mismatched socks is ‘Really’ Wrong.

Even The Most Egregiously Evil Necrophiliac Cannibal will certainly have their personal code of conduct, which may include a prohibition against eating pancakes without syrup. Eating Pancakes without Syrup is not simply disagreeable, but deeply, culturally wrong. One may wonder how their personal code came into being which allows for certain behaviours that are widely assumed to be vulgar & abominable and other mildly exasperating situations to be thoroughly forbidden.
Is it really any different for everyone? This Case only presents us with An Extremium Case, but not an Anomalous Case.

What i believe.

i don’t believe that anyone can truly think.
Humanimals are pre-Conscious Entities.

Societies are built upon rules no different than those used by ants &/or bees.
The Rules of Thumb that Humanimal Societies use may be more complex, boarding on Chaotic ( Approaching Randomality ), but Qualitatively; They are Equal.

i also don’t believe in Freewill.
i allow that each ‘Conscious’ Entity is Autonomous in The Sense that our Minds are A Composite ‘Result’ of All The Gravitational & ElectroMagnetic Forces effecting each of our Personal Node Vertices; But These Focus Points have no Control or Influence over their Own Behaviour or Thoughts.

We are Only ‘Aware’ of what is Happening to us.
Each Conscious Entity is an Observer of themselves,
Incapable of Exercising The Tiniest Amount of Directed Intentions.

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Second ( ? ) Paparazzi Rant

If you're a Celebrity hounded by Paparazzi
And you'd like to get rid of them;
Simply Identify ( Have one of your assistants do this ! )
All Potential Source Editors & Publications that would
Potentially buy these mundane & tedious snapshots of you
Walking down The Street or Getting into or out of a Car,
And Suggest to them;
That if they quit buying these pictures
from The Usual Suppository of Paparazzi;
You will provide them with a Professionally photographed,
Yet surprisingly impromptu &/or unexpected
'Dream' Photographs that they'd been wishing for, for years & years,
Every few months at a very modest fee.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Another idea is that The Celebrity ÔFakesÕ The brutal murder of A Paparazzi, and then ÔCovers it UpÕ somehow so that charges are never filed.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
A small Alternative to that is The Celebrity Brutally Beats The Krap Out of A Paparazzi, and all of it is captured by The other Paparazzi, and again everyone either disappears, is paid off or intimidated into not pressing charges.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

911 Thought Experiment & Film Suggestions

911 Thought Experiment

i would like you to build a scale model of one of The 'Twin' Towers of New York 911 Fame.
This model should be Height to Width Scale, Made of any Materials that you'd like, using any design that you'd like, reproducing most or all of The floors & central support column - - Or not. It may be just a outer wall of 'Stiffened' toilet paper or toothpicks, paper straws, hay, sugar cubes or whatever.
The only caveat for this 'Anything Goes' Model Construction; Is that it has to be Able to Stand up under its own weight, firmly attached to a flat ground level platform, and withstand very gentle side to side movement, as The Actual Twin Towers were designed to withstand hurricane or Near hurricane strength winds.

Find an Electric Carving Knife or Saw with such & such specifications that will allow you to Remove The Top Third of The Building with a clean horizontal straight cut of without substantially Damaging The Rest of The Building in any way; Such as any damage that might be expected from wrenching it off with sustained twisting, bending & pulling.
The Actual Twin Towers were essentially severed with 'Surgical' precision, and that's what this experiment would like you to reproduce. The amount of damage to any other floors, beyound The half dozen or fewer that were effected by The plane crashes in The Orthodox Explanation, was very minimal.

Take this Top Third and Hold it very directly ( this might be tricky to manage ) over The Lower Two Thirds, by what would be The Scale equivalent of a Dozen Floors, and Drop it.
What happens?
Does The Entire Building Collapse, Fall over, Pancake down, Disintegrate, or do anything other than just sit there.

This Experiment Predicts that Irregardless of how Fragile you made your Model Building according to The Single Caveat, The Top Third with plop down on The Remaining Two Thirds and just sit there, or if it were dropped from a sufficient height, that would defy The Actual Twin Towers Scenario, There would be a slight 'Bounce' and The Top Third would Fall away or Topple over, Leaving The Remaining Two Thirds, unscathed.
This Experiment further predicts that given that The Top Third of The Building, was made from The Same Materials and Construction Methods as The Lower Two Thirds of The Model, Could; Under NO Circumstances of Throwing This Top Third at The Lower Two Thirds, Dropping it from Any Height, Whacking at it like a Bat for Several Minutes, or Alighting it with a Match and leaving it on The Two Thirds Top for An Hour or two, will harm or Cause The Lower Two Thirds to Fall over or Collapse in Any Manner.
How might one reconcile this with The Actual Twin Towers Collapse ?
It might be suggested that A True Scale Model introduces a 'Special Kind' of Fragility, but This Experiment Specifically Invites The Model Builder to Make a Model as Fragile as they possibly can.

What i can't 'Envision' is any building that is capable of holding it's own weight, or The weight of it's top third, and then suddenly loosing that capability in a catastrophic & disastrous manner that occurs as one might flick a light switch; curious & bewildering.

What is the Correct Explanation for this Experiment ?
This Experiment was taken from ( in a modified form ) from The Film :
9/11: Blueprint for Truth / The Architecture of Destruction

Some other Fine Heretical Films :
Aftermath: Unanswered Q's from 9/11
Part One :
Part Two :
Loose Change
Loose Change Final Cut
Fahrenheit 9/11
The Road to Guantánamo © 2006
No End in Sight ( Exposé of The Ongoing Iraq War ( Circa 2001+
The Shock Doctrine ( Based on The Book by Naomi Klein )
What Happened on the Moon? ( Best Exposé of The Fake Moon Landings
-Bore Hole- by Joey Mellen & Amanda Fielding ( Self Trepanning
Sick: The Life & Death of Bob Flanagan, SuperMasochist ( 1997
Unforgiven ( 1992
Michael Jackson / The Lost Documentary ( YouTube ) Strong Evidence that All of The Accusations of Child Molestation against him were Bogus
District 9 ( Best Alien Film Ever
Fido ( Best Zombie Film Ever
The President's Analyst  / 1967 ( Best Political, Military Industrial Complex Film Ever
Kick Ass ( Best Super Hero Film
The Emerald Forest ( Best Amazonian Aborigine Film
Frank Capra's WWII : Why we Fight ( 7 1_h± Films Terrific Historical Analysis of WWII
The Notorious Bettie Page ( Best Historical Autobiography of a Porn Star
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ( Best Intelligent Designer / Intellectual Freedom Film
V for Vendetta
Tae Guk Gi : The Brotherhood of War ( Best Korean War Film
Miami Blues ( Best Petty Criminal / Chase Film
Flags of Our Fathers ( 2006 / Letters from Iwo Jima ( 2007
GoodFellas: Special Edition
Little Dieter Needs to Fly ( Best Documentary of Vietnam War
The Good Fairy / 1935 / "I'm going to buy a pencil sharpener with a handle!" Dr. Max Sporum
Pierrepoint ( Best Documentary of The Life of An Executioner
Panique au Village / A Town Called Panic ( Best Stop Action Film
There Will Be Blood ( Best Documentary of The Early History of Oil Drilling
The Hudsucker Proxy
Whale Rider ( Best Native American Aborigine Film
Rabbit Proof Fence ( Best Documentary of Mid 20th Century Australia
An Unreasonable Man : Ralph Nader
Hoodwinked ( Best Fairytale Film
In the Realms of the Unreal ( Best Documentary of a Naive Artist Film
Love Me If You Dare ( Best Love Story
My Super Ex-Girlfriend ( Very Good Superhero Film
North Face ( Best Mountain Climbing Film
Payback ( This is a perfectly mundane little film with Mel Gibson, before he went crazy; Who plays a petty gangster that was sent up the river for his part in a heist of somekind, and is now out, and goes to the underworld boss to collect his share of the robbery. Curiously; The underworld boss & others don't understand that all he wants is a reasonably small, fixed amount, that he's calculated is due to him. And so he, The Mel Gibson character, reeks terrible havoc on these people, because they just won't listen. This is a theme that i am haunted with constantly; The Problem of wanting to get some simple thing done, and no one will listen to me. It's very frustrating.
Romy & Michele's High School Reunion ( Best Gay/Lesbian Film
The Razor's Edge  1)Powell / 2)Murray
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
The Passion of Joan of Arc ( 1928
Save the Green Planet! ( Excellent Mystery/Crazy Person Film
The Professional
The Third Man (1949) ( Best Soundtrack
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Trouble with Angels ( Best Ending for a Disney Film
A Man Called Horse / The Return of a Man Called Horse
The Green Hornet ( 2010
Exit Through the Gift Shop
The Desert of Forbidden Art / 2010 / Suppressed Russian Art
The Lady Eve
The Jacket ( Best Psychological Time Travel Film
Ants: Little Creatures Who Run The World
Boys Don't Cry
DOA ( Original & Remake ( Later : Crank & Crank 2
Hail the Conquering Hero / 1945
The Miracle of Morgan Creek
The Great McGinty
Lake Placid
The Fly ( Original Version
The Fly (1986)
The Kite Runner

In Defense of Rioting & Looting

In Defense of Rioting & Looting

i was just listening to an account of some Rioting & Looting in Britain,
But this sort of thing happens all over The World;
And The Principle Feature of This Demonstration of Anarchy that most people find incomprehensible and indefensible: Is The Looting of Shoppes, Over Turning Cars, Setting Fires and so on.
The Participants are usually just 'Caught Up' in The Hysteria of The Moment, and this sort of thing is a common 'Evolutionary' Feature of Human Behaviour that encourages 'By Standers' to become involved in Any Social or Economic Activity that Either Bolsters The Social Fabric or Protects The Group from Foreign Aggression by acting as A Larger Group, or Promises Greater Success in A Hunt by Using as Many Members of The Community in A Mammoth Hunt, as possible.
Ordinarily; If, In any of these cases; The Individual were allowed to carefully and thoughtfully consider whether they should or should not rush at The Mammoth with a Rock in each Fist, They would, If The Person is reasonably sane & not mentally retarded, They should decide to refrain from participation and simply urge on those that are rushing towards The Mammoth.
But for The Community to Survive, Evolution has endowed each member with a Fail-Safe Switch which turns off Common Sense when A Given Behaviour is Actually Better for The Group, and The Communities Gene Pool, which each Member has A Vested Interest in Preserving and Propagating.
So; How does this Genetic Programming Work with Applications to Modern Society?
Firstly; Mostly; It encourages everyone to 'Join In' with Everyone else in 'Being Normal' and 'Doing What Everyone Else is Doing'.
This is very advantageous to most Economic Issues, and also discourages Technological & Aesthetic Changes, which works against progress & Change, As Evolution hates Change.
Although Evolution is all About Change;
Change, According to The Rules of Evolution, Occurs only very slowly.
Species are much more Encouraged to Remain The Same, and only very begrudging change, and so slowly that No Change is Noticed.
This explains why Human Civilization, until very recently; Advanced Technologically, Very Slowly.
We should have discovered Electricity or Steam Powered Engines Tens of Thousands of Years ago, and Leonardo should have created a viable hang glider thousands of years ago, or The Egyptians thousands of years before that.
The Romans with their thorough understanding of mechanical devices, Should have invented a Bicycle or some other kind of powered cart. Never mind that Slaves & Horses were cheap, Both has severe liabilities and The Romans should have recognized this.
The reason that Civilizations have advanced so slowly is because Evolution understands that Change is nearly always Bad.
If you're alive and reasonably prosperous today, there is no Need for Change. Change is only Acceptable when things get very bad. And usually;
When things do get this bad, Change can't take place because The Resources and Expertise is No Longer Available.
The Reason that Change is so common Now-a-Days, is because most people 'Understand' at a Subliminal, Intrinsic or Congenital Level, that Western Civilization is Grievously Broken, and it just so happens that there are enough 'Successful' people to change Things while most of The Broken People support and encourage everyone to become & remain aware that Society is in fact broken.
The Riots & Looting that occasionally erupt are A SubClass of This Phenomena.
What usually ignites a given Riot is that The Police Murder some 'Perceived' Innocent Person, and The Judicial System is Laggardly in dispensing A Reasonable & Acceptable Solution or Vengeance.
The Riot & Looting is An Expression of A Mob Activity ( Evolutionarily Good ) that 'Tells' or 'Informs' The Business Classes ( The Middle Class or Bourgeoisie ) That The Community is Broken.
The Bourgeoisie are slow to realize that Their Village or City is Broken, because while The Police are Murdering 'The Little People', They are still Safe; So The Little People have to make it clear to The Social Officiates that If The Little People are going to be made to suffer, they will suffer too.
Regretfully; This Migration of Social Wisdom is Too Convoluted to be Readily Absorbed in A Functional Manner.
Instead; The Principle Tax Payers & Regional Managers don't make The Connection between A & B. They only See The Consequences of B and further oppress The Little People Until they're made Submissive & Acquiescent Again.
Things may improve a little for awhile,
But The pattern is far more cyclical than linear.

Something oddly dumb

Rover is a Dog. Rover has a Bone.
Its Bone.
Rover's Bone.
Rover was recently Cloned.
There are now Six Rovers.
How many Rovers? It's Six.
Did you notice that The Use of The Apostrophe
Is Exactly The Opposite for The Word -It-
As it is for A Proper Noun ( Rover ).
That is Stupid !

The Proper Usage of Numbers in Literature ( ? )

Number Usages
i came across a list of 'Rules' that pertained to The Use of Numerals, Numbers, Numerators, Numericals, Integers, Digits, Symbols, Pictoglyphs, Cardinal & Ordinal Numbers, Quantities, Quotas, Tallies, Aggregates, Totals, Characters & Words as Ephemeral or Eternal Conceptual Portions.
Naturally; i disagreed with many of their precepts.
Fortunately; This listing was accompanied by a lengthy supplementation of comments, which i will draw from, As well as add my own thoughts to, to amend and correct The Original Listing.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
A Number is A Conceptual Quantity,
Most readily used to indicate A Simple Tally of Whole Units.
There are Four Apples in The Basket.
A Numeral is A Pictoglyph or Word that Indicates a Numerical Value.
The Population of The World is 6,938,928 Traffic Cones.
The Idea of 3 is a Number; The Character '3' is a Numeral.
Ordinal Numbers refer to An Item's Relative Position;
The First Son was standing behind The Last Wife of The Eighth King.
Cardinal Numbers are specific Values;
There is One Black Cat & Five Blue Ones in The Basket.
The Borg Mix these;
To The Great Chagrin of The Federation.
Seven of Nine
Fifth of Twelve
Three of Eighths
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Smaller Numbers should be spelled out.
Zero, One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven & Twelve are Iconic Numbers and should be treated as Royalty.
Thirteen breaks This Stream of Immediately Recognized Quantities and may be Written as 13 when convenient to do so.
A Second & Third School of Thought suggests that This Initial Series should Only go to Nine, While The Actual 'Cognizant' Value that most people can 'Recognize' without counting, is Seven.
That is; If you see Five or Six birds, randomly distributed on a lawn, you will immediately 'know' that there are a specific number of birds in your field of vision. If there are Nine or Seventeen Birds; Your brain will merely tell your consciousness that there are 'Birds' on The Lawn.
Naturally; If The Birds are Arranged in 'Patterns' Then you will be able to Identify Much Larger Quantities.
If you're going to use this Rule; Perhaps you should take steps to find out what your personal 'Limit' for Subliminal Counting is; And use that Value for your Break Number that you Spell Out as A Word, and Thereafter; Use A Numerical Pictoglyph.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
As A Side Note:
3, 7 & 9 are Unique Pictoglyphs for Numbers,
But are 11, 39, 290 & 2,938,928 Pictoglyphs or Collections of Pictoglyphs?
Since Each represents A Unique Value;
Each is a Unique Pictoglyph. ( ? )
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
This Next Point is Very Exasperating;
And i first became aware of it when i Started using HP Calculators
That allowed The User to Set a Preference
For Which Decimal Indicator they would like to use.
Along with this;
Is The Character used to Break Large Numbers Up,
So as to make them Easier to Read.
e.g.; 383,990,029,920.25
The Period & Comma in this Usage are in Common in North America, and Possibly Britain,
But Nearly all other Nations use The Opposite Method;
e.g.; 783.920.020.982,333
Thank The gawds that we all agree that The Numerical Sets should Consist of 3 Digits.
Another Usage is 484 920 202 939. 202 991
Which is completely crazy.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
i once had a teacher that insisted that when 'saying' a large number, such as Two Hundred Twenty and Three;
This would mean 220.3.
The purpose of Language is to Convey Clear & Unambiguous Ideas,
And this Usage is clearly begging for trouble.
The More Correct Expression would be Two Hundred & Twenty, Point Three.
The Most Correct Expression would Two Two Zero Point Three, when used to convey an amount over The Phone.
In Writing; It would be; 220.3.
Any time a Decimal Enters into a Value;
Use All Digits.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
The Possible Exception to that would be Readily Recognized Simple Fractions.
One & A Half may be written out;
While 1½ is Probably Better.
1 1/2 is asking for trouble.
Seven & Twelve Sixteenths should be Expressed as a Decimal Value :
7.75 or Possibly : 7¾
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
How should you Write 22?
Twenty Two or Twentytwo ?
It may be that my spell checker is simply too lazy
To include all The Numbers to A Million or More;
But The Dictionary Fails to Recognize Twentytwo as well.
Twenty Two just seems Deeply Wrong and An Invitation for Ambiguity.
Which is Why; Large Numbers should be Written out as Pictoglyphs : 22.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Even Larger Numbers such as Four Billion, Three Hundred & Two Thousand & Sixtyfour might very easily convey A Value that diverges from The Desired Quantity.
Write it Out : 4,000,302,064
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
This comes back to commas as separators.
i've gotten very use to this; and periods are just wrong.
But i would also allow that commas are flawed.
There is a slim chance of confusion, especially when The text is Block Justified, which may skewer The Spacing to make it seem like 3, 302, 064 ( ? )
What is a Better Method?
3·302·064.92 ( ? )
i like The Little Pea, but it's tedious to use.
If Computers could automatically insert These Dividers,
That would be a step in The Right Direction.
Another approach may be If we were to start printing all our text in a highly formatted structure, kind of like Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, in which The Names of Royalty were placed inside Cartouches, or Oval Boxes.
Under this System; Numbers would be very specifically formatted, so that whatever their usage or value, They couldn't be mistaken for anything else.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Another Digression:
Numerical Sequences which Use Letters and Other Symbols,
Typically in Warehouse Inventory Identification Labels,
Should NOT use Ambiguous Characters !
Such as :
1 vs l
2 vs R
3 vs E
4 vs 9
5 vs S
6 vs b
7 vs T
8 vs B
9 vs q
Which Means All of them !
Such Identification Labels should NEVER be Contextualess.
They should always be Nonsensical Combinations of Familiar Animals, Plants, Written Numbers, Utensils, and such.
Should be :
Blind Zebra Nine Green Toaster Tall Spoon Slash Six One
Or Maybe in Consideration of Brevity;
Such Words may Never be Longer than Four Letters.
Blue Goat Red Newt Fast Leaf Two Six
Numbers May be Reduced for This Purpose :
One Two Thre Four Five Six Sevn Ate Ninr Ten
The Use of Word Sets could Indicate Special Classes of Items.
Animals mean The Item is for Electrical Tools,
Or whatever.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
When Saying Numbers or Letters in Any Context that May allow for The Tiniest Potential for Ambiguity, Such as Telephone Numbers or Inventory Labels;
Always use The Ham Radio Pronunciations with Distinct Pauses between Each AlphaNumerical Character :
Zee Row
For rah
Fie Vah
Sicks or Sticks
Sev En
When Using A Word as A Single Character;
You may forget The 'Correct' Ham Radio Designators;
So for Consistency; Try to Remember These Rules of Thumb :
The Word should be A Distinct & Familiar Noun,
Like A Common Animal or Object, Or Very Unique Idea.
It should consist of Two or Three Syllables,
But Not Two or More Distinct Words that Make One Word.
e.g.; Bad Examples :
Eyeball may be thought to be Eye Ball or E-B
Iguana for I is bad because it sounds like E-Guana !
Beta or Baby
Macaroni / Machine
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Sentences in Stories or Formal Expositions should Never begin with a Number.
If you'd really like to use a Large Number which demands that it be written out in Digits; Reformulate your Sentence.
68,928 Birds were killed by Darkened Lighthouses last year.
Should become;
Darkened Lighthouses killed 68,928 Birds last year.
Five Cats are being kept in my closet.
Is OK.
I'm keeping Five Cats in my Closet.
Is Better.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Centuries, Decades & Iconographic or Ideological Class Sets should be Written out as Numerals.
The Twentieth Century
The Gadfly Seventies.
The Seventh Division
The First in his Class
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
1st, 8th, 2nd should only be used for dates.
July 1st, 1844
2nd of September
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Use of The Word Percentage.
Whenever an Actual Value is Included; 37%
The Symbol should be used;
But if you're speaking generally;
There is a Larger Percentage of Albinos living in The Refrigerator Crates than Chileans.
Is Preferred.
36 Percent vs 36%
Four Percent vs 4%
Using The Symbol seems A Lot Clearer to me.
Percent refers to A Conceptual Notion
Per Cent is An Abbreviation of The Description of The Calculation.
It is Belabored & Wrong.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Recipes should always use Numerals.
3 Cups.
287 Slightly Heaping
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Unit Quantities should be Written :
If A Unit Quantity is Used in A Context which Beggars Ambiguity or Confusion,
Such as When Writing for Attentive Third Graders;
3.26_ly should be 3.26 LightYears
27_kpd should be 27 Kilometers per Day*
- -
* Digression :
Something very fun that my HP 48 will do,
Is Convert 'Regular' Quantities into 'Crazy' Quantities.
60_mph = 1,267,197.46 Fathoms per Day
If i 'Define' a Shoelace as being 27 inches long.
'27_in' 'Shoe' STO
i can then use this new Unit Length
Exactly The Same Way i can use All The Other 'Orthodox' Units !
Speed of Light = 1_c
1_Shoe/yr ( Shoelaces per Year )
Warp One = 1.379 E 16_spy
- - 
End Digression
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Avoid Arranging Two Numbers Next to One Another.
Three Four year olds fell in The Well.
It's not quite as confusing as A Double Negative,
But it's Ambiguous Enough to Avoid.
Three Children, Each of which; was Four years old, fell into The Well.
That sounds awfully labored ( ? )
It would be worse if you'd written;
3 4 year olds fell into The Well.
How about;
Three Preschoolers fell into The Well. The Oldest was Four, The Youngest, Also Four, and The Middle child was Four as well.
Using The Word 'Well' Twice in one Sentence,
with very different meanings is also confusing.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
The Use of Millions, Billions, Trillions ( et. al. )
As mentioned earlier;
Writing out large numbers as Numerals;
Four Billion, Sixtythree Million, Eight Hundred & Twentyone, And Sixteen
Is very confusing;
If you're bandying about vague generalities as part of slur or disingenuous political argument;
Six Quadrillion Democratic Paraplegics are in favor of this Proposition.
Is much better than 6,000,000,000,000,000 Democratic Paraplegics…
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o
Consistency is The Jingoistic Fanaticism of The Small Minded Albinos or One Legged Sailors, But— You shouldn't Mix Metaphors or Cardinal & Ordinal Numbers just to annoy librarians either.
Use The 'Does is Make a Good Haiku' Rule of Thumb
To judge whether a Sentence is Reasonable or not.
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o