2014-05-24

To the people in Ukraine who waste time and your lives shooting guns when there are more interesting problems to solve.

I hope this translates into Russian well enough and that the young men to whom this is addressed get shown a copy of it so that the message reaches those who need to hear it the most. If anyone reading this thinks of anyone else who needs to be told not to throw their life away for their country, but to instead live and work for her... Please feel free to send this on. Five doves at liberty to carry this message and share it, I Thank Ye.

Why do you throw your lives away by running around like errant boys, shooting guns at one another and killing people? What in the hell kind of work-ethic is that? Didn't anybody teach you how to behave like civilized human beings? Look around you. Most of the people in the world around you don't run around shooting guns at other people! You are dangerous to the community. People wish you would learn to live peaceful and productive lives helping to get the real work done. To go around shooting guns like that is criminal behaviour, and mostly just a waste of time. It's dangerous. Why bother when there are safer things to spend your time on that are also more utilitarian and useful to the community?

There are many interesting problems to solve and important work to get accomplished. It is wasteful and foolish to go around shooting guns at one another when there is so much work to be done. You will not learn from the Master unless you work for the Master. You have chosen a fools career as long as it involves running around with guns shooting at other people. You should be helping to improve your country's wind energy infrastructure, electrically powered rail for shipping, piggy-backing Santa's Sleigh, and other important high-value cargo like that.

Why don't you learn to set a better example for the youth of the world? Why not set a better example for future generations? Mir... Mirror... Door! Would you like more water? Are you ready to order? Isn't it nice to live peacefully in world where there is applied purpose in the right direction; out planting trees, installing large "wind farms" to generate electricity from the wind... (it is thermodynamically neutral clean and safe electricity. Say "no" to fossil fuels.)

Doodem. Dood... dude, duty... Echo. Always remember the Grandfather Principles. Live by them. Remember that the first rule of defense is to make friends, not enemies. You'll be too busy making friends to have any time left for gunfights. You won't need the guns.

Your country, as is ours, and as is every country, is best protected by having youth learn from the wise. Learn to perform useful work that is a benefit to your community and to the world. Learn how to grow healthy things to eat in gardens. Learn to cook. Learn to preserve food. If the climate change happens, there could be no country to protect. If nobody learns the lore from the elders, then the lore will be lost. What are you learning, running around shooting guns? What use is that to yourself? How does it supposedly benefit your community? I think that it is criminal behavior because it is frightening, dangerous, disruptive, and not constructively useful. We want you to grow up and become intelligent well behaved men. The way you are headed now, you will be dead and bleeding in the street. That is not useful.

You are better than that. You are smart enough to see that if nobody runs around shooting guns, the rest of life can go on again without the ugly interruption of people who got taught to run around shooting guns at people when they should have been taught to perform useful work and problem solving. Go trade your gun for University Tuition or Trade School Tuition. Study permakulture. Read about United Nations Agenda 21. Help us out... but no guns, please. We don't need them. Pitchforks, shovels, wheelbarrows... Those we may need. Let's make it look nice, Okay?

2014-03-09

Repeated Assertion is not Proof

I often hear “Circumcision is not illegal” repeated... But repeatedly insisting that it's not illegal is not what would make that statement true! You have to provide reasons to support your assertion! To that, I often hear “anything not explicitly made illegal by the laws is legal.”

Here's an exercise I want yous to try. Open another tab in your web browser, and locate the web site where you can search the text of the statutes for your state. Now search for the word “Volkswagon.” Chances are very good that, no matter what state you live in, you'll not find any laws mentioning “Volkswagons.” Can you thereby conclude that it's not illegal to own or steal a “Volkswagon.”?

Now try searching for “automobile”. Chances are you'll find laws that pertain to them... but do any of them prohibit automobile theft? Here in Utah, at least, there appears to be no law that prohibits theft of automobiles, and so then, is it not illegal to steal a car? We already know that's probably not a valid conclusion.

Because it's practically impossible for lawmakers to create an exhaustive list of every make and model of automobile, or more generally, of every kind of item that might be stolen... So if it's illegal to steal an automobile, there must be a general purpose law that prohibits the theft of somebody else's high value property. So it's that law that is violated when somebody steals an automobile, whether it be a Volkswagon, a Ford, a Buick, or a Chevrolet.

Now search for phrases such as “permanent disfigurement”, “loss of normal function”, “mayhem”, or “battery” and read the statutes that search turns up. Clearly, there are laws that prohibit those things... but again, lawmakers can not create a comprehensive list of every possible weapon that could be used, every possible part of the body that might be injured, and sew froth. (Oh, say, can yous see where this is going?) Tweety birds... and turtles with tingling tails... but no turtle necks... Just like bull dog tails and doberman ears? Seriously? On who's authority was this inflicted upon us again? What in the hell kind of work ethic was that?

Some advocates of the prepucial guillotine will inevitably attempt the argument that “circumcision” is not “disfigurement” and that it does not cause “loss of normal function”... Perceptions of the argument rely upon a fundamental assumption regarding the nature and extend of the reader's knowledge of normal (intact) adult male sexual anatomy. We rebut by asking them what Anatomy textbook they are referring to in making that determination? Or perhaps, what pamphlet from what doctor paid for by whom with money obtained by what means? Does the word “fraud” ring any bells? How do you think Any Reasonable Person feels about the words “sexual mutilation”? How does the legal concept of “strict liability” relate to all of this? How do the penis butchers feel about the words “good luck finding a lawyer who can get you out of this one”? (What in the hell kind of work ethic would that be, right?)

Given true and complete knowledge of the true anatomy and normal function of the penile prepuce, I believe that it is impossible to not conclude that amputation of the penile prepuce most certainly causes permanent disfigurement and loss of normal function. There is no such thing as a circumcision that does not cause this irreparable harm, therefore the doctrine of strict liability must apply here; it is not necessary to prove mens rea but only that the primary features of the actus reas were committed by the defendant.

Here comes the fraud part.

If you survey a number of Anatomy textbooks published in the USA, you're likely to find that the diagrams of the penis do not display an intact “foreskin” or “prepuce”, it's medical name. The one I own doesn't really explain very much about what it actually is! For some reason, the prepuce has been “cut out of the picture”, even in Anatomy textbooks used to teach college level courses to medical students!

So, are they correcting the babies to match the faulty diagrams? Do people intelligent enough to become doctors actually not question why they are being expected to learn to amputate something that their textbooks don't explain? Are they given to believe that it's vestigial and not necessary? Really? Is there a gun to their heads while they do it? And when the baby cries at the top of his lungs, passes out and dies of pain and fear induced shock, is that “SIDS” or some other alleged cause of death that we should mine for in the records? Many of these defendants may be guilty of infant homicides!

The next assignment in this exercise is to visit http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org and read what they have to say. At the very least, watch their Anatomy lesson video. Then visit http://cirp.org and spend at least an hour learning even more about the true Anatomy and normal function of the prepuce. You may also like to visit http://sexasnatureintendedit.com to learn what a female author has to say about how male circumcision affects the quality of sex for females as well as their male partners.

The next assigned exercise is to read the statutes that pertain to crimes against the person, and in particular, to sexual crimes against children and minors. Minors are not considered to be competent to make their own decisions regarding consent to engage in sexual intercourse, especially with adults. When a person who is in a special position of trust or authority over the victim commits a sexual offense, the offense is enhanced to “aggravated” status; it is here in Utah, and I'm assuming that the laws in every state must have similar language.

No adult has the right to impose prepucial amputation upon a child. It affects not only that child, but even more importantly, it affects the autonomous adult he will someday become, and will be for most of his life.

You might want to check into the statutes concerning fraud right about now, because Mothers got lied to... the people selling and shilling for circumcision managed our Mother's perceptions of what the “foreskin” is, and of what amputation of it supposedly did for us. They were given to believe that it was in our best interest to have a circumcision performed. If you are one of those women, how do you feel about it now that you've read the reading assignments and performed the lookup exercises I've given above?

What are we going to do about it, Posse? (Remember the distinction between a posse and a lynch mob, please. If they are hanging the horse thief, they are a lynch mob. A posse brings the horse thief to trial. We are *not* a lynch mob. We are a Posse.) I believe that if the local courts do not view “circumcision” as a crime today, they are much likelier to after being lead through the above argument and lessons by the short grass roots. If nobody takes the initiative to do this, it will never happen. Don't wait for some “duly authorized officials” to come along and do their job... Prompt them to do their jobs... If they think it's not their job, then who's job is it? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that?

Seriously, what gives anyone the “authority” to determine that it's not illegal to butcher a baby boy's pee-pee tail? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that? How difficult is it to actually read a few pages and learn something that will seem obvious in retrospect? Any Reasonable Person will certainly not ignore the evidence when presented with it. Also, who are the “authorities” who “verify and validate” the information provided by the Anatomy textbooks wherein the foreskin has been cut out of the pictures? Are they correcting the babies to match the faulty diagrams? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that?

Remember that many of the men who are members of law enforcement agencies, district attorneys' officers, and other legal justice system offices are also victims of infant male genital mutilation. Please help them through this learning and grieving process. Many of the women in those offices are mothers of sons, wives of victims, and will feel just as angry about this as we do. There's no way out. They have a duty to rescue. To do nothing about this is misprision of felony.

The legal-latin phrase “Ignorantia legis nemenem excusat” is not meant to be interpreted as meaning that if the people don't know that officials who represent the State have committed a crime, then those officers are thereby excused from prosecution for that crime. The other officials must see to it that the crime does not go untried and unpunished. That's the kind of work ethic expected to fulfill the Standard of Care required of public officials.

Yeah, it's safe up here on these uptown hills, well, at leased for now; Any time that horde out there could come hunting for... the howitzers they think we have aimed at their lowly huts... Uhmmm, yeah, so probably we should go whip and beat them to make sure they don't do that, right? Oh, Good Plan, uh, Captain America!? Really? What in the hell kind of work ethic is that? Riot up your alley, eh? News Flash: Election Results: Maytag Repairman Elected District Attorney! Flash! Pop! Flashbulb! Blink! Blue spots in front of your eyes... What are you going to say now?

2014-01-10

Whole E-Communion

If you took a Catholic communion wafer, or a wheat thin — if you're atheist or not affiliated — or some Wonder Bread — if you're Mormon... ;-) — and lit it on fire with a butane lighter, it would probably burn up sort of like a stick of wood. In other words, the carbohydrate molecules would rapidly oxidize, producing water vapor, carbon dioxide, and soot. It's “Caloric” would presumably be released from it into the surrounding ether, exciting the molecules of air around it momentarily, passing the heat energy on until it dissipates and is gone. The radius of it's effect will be small. This does not seem like a very Good use of that wheat, does it?

If instead you accept the proffered bit of breadstuff, and eat it, your salivary enzymes will begin breaking the complex carbohydrates down into simpler sugars as you chew it up. After you finish “ruminating” and swallow it, the digestive process will continue... the sugars will be absorbed into your bloodstream and from there carried throughout your body, where it will be taken up by the cells. Inside each cell's mitochondria, those sugars will be broken down one chemical bond at a time. The energy released by that will be used to “fuel” the cell's activities, whether it be for thought or action. This seems like a much better use of that wheat, right? Well, depending, of course, upon what sort of thoughts or actions one uses that energy for... And obviously enough, the radius of it's effect will depend upon who you share those ideas with, whether those people agree they are good ideas, whether they remember them, and upon whether or not anyone takes your Fine Words to heart and actually does anything with them, in terms of fine actions that speak louder than fine words... and does the right thing not involving suppression of the ideas you are attempting to promulgate... Yup; hope you see where this is multi-headed.

Now think of the burning wheat thin as anger, and the metabolized one as political or social action. Burning up with anger over something does not really serve you well. Anger is a form of expression that carries with it an implicit threat of violence. When you threaten violence, it puts people on the defensive. They are then less likely to focus on the thing you are saying is wrong or on your proposed solution to that problem. They will instead be concerned with whether or not you are a threat to the security of their person! The Golden Key is to remain calm, and carefully state your concerns in a non-threatening and intelligent fashion, to increase the likelihood that your audience will choose to consume, digest, and absorb the things you are attempting to convey into their mental storehouses, where it can become part of the context of mind within which their experiences of the everyday world are processed.

This is why laughter is far more powerful than scream! Bon Appetite, Monstewers!

2013-12-15

An Open Letter to the European Parliamentary Assembly

["pace.com@coe.int" -- Please take the responsibility to forward this email in it's entirety! If you don't and they learn of it, then I guess it's not your job after all, right? If you don't know how to do that, then please ask an elder for assistance. If there was a quick way for me to send it myself, I'd have done that bit of work for you and saved you a little bit of time. You are authorized to send this to anyone you wish, inside or outside of "The Government". ==> Res Publica.]

To all Member State's Representatives of the European Council, and all Citizens of Planet Earth who happen to get a copy of this by whatever means, Pertaining to Agenda 21 issues and especially to European Council Resolution 1952 and Recommendation 2023:

I am a citizen of America the Beautiful, not that one with "rockets red glare" and "bombs bursting" because it is evil. I believe in "liberty" but not in "freedomination".

I have written a number of essays and letters, published on my blog, that I think you all ought to carefully read, in the interests of honest Due Process, each of us' "right to be heard", adaequatio intellectus et rei adversus solem ne loquitor. (augury) First, here are the links:

You are missing out if you don't read all of them. Really. Don't say I didn't try and warn you.

Imagine this... you are sitting in on a social experiment being conducted at a University. There are two groups, and two speakers. One speaker is a pro-circumcision "doctor", and the other is an anti-circumcision "Intactivist". One group hears the "doctor" speak first, and the other group hears the "Intactivist" speak first. There are before and after surveys taken for each group. There are question and answer sessions after each talk, where the audience may ask questions of the speaker. The entire event is covered by audio/video recording equipment, with cameras on both the speaker and the audience.

Do you suppose that the "doctor" will begin the lesson with an Anatomy lesson? (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org) What about the "Intactivist"? (I guarantee the Intactivist will begin with an anatomy lesson!)

Think about the probable outcome, using your "mental simulator", in terms of the credibility rating the audience may assign to each speaker at the end of the talks. Now think about your own credibility ratings given that the Grass Roots efforts are well underway (ie, this exact scenario has been carried out, for real, at several locations already) and that "you can't stop the signal, Mal." Does this scenario bring you any serenity?

I pray that it does. Peace be with us all, God willing.

Sincerely,
    Karl Martin Hegbloom