tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15042569518997051842024-03-13T22:06:57.102-06:00Karl Hegbloom Is inEssays providing insight, expounding metanoia, and creating opinion regarding current social, economic and eco-environmental situations. Karl Hegbloom does not merely complain about civilization's unconfessed sins. Watching the moving projection that is superimposed upon our route to repentance and reparation... which he sees moving wrongly relative to the underlying objective reality that he knows others like himself can also perceive and know, he provides diagnosis and prescription.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-8464204744294465192017-11-25T10:12:00.000-07:002017-11-26T10:40:34.172-07:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-62guB4Q0QJI/Whr7vTUb_ZI/AAAAAAAAkIY/tT_wtXmzxisBVvW35z-adhGvRwTa3dUUwCKgBGAs/s1600/20171125_101202.mp4" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-62guB4Q0QJI/Whr7vTUb_ZI/AAAAAAAAkIY/tT_wtXmzxisBVvW35z-adhGvRwTa3dUUwCKgBGAs/s640/20171125_101202.mp4" width="640" height="360" data-original-width="1600" data-original-height="900" /></a></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-15732973040101958682016-12-04T18:06:00.000-07:002017-04-19T23:02:33.967-06:00Alleged Violations of Protective Order<p><b>Disclaimer:</b> I am <em>not</em> an attorney. I do not have a law degree. I have absolutely zero desire to ever become an attorney or to ever attend law school. My field was supposed to be computer science. My life is being destroyed by the misfeasance of these evil traitors to Justice. It is ruining my career. I have zero interest in politics. <b>I do not want to spend my time campaigning to get justice out of this, and I should not have to.</b> I don't read newspapers, I don't follow elections, and I don't even vote. I really don't care about the stupid political bullshitting posers, I never have, and I never will. The people who put their efforts into writing laws like the “Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act” did not act in good faith. They are incorrigible and corrupt and that isn't changing any time soon. We need officials who actually have a work ethic to take care of the problems I describe here-in, instead of expecting me to do their job for them, then when I do a etter job than they have, ignore it, pretend I lost, then move the goalposts.</p>
<p><b>Law students and civil rights advocates:</b> I really need somebody I can trust to help take care of this. I can not. I have other interests and obligations that I am much more interested in persuing. I think that they do this on purpose, knowing that most people don't have the time or energy, much less the knowledge and skills necessary, to do much of anything about them.</p>
<p><i>2017-01-06</i>: Just to be sure people know this… at the time when I first posted this, I had not at all explored the <a href="http://jcc.utah.gov/">Judicial Conduct Commission</a> process. They have not fairly had time, as of writing this paragraph into the top of this blog post right now, to review the complaint that this represents. I have sent them the link, but have not heard back from them.</p>
<p><i>2017-04-19</i>: Update: I'm sorry this page is such a crazy mess. You'll see that my legal documents are more refined and less off-the-cuff-rant in tone. I have made maybe 1 update to that letter to JCC… I have mostly been working on getting the MacOS build of TeXmacs working so that I can ensure that <code>zotero-texmacs-integration</code> functions properly for Macintosh users. The good news is that if you install <a href="http://macports.org">MacPorts</a> and then compile TeXmacs from my github clone, it will run… but I am still learning how to make a self-contained dmg package, which I know I need to do, because most people who will want to use that tool are not computer science majors! So that is the focus of my labor for the time being. Spending time with my son has been my other time-sink.</p>
<p><i>2017-02-01</i>: The people who think they are “the court” have proven themselves to be exactly what we knew they are. They have exploited <em>procedural blockade</em> or <em>procedural wizardry</em> and <em>plausible deniability</em> to get their way. They prosecuted me with no evidence and made procedural moves to block any evidence from being put forth throughout this entire <em>trial by ordeal of legal abuse</em>. Despite clear evidence of her abuse of our son, the court did not ever prosecute his mother for that.</p>
<p><b><hypothetical-and-sarcastic-rant></b>The entire court is run by women in a secretarial pool. It's all about getting money from men. They don't breast feed males and expect them to work or go to steal war from other places while they get everything they want. I have heard back from the JCC, once, from a secretary… who said that I would be given a case number, but then never heard back again from her. <b>I am taking out the <em>link from this page</em> to the Google Drive directory in two weeks, to give you time to mirror the new documents added.</b> I'm giving up on this and going back to my real life.<b></hypothetical-and-sarcastic-rant></b></p>
<p><b>Hint:</b> <i>If you download these and use a normal PDF reader rather than Google Drive's web interface, there are hyperlinks from the citations to the table of authorities, and there, there are often hyperlinks to the online copy of the referenced document.</i></p>
<h2><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcN3BpSVRsVW5wN2c">2016-02-16 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis</span></a></h2>
<h2><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcN3BpSVRsVW5wN2c">2016-02-16 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis</span></a></h2>
<h2><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcN3BpSVRsVW5wN2c">2016-02-16 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis</span></a></h2>
<p>I tell you three times. They cheated. They abuse the “protective” I hesitate to call it a “law” when it's really a crime against humanity… to prosecute males and put them in jails while they allow women to <b>perjure</b>; they ignore every thing I bring to prove that and act like I'm the criminal while she abuses our child and the “judicial” process, with members of the bar as accomplices to that malicious prosecution and abuse of process. I recommend not ever moving to Utah, where they have such high standards of injustice that even the court cheats.</p>
<h2>This blog item is hastily prepared and not the full thesis by any means.</h2>
<p>This blog item is a hastily prepared “Full”<sup>[<a href="#star-n1">*</a>]</sup> disclosure to the Grandest Jury, the People, <i>per se</i>, as well as those who are presumed to <em>represent</em> us, of the Google Drive directory: <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcTmdTSHBVUDlvSU0">Alleged Violations of Protective Order</a>. I realize that it is not <em>redacted</em> as is expected. <b>There just isn't enough time in a day to do everything!</b> The primary purpose for posting this is that <b>I just plain don't know what to do and I need help from the community.</b> The breach of privacy is the <em>lesser of (at least) two evils</em>, in that I feel certain that there is less <em>injustice</em> in this breach of privacy than there is in allowing the courts to continue to perpetrate crimes against rights. <b>People who live in glass houses should not throw stones; people who live in teepees should not have loud quarrels.</b> If somebody wants to perform the labor involved in that redaction, while I continue with the legal research and writing of the next set of documents, please contact me so I can co-ordinate in the case of multiple offers, and set up a shared directory to place the redacted data set into. Otherwise, it's just plain lower priority than appealing the bogus child custody determination!</p>
<p>It is a large amount of data, fairly raw and not fully <em>curated</em> at this point in time. I have yet to crank out a full <em>evidence summary</em> document, for example… and so it's not easy to see—at a glance—what it all means. <b>Below, you will will find <a href="#starting-points">a short briefing list</a> of some of the most important documents within it, which I am certain are likely to hold the greatest amount of <em>public interest</em>.</b> The rest is like some kind of <em>reality TV</em>… real honest to God <em>grandest jury evidence</em> placed here for <em>public inquiry</em>. I did not want to publish it this way, but find that the officials are not doing what they should with it. The common law must be held in multiple custody. We have to ensure that they do their jobs right. When they don't, we need to impeach them. But don't blame the elected officials when it's their subordinates who are the perpetrators!</p>
<p><b>Absence of evidence <em>is</em> evidence</b>, when the evidence was shown to them and they failed to accord it proper <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Consideration">consideration</a>. <i>See, <abbr>e.g.</abbr>,</i> <i>Brady <abbr>v.</abbr> <abbr>Md.</abbr></i>, 373 <abbr>U.S.</abbr> 83 (1963); <i>Giglio <abbr>v.</abbr> United States</i>, 405 <abbr>U.S.</abbr> 150 (1972); <i>Mooney <abbr>v.</abbr> Holohan</i>, 294 <abbr>U.S.</abbr> 103 (1935). Similar thing apply, of course, in the civil court context... The Public Law arises from Private Law through the Contract with Society… I say that somewhere in one of my legal documents. It was pretty good. Can you find it?</p>
<p style="font-size: 90%;" id="star-n1">[<b>*</b>] It is difficult to concentrate on writing when there is obstruction of Justice taking place and when I'm feeling very rushed by deadline pressure. Even with total peace of mind, it's not easy to get all of the important details written down, and all of the caselaw and other background research completed enough to know what to say and how to say it. I'm doing everything I can; I'm doing everything mostly right, and from what I can observe, the officials are not doing their duty in good faith. There is “honest service fraud” documented in here! Yes, I am aware this may sound <em>cryptic</em> or <i>non sequitur</i> due to the fact that I'm feeling rushed and not filling in the <em>betweens</em> from <i>initio</i> to these <i>conclusory remarks</i> here on this too-quick and rough blog article.</p>
<p>I ask that a few good citizens mirror that drive directory for backup in case it gets taken down. This evidence folder was originally up on a LaCie.com “<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/lacie_to_shutter_wuala_cloud_storage_service/">Wuala</a>” (Switzerland) site. It was shown to law enforcement here—Salt Lake City, Utah, the <em>former Olympic village</em>—before Wuala was no longer available… The Wuala directory contained just about the same things you see in this Google Drive directory, except for newer items and newly entered ones from prior times; there's a lot left to do. It's not all there yet. I am being kept very busy with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tactical_litigation">multiple suits at the same time</a>! As far as I can tell, those law enforcement people failed to do anything <b>at all</b> about any of this… They simply did not appear to do their duty… (<i>But see the error coram nobis petition</i>, linked below.)</p>
<p style="font-size: 90%;">There's a lot of competition in the cloud storage industry, so I guess it's paranoid to think that a site outside of the US is no longer available due to somebody wanting to “firewall” it away… why I say that is that police, DCFS, and the bench-trial court officers used every excuse in the book to ignore the evidence, one of them being that it was firewalled and they could not read it from inside the courthouse or police department; or that the disc I'd brought it to court on and sent it to DCFS on was not readable… The DCFS claimed that my disc did not work, then failed to, in good faith, contact me for a copy that they could read.</p>
<p>Also see: My <a href="https://www.zotero.org/karl_hegbloom/items">Zotero.org references collection</a>, and more specifically, the <a href="https://www.zotero.org/karl_hegbloom/items/collectionKey/BKFQTXXD">subcollection for this case</a>. It is meant for use via the <a href="https://juris-m.github.io">Juris-M</a> fork of Zotero, which provides multilingual legal-citation support in addition to the base functionality of Zotero. In order to insert the citations into my documents, which I write using <a href="http://www.texmacs.org">GNU TeXmacs</a>, I created <a href="https://github.com/KarlHegbloom/zotero-texmacs-integration">zotero-texmacs-integration</a> and the associated <a href="https://github.com/KarlHegbloom/propachi-texmacs">propachi-texmacs</a>. The propachi-texmacs provides a “monkey-patch” to Juris-M that modifies the output format of it's LibreOffice integration to a form compatible with TeXmacs. The zotero-texmacs-integration is a plugin for TeXmacs that borrows the LibreOffice integration wire-protocol, so that citations and bibliographies can be inserted into and maintained in documents. <b>Because citations and bibliographies are formatted via <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_Style_Language">Citation Style Language (CSL)</a>, it can be used with any CSL style supported by Juris-M or Zotero, and is thus generally useful, not just for legal writing.</b></p>
<p>Please, again, I hope for at least one person to <i>please</i> back all of this up (but don't tell me), just in case somebody rips off my laptop. If somebody paranoid or angry enough about my having posted all of this got physical control of this laptop or any of my devices, they could potentially cause it all to disappear. I'm sort of hoping that anybody working for them “didn't sign up for this shit” (alluding to the movie Avatar). Improper adminstration of justice within the court makes the job more difficult and more dangerous for the beat-cops on our streets, most of whom “don't want to be that cop” who did the bad thing we all saw on the news. In God We Trust, eh? Perhaps the moon <em>is</em> a harsh mistress?</p>
<h2 id="starting-points">A short briefing list, of some “starting point” documents:</h2>
<p>It is glaringly obvious that I am not an attorney at law, and that I don't have very much experience with paralegal work. I'm taking this stuff to court <i>pro se</i> and learning as I go. I'm getting better at it, but have still not read all of the rules, for example… There's only so much time in a day! This is <em>not</em> a comprehensive list! The actual directory of files is… approaching that.</p>
<dl>
<dt><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcN3BpSVRsVW5wN2c">2016-02-16 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis</span></a></dt><dd> <i>a.k.a.</i> A Memorandum in Support of Petitions for Relief under the Post Conviction Remedies Act, or “the <i>error coram nobis</i> petition”, which <b>challenges the constitutionality of the Cohabitant Abuse Act</b>, among other things.</dd>
<dt><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcQUdKbkFucTVjbjQ">2015-02-25 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Motion of Respondent to Dismiss Protective Order</span></a></dt><dd> <i>a.k.a.</i> “the long affidavit” for dismissal of the protective order. I entitled it as a motion because I did not know that I was expected to fill out a form for the motion. The document really is an affidavit. The supporting evidence is the stuff in the main directory, linked at the top of this blog post, and there's a directory of evidence that was put on a disc that I tried to file with the document, but the court would not accept it.</dd>
<dt><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJEu6dY9zVcaE9PUlZ4N1MwTzQ">2016-04-20 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Answer to Motions of Respondent for Summary Judgments</span></a> (with exhibits)</dt><dd> <i>a.k.a.</i> Answer to the State's “Motion to Deflect”. This has a lot of attachments, and may be a good one to grab for an all-in-one starter document. The <i>Post-conviction Relief</i>, <a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urcp/view.html?rule=urcp065C.html">URCP 65C</a> petitions were <em>deflected</em> by the state's attorney. She actually lied to the court! (See the associated transcripts, <abbr>etc.</abbr>, found near this file in the Drive directory, for both these and the associated appellate court cases!) The summary judgment was granted in both PCRA cases, and then in the appellate court, she lied again, and they dismissed also, as though the case was not justiciable; but it's obvious that it <em>is</em>. That was the action that prompted me to post this all here.</dd>
<dt><a href=""><span style="font-variant: small-caps;"></span></a></dt><dd> </dd>
</dl>
<h2 id="updates">Updates:</h2>
<p><b>2016-12-04:</b> I have an appellate court “Docketing Statement” due tommorrow, <abbr>Dec.</abbr> 5, 2016, and so must now turn my attention to that task.</p>
<p><b>Update:</b> I've been granted a time-extension, to the 20th of December for the docketing statement.</p>
<p><b>2017-01-07:</b> I created a Zotero.org group to make it easier for investigators and jurists to follow and view my research. I've edited the page, above, to show the location. I'll try and keep that up to date, perhaps by simply working there instead of in my own library. Notice the link to the Dropbox storage for the annotated PDF's, since they are not on Zotero storage. Thank you for mentoring me, Anon. I realize that normally lawyers don't display this sort of stuff. I think most people aren't going to be interested enough anyway, and people who are would be likely to be given access by me… and opening it up makes that access relatively anonymous.</p>
<p><b>2017-01-07:</b> I have removed the group because it does not make it easier after all. Sorry.</p>
<hr />
<blockquote style="font-size: 90%;">
<p>«Absence of foreskins is evidence of human rights abuses. Humans who are abused are not happy, they become despondent, they malfunction, they go on strike, they will mob you and kill you if they can. People do not tolerate it very long before they change order and change caste-role. It is not acceptable to threaten them, setting the example by harming them. They will protect themselves and their offspring from the evil perverts who cut up their children. It is animal nature. You who have been doing this are warned. It is natural law.»</p>
<p>“<em>Anon Deseret</em>”</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-60128000771952116802016-03-15T22:35:00.000-06:002016-04-30T13:33:39.888-06:00Take Care Clause and the Fundamental Right to Bodily Integrity <p>
The following article is an excerpt from a legal memorandum that I wrote. The “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law">take care clause</a>” is clause 5 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution.
</p>
<blockquote>
“Solo Star, now you see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.” ––Dark Helmet, in
Spaceballs. Lord Dark Helmet says this just after tricking Solo Star by saying “if there's one
thing I despise, it's a fair fight; but if I must, then I must. May the best man win.” Then,
approaching to shake hands, “put her there.” When Solo shakes his hand, Dark steals the
Schwarz-ring–––from which a (phallic thymbol) laser-sword had emanated during their
mock-fight–––off of Solo's finger. He laughs, gloating about how he can't believe Solo fell for the
oldest trick in the book, and then says “here, let me give it back”, holding it out, and when Solo
reaches forward, throws the ring over his own shoulder (at random?) and down through the grating in
the floor. Dark laughs again when Solo just misses catching it before it falls through. He declares
in his extra-deep and dramatic voice, “Solo Star, now you see that Evil will always triumph,
because Good is dumb.” The Wikipedia article explains that Solo Star begins the movie with a cowboy
hat on, but for most of the movie, is wearing no hat. ––from Spaceballs (movie by Mel Brooks 1987),
see 10 Best Gags, #5 at 1:33, YouTube.com, and Wikipedia article “Spaceballs”.
</blockquote>
<p>
It is said that
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum"><i>contra
principia negantem disputari non potest.</i></a> (“Against one who denies the principles, there can
be no debate”). The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law">public law</a> arises from
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law">private law</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affectio_societatis"><i>affectio societatis</i></a>, through
the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract">contract with society</a>. Public law
is expected to be held in “multiple custody”,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic"><i>res publica</i></a>. (In banking or cash
handling, the principle of “dual-custody” is fairly well known… it is thought that the likelihood
of <em>two</em> cashiers <b>successfully</b> conspiring to steal money is much lower than the
likelihood that a solitary cashier might try it. So, by “multiple custody”, I mean
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensionality">the extension</a> of the “social contract”
from 2 to n “independent actors in the life-world”.) A
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract">contract</a> is expected to accord fair
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration">consideration</a>–––a “<em>promise of
something of value</em> given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a
promisee”. The thing of value for the public law contract with society is that we are all to have
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause"><em>equal protection of
law</em></a>.
</p>
<p>
This contract, embodied by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law">common law</a>,
is the result of many years of tradition, refinement, shakedown, and somewhat organized development
through the courts, codified in the constitution and statutes.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation">It is intended to be</a> a
consistently fair and equitable set of rules that
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity">we can all live by</a>. Presumably,
anyone with a standard public school education will have a solid grasp on the fundamental bases of
law–––share, don't steal, don't hit people, don't yell at people, don't tell lies, be fair, honest,
and considerate of others, don't run with the scissors; We all must agree to abide by them. There
are natural social consequences for not doing so. In the grown-up world, we are all supposed to be
protected by the laws equally because each and every one of us has the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights">same set of rights</a>. Those rights are individual
rights, not group rights. That means that “white” people have the same rights as “black” people;
males the same rights as females; in-group members have the same rights as out-group members;
“Jews” the same rights as “Christians”, who have the same rights as “Pagans”, who have the same
rights as “Atheists”; <em>When a female breaks the law, she is to be prosecuted just the same as
when a male breaks the law;</em> <b>When a lawyer, prosecutor, court commissioner, or judge breaks
the law, it's just as much a crime as when anyone else does;</b> (See <i>e.g.,</i> Title 18
U.S.C. §241, §242) Because, as individuals–––as independent actors, born into the same pre-existing
life-world–––we each have identically the same rights and responsibilities under the law,
regardless of socio-economic status, social class, race, gender, religion, hair-color, eye-color,
taste in clothing, etc.
</p>
<p>
Laws must be applied uniformly and consistently. The mandate for uniform operation of–––or equal
protection of–––the law demands a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion">consistent logic, not a
paraconsistent one</a>. <i>Ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet</i>, is not properly valid
reasoning in law. That is to say, there are to be no double-standards; nobody is above the law;
that is, <b>each and every one of us stands in precisely the same relation to the subject of the
law</b>; What is illegal for one person to do is also illegal for any other person to do. An action
that is illegal implies that a substantially similar action is also illegal, but also, an action
that is not illegal implies that a substantially similar action is also not illegal, provided that
it does not too closely approach infringement upon or violation of anybody's fundamental rights.
</p>
<p>
Now, addressing the “circumcision” issue: The crime of “statutory rape” is predicated on the idea
that a minor is not qualified to make certain decisions regarding per own reproductive or
procreative capacity or whether to engage in sexual activity; and that an adult in a special
position of trust or authority can easily hold undue influence over the minor, and so it is
unlawful and a crime against the public law–––the contract with society–––for an adult to engage in
sexual intercourse with a minor, even if the minor is sexually mature, wanton, and not physically
harmed by the sexual intercourse. Consensual adult sexuality comes with undeniable risks and
responsibilities, and young people must be carefully and diligently taught about those things
before they are considered capable of making good decisions that properly manage those risks and
take care of the responsibilities, at will. <a href="#fn1">[1]</a> <b>Thus, the rationale for
the malum prohibitum “statutory” sexual offenses can be said to be founded upon the person's
capacity to make, of per own free will, an informed choice regarding per own bodily functions or
bodily integrity, taking into account the potential for undue influence that an adult may have over
the minor.</b>
</p>
<p>
There is, clearly, a discern able difference in severity between a so-called statutory “rape”,
<i>e.g.,</i> of a sexually mature and willing teenager by an adult, where no coercion or physical
harm is alleged, <i>malum prohibitum</i>; vs. actual forced sexual-intercourse, rape <i>per se</i>,
<i>e.g.,</i> including coercion as well as physical and psychological trauma, <i>malum in
se</i>. Surely a range of degree of severity exists across the spectrum of <i>malum in se</i>
crimes against the person, in general; <i>e.g.,</i> across the spectrum through reckless or knowing
endangerment, attempted assault, assault, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, attempted
battery, battery, aggravated battery, sexual battery, rape, manslaughter, through murder…
<b>Inherent within and in common within each of those crime's definition is an infringement or
violation of a person's bodily integrity.</b>
</p>
<p>
It can hardly be argued against that “a fundamental purpose of Law is to ‘protect the innocent’”,
nor against the idea that law enforcement may be reasonably expected to enforce the law when they
become aware that a <i>malum in se</i> crime against a person has been committed; they have a
professional duty. For example, it is likely that ‘any reasonable person’ will agree that if the
police know about a murder, they must investigate the crime, and identify, locate, and prosecute
the perpetrator; it is unlawful for them not to, because they have a constitutionally mandated duty
to take care of; they are required to swear or affirm that they will “discharge the duties of the
office with fidelity.” <b>This implies that there exists a fundamental and inalienable right to
bodily integrity that is inseverable from the primary body of the public law contract with
society. This right to bodily integrity can be said to be among the unenumerated rights guaranteed
by the constitution. It is so fundamental that nobody thought it needed to be explicitly listed
when The Constitution was codified or formulated.</b> Of course there would be laws against this
sort of crimes! They are at the very foundation of Law itself; <i>Lex lata, pacta sunt servanda et
jus cogens; de lege ferenda, de sententia ferenda. Quod est inferius est sicut quod est
superius. Quod est intus est sicut quod est extra.</i>
</p>
<blockquote>
«[T]hat a liberty interest is not the subject of an incorporated provision of the Bill of Rights
does not remove it from the ambit of the Due Process Clause. I cannot improve on Justice Harlan's
statement of this settled proposition: “[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees
elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked
out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to
keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a
rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary
impositions and purposeless restraints, and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs
asserted to justify their abridgment.”
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=642884283459215206">Poe v. Ullman, 367
U.S. 497, 543 (1961)</a> (dissenting opinion).»
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8273724546094576645"><!--
-->Albright v. Oliver, 510 US 266, 306,307 (US Sup. Ct. 1994)</a>.
</blockquote>
<p>
In a similar vein–––<i>consequentia mirabilis</i>–––to pass a new law–––whether by legislative act
or by judge-made law–––to “legalize” one specific form of mayhem, for example, would create a
serious contradiction, as would arbitrary or capricious “selective non-enforcement” of existing
laws! Even more concerning to a <em>reasonable</em> person would be a law that fails to protect one
gender to the same degree as the other, or one that reduces the penalty that should normally have
been applied under existing laws that prohibit <i>malum in se</i> crimes that by definition cause
irreparable and permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function, but only when the
crime is perpetrated against members of one gender… Who would disagree with that general yet
curiously directed statement? The perpetrators of mayhem? People who don't agree with the
fundamental tenet of contracts and treaties that “agreements must be kept”?
</p>
<p>
It becomes clear upon careful examination of documents such as
<a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/GenitalIntegrityStatement.pdf"><!--
--><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Doctors Opposing Circumcision Genital Integrity
Policy Statement</span></a> (attached as exhibit), as well as documentation of normal male anatomy
and function to be found on the <a href="http://cirp.org">Circumcision Information and Resource
Pages</a>, what constitutes “normal anatomy and function” of the adult penis with intact
prepuce. <b>It will be clear upon careful study of those <em>factual disclosures</em> that <em>by
definition</em>, a permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function results from the
non-thereputic “penis desensitization surgery” that some practitioners sell as “circumcision”.</b>
The brochures and dogma provided by the people who sell the procedure try and “make people think”,
through censored and incomplete and deliberately misleading “management of perceptions” that
circumcision is somehow “potentially” medically beneficial. <b>Those <em>unethical</em> practioners
commit fraud when they leave out very pertinent and relevant information concerning the true
anatomy and function of the foreskin. Without that information, neither the minor nor the parent
can be said to be making an informed decision.</b> For best results, important decisions must be
informed decisions.
</p>
<p>
My son does not want to be circumcised. The idea frightens him. It's his body, and it's his choice,
but he is not qualified, intellectually or legally, to make that decision until he is an adult, and
once he is one, <em>he'll know enough about it to know better</em>. In terms of <em>religious
justification</em>, our son attends LDS Primary Sunday School. He is learning the LDS version or
rendition of the general “Christian” faith or kraft de heilengen, <i>e pluribus
unum</i>. He attends LDS Sunday School due to his Mother's insistence, and I do not oppose
that. <a href="#fn2">[2]</a> “Appeal to religion” is a logical fallacy, but religion may
freely appeal to logic and reason. The Gospel Studies manual for adults that I am familiar with
explains the difference between “God's Plan” and “Satan's Plan” for our salvation. The good plan
involves free agency, guided through our power of discernment, the bad plan involves submission to
the will of Satan, <a href="#fn3">[3]</a> no questions allowed. It also teaches that each of
us is a unique individual, born whole <a href="#fn4">[4]</a> and without sin, with a unique
spirit from even prior to the point of conception. Anyone who has children of their own or has
spent time with children knows that this is most certainly true. They have their very own unique
personality and self-will right from the start. <a href="#fn5">[5]</a>
</p>
<p>
The LDS faith is “Anabaptist”, which means that we do not baptize until we reach the age of self
agency, the age at which a child is thought to be capable of knowing right from wrong, and making
decisions regarding per's own actions or agency within our community.<a href="#fn6">[6]</a> For
better or for worse, right decisions or mistakes, they are to be held responsible for their own
actions from that age forward, and may choose to undergo the rite of baptism, a ritual bathing… Not
surgery; bathing… of per own free will. If it is against the religion to baptize someone prior to
the age of self agency, then certainly it is against the religion to perform prepucial amputation
surgery on a pre-pubescent minor! (Presumably, it is much more difficult to botch the baptism of an
8 year old than that of an infant, primarily because you can be more certain that the 8 year old
will hold her breath underwater.) It would be sacrilegious to force such a thing upon the child he
is today, since it would affect the adult he will be for the majority of his lifespan. And even
now, at this age, he does not want his penis to get cut the way his Daddy's was. He trusts me and
takes my word for it. My personal knowledge and experience indicates that <b>“circumcision” is
evil, cruel, and a criminal imposition of deprivation of the fundamental right to bodily
integrity. Properly, it belongs right up there with “crucifixion” on a list of atrocities and
things we just don't do to other people in a civilized society.</b>
</p>
<p>
Clearly a baptism is unharmful and difficult if not impossible to “botch”, a statement that can not
be honestly made about prepucial amputation… and clearly, a “circumcision” does, <em>by it's very
nature</em>, cause permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function
<a href="#fn7">[7]</a>, words straight out of the legal definition of “mayhem”. Nobody has the
right to impose such a thing upon a child, because it would impose that upon the adult that he will
be for most of his life. In
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1573393564086179997">Marriage of Boldt, 176
P. 3d 388 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2008)</a>, it was determined that a 12 year old minor's own choice
mattered<a href="#fn8">[8]</a>, when the custodial father who had converted to Judaism wanted his
son circumcised, and his Orthodox Russian Catholic mother was <em>very</em> opposed to it. She
asserted that her son did not want it done, and that even if he did, he was not qualified–––neither
<i>de facto</i> nor legally–––to make that decision at age 12. <b>On one hand, “It's his body, and
so it's his choice”, but on the other, a minor is not legally qualified to make that decision on
behalf of the adult he will be for most of his life.</b> Because “circumcision” is
permanent–––there is no such thing as “uncircumcised”–––the only morally and ethically proper
choice is to leave the child intact. <em>No matter which “religion” or “wisdom tradition” one
belongs to, this is the same. Nobody is above the law. <b>No law that is contradictory to the
fundamental purpose of law itself may be allowed to stand. The “selective nonenforcement” of laws
against serious <i>malum in se</i> crimes such as those general laws that prohibit mayhem
upon the genitals of an infant is a crime against rights, and misprison of felony.</b></em>
</p>
<p>
Nature's design is perfect. There is no reason to alter it.<a href="#fn9">[9]</a> If having a
foreskin was not a survival trait, we would be born without them. Most of the males on the planet
have intact foreskins, and are very happy with them. How does cutting off part of the body's <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integumentary_system">integumentary system</a>, exposing a
normally internal body part and a fresh “surgical” wound to the contents of a diaper or to drying
and continual abrasion of clothing somehow “enhance” male hygeine, again? The integumentary system
is what prevents pathogenic microbes from entering the body. <b>Integrity.</b> That's a word that,
if it means <em>nothing</em> to the Judicial, proves they do not hold it as a <em>value</em> nor
posess it as a characteristic. If that's the case, then they may as well just quit showing up to
“work”.
</p>
<p>
<i>Pax et Bonum</i>,
<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Karl Martin Hegbloom</span>, Esq.
<span style="font-size: 120%;">✠</span>
</p>
<p>
<dl>
<dt><a name="fn1">[1]</a> </dt><dd>I find that the “Law of Chastity” is not something “imposed
upon” people. It is more like a codification of a natural law, or of a strong tendency towards
a “best practices” in terms of what people have learned–––often the hard way–––and conserved as
tradition, handed down from one generation to the next to prevent their progeny from making the
same mistakes they made. As we all know, people despise the imposition of arbitrary
rules-without-reasons, and will inevitably scoff them or outright disobey them in spite. But
general rules based upon sound argument, carefully taught in a forum free of coercion or
suppression of opinion, are easily accepted and followed almost as a matter of course. It's
part of our nature to listen and learn from our elders. We must be held accountable to make our
own contribution to that influence be a true one. Appeal to religion is logical fallacy; but
religion is free to, and must, appeal to logic and reason; in fact, that's actually part of our
religion! That's self agency. “Choose the Right”.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn2">[2]</a> </dt><dd>Despite that they make him wear a “leash”, “cravat”, or
“necktie”, the symbolism of which I object to; I also object to neckties on the grounds that
they are non-utilitarian item of clothing… or perhaps the function is not merely symbolic? If
that's so, and perhaps even if it is merely symbolic of it's form-suggested function, then a
dress-code enforcing the wearing of a necktie, or any dress-code for that matter, is a
hypocrisy to a church that teaches self-agency. But also, if you like to wear a necktie, you
can. So this “dispute” isn't grounds to forbid him from attending. The “Gospel Studies Manual”
as well as “The History of the Church” provides grounds upon which I choose to actually endorse
having him attend LDS Primary.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn3">[3]</a> </dt><dd>Also see the Rider / Waite Tarot card “The Devil” and read
about it's symbolism. The devil is perched on the top of a white greco-roman fluted-column
pedestal. Before him stands a man and a woman, each with a loop of string (not even rope, just
string) around the neck, with the leash-ends of the strings draped over the pedestal and held
there by the devil's foot. The loops of the strings are loose fitting. At any time, of their
own free will, they could lift the loops over their heads and walk away from enthrallment.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn4">[4]</a> </dt><dd>The proper definition of the word “holy” is: Possessing or
endowed with the quality or characteristic of wholeness or completeness. Thus, a man is
certainly more holy who has an intact foreskin.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn5">[5]</a> </dt><dd>I was taught by a bible scholar that the word “sin” comes from
an ancient Greek word for “self”. So perhaps “original sin” means “my originating self”, or the
“me” that others experience as “my spirit” that “originates” or “emanates” from my body and
brain as a result of my physical existence… in other words, my “aura”, perhaps? The use of the
word “sin” to mean something like “crime against the public law contract with society” comes
from the idea of selfishness or failure to accept and live according to that contract with
society, perhaps.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn6">[6]</a> </dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx"><!--
-->The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child</a>, Article 14, asserts that
children have the right to «freedom of thought, conscience and religion». I object only to the
use of the word “freedom” in the case where it may be interpretted as being a grammatical
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_%28grammar%29">contraction</a> of the longer
form “freedomination” because semantically, that would place it in conflict with the purpose
of <em>law</em> itself. I would have chosen instead the word “liberty”.
</dd>
<dt><a name="fn7">[7]</a> </dt><dd>Because amputation of the penile prepuce is <em>certain</em>
to cause permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function, <em>by it's very
nature</em>, the crime must carry a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29"><b>strict
liability</b></a>. (In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is
in legal jeopardy by virtue of an wrongful act, without any accompanying intent or mental
state. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict
liability offences.) <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability">Strict
Liability</a> | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia, Law.Cornell.edu</dd>
<dt><a name="fn8">[8]</a> </dt>
<dd>Accord <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx"><!--
-->The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child</a>, Article 12.</dd>
<dt><a name="fn9">[9]</a> </dt><dd>What is the <em>natural</em> and <em>healthy response to a
threat of violent harm to themself or their offspring</em> that animals have? Under the law,
do we not have a right to <em>self defense, and to defense of our children</em>, even against
<em>domestic violence</em>? How does the <em>contract with society</em> expect us to carry
that out? <b>Who's job is it?</b> Doesn't our <em>contract</em> delegate certain <em>duty of
care</em> and thus authority to enforce the law to <em>professionals</em>? What are we
expected to do when those professionals do not “discharge the duties of the office with
fidelity” to the Constitution they are to “support, obey, and defend”? If they are not doing
their jobs, with <em>Integrity</em>, then we are no longer in need of their “services”.</dd>
</dl>
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-9434860971346800822015-12-01T10:21:00.000-07:002016-12-19T14:58:52.421-07:00Treewakers Untie!<p>New post... My son and I have been playing <a href="http://minetest.net">Minetest</a> a lot lately. It's sort of a terraforming simulation. Yeah. Don't dump the Chernyoblite in the house or bunker bust through the thin crust and spew molten lava on the trees, ok? It tends to heat things up a little more than we'd like, and every time we respawn, we land in the pollution zone again and die too quickly to hit the GUI button that let's us turn off the "allow damage" check-box... to make us virtually immortal so we can clean up the radiation before it kills us again, or walk away laughing to change our spawn point to somewhere less toxic than this former troll village, eh? Yeah, and that forest fire took me 2 real days to put out... I could not simply use the /rollback command, since it had not been enabled in the global server configuration... And now the once thickly forested island has nothing but stumps. At least virtual trees take only a short time to suddenly spring into full glory, right?</p>
<p>Nothing like learning a lesson the hard way the easy way, inside a computer simulation. Yeah, like it requires a 3d virtual-reality computer simulation with a jet-engine-loud screaming cpu-fan blaring to understand that spilling nuclear waste in the house or a bucket of lava into the tiega is a "bad plan", which is engineering parlance commonly used by corpse of engineers up in heaven, right? Only in Minetest, you can come back and dig your bones and know the lesson that the real life dead man could never tell us.</p>
<p>This morning I walked to the grow-sir-ee store to get some apple fritters and black-cherry fruit on the bottom greek-style yogurt for breakfast. On the way past the newspaper rack, I saw President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and others on the front page, under a headline about global leaders joining to think about how to solve the climate warming problem. What a bunch of apes, right? Doh. Can't see the forest or the trees from that office, eh? Oh, wait, Mr. Kerry got to see a real jungle back in the 60's right? Garsh, I wonder what lessons he might have learned there? Dig any tree-holes with "pineapples"? How hide like a scared animal and shit in the woods, if not in your pants? There's an old saying that probably sounds better in ancient Mayan, Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, or mute telepathic... about how our ancestors are like children, expressing an irony since they are our fore-parents; So do we learn from past mistakes how to make them again, or how not to? Anyone feel like blunder-bussing over-there to clash with the klans of territorial apes the newspaper says are "the enemy" or anything? You first.</p>
<p>So (teasing the apes), what are yous going to do with dem dare bah-row-ken ol-bommas, suh? Gonna dump sum dim butt footballs on a parade of beaver-patch-shouldered fools off to plant the forest? Oh, wait, doh... Boy, we could just use it to parachute pallettes of, uh, mystery deep-voiced probably loud and... ? Is this the coffee button? Yeah, no really... really really stoned... humorously makes the "throwing a fit" gesture, destroys the nuke button on purpose... Takes out a Parker Pen... Proves that "a mine is a terrible thing to waste industrial output on"... Boys, use your pockets now, your saplings and your wheat.</p>
<p>Oh, I just got a notice from Boom Beach... Yeah, I'm the finger, and my troops are now ready. We pissed off the blackguard, and they keep sending mercenaries to take over the neigh-booring islands... No time for stone heads today. Oh, wow, the mangroves I disseminated are making a comeback, and wow, cool, they hide my rocket launcher from the gunboat-finger. Oh, and look at all that tax-gold I can spend on training troops and putting industrial labor to work on the traditional arms race! So at first, being an average person, I was reluctant to send troops into danger... but then I saw how stoopid they are, right? So what the hell. Hey, I'm not really throwing away otherwise useful workers on relentless pursuit of clearly unuseful tactical strategic implementimitations of economic sideburns and hip swaggling fin-car curly-toe codpiece missle-parade hoo-ha! (Pushing my beaver hat back with a fat thumb to show off my forehead.) They're just bits on a computer screen, and (wink wink, top secret) those "blackguard mercenaries"? We sell guns to them too. And they spend real money for game diamonds! He-he-he (machine gun laughter)... grins...</p>
<p>It makes you think about it... pondering boom beach and tree-bommas while ruminating a chunk off the old crunchy birch-apple... Sweet. Love is like oxygen. If you get too much you'll get too high, not enough and you're gonna die. Apes. Ecosystems. Keystones... debacles... sorites...</p>
<p>What it comes down to is that we're really just apes. We're stupid. We make really obviously stupid mistakes. We shouldn't have needed to learn those lessons the hard way. How obvious is it that blowing up bombs and wasting our industrial output on murdering each other and blasting our industrial output to smithers is not doing anything useful in terms of solving the whole, like wow man, global warming problem? Thhhpppttt... thhhppttt.. gmmffk.. gmmmffffkkkough... fffffffff.... o O (squirrel) Wow, this shit is crazy. I can't believe how fast it grew after installing that holly wang-banger 12 barrel carb sparkly see-owe-too gen-rater! Grrr-eeen, man. Apes. Just want lay round in the shade. Go see the forest and the trees... Can't afford to; got out Google Air-th... Wow, there's a lot of blank spots on this planet. I bet it's hot in the sunny-side there. We should plant some trees there... New posts... No Nukes. Blow, wind blow, blow away these troubled times... The answer: We are the Treewakers. It is our purpose in this planet's ecosystem. Just as lactobacilli are for making milk into yogurt, we are for making planets grow green and flourish. Hug a beaver, but not until after work, or he'll be offended. Chewing leaves today...</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-67412815925047908482015-07-10T01:24:00.000-06:002016-01-24T14:41:12.626-07:00Hear the thunder? Hear the drums.<p>
I understand that what we have here is an ‘<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court">adversoupial court system</a>’… but the duty to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law">Law</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity">Equity</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice">Justice</a> is the same regardless of whether you're a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police">cop</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable">constable</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer">lawyer</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge">judge</a>, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor">prosecutor</a>, a defense attorney, a complainant, or a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant">defendant</a>… Every member of society bears that duty, per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract">The Social Contract</a> that constitutes the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law">public law</a>; and when there exists a statute that is clearly a derogation of—or an outright unrighteous abrogation of—the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law">Common Law</a>, our <em>common adversary</em> is—honestly and in good faith—<em>that statute</em> with it's deleterious collateral consequences. It must go.<a href="#fn1">[1]</a> Hear the thunder?
</p>
<p>
When we must all stand strong, in that thin blue line, for the same <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care">Duty of Care</a>, perhaps someone must stand-in—or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit_in">sit-in</a> on the judicial bench—as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_advocate">Devil's Advocate</a>? It ain't me… It ain't me… I ain't no fortunate one… Nah, no, in-ay bray ate's a crying shame that the devil's advocates won the debate in the congress that passed out this atrophcity of injustice, this “$enator's $on”—the Cohabitant Abuse <em>Act</em>—in fine form, an ‘<i>illegitimate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard">petard</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(disambiguation)">forged</a> in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization">hasty</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythological_hybrid">union</a> of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder">Bill of attainder</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion">cross-bred</a> by a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque">blanc checque</a></i>’. With <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos">back-walking</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22">catch-22-22 hindsight</a>, say can't yous see that it's long past time to get out of bed and set things right!? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo">Apollo</a>! A poll. Oh, and yous owe… Hear the drums.
</p>
<p>
Yous Sirs <a href="#fn2">[2]</a> must discharge the duties of office with Fidelity… Our lives, children, family integrity, and belongings are not yours for a ‘taxman rummage sale’ via <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance">champerty and maintenance</a></b>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille">Yous work for us</a>, for <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States">We the People</a></em>, only under proper authority of <em>Law</em>. The authority vested in yous by laws ends and shall be void from that point in time when your actions are no longer in accord with Law until that time when they are. Hear the drums.
</p>
<p>
If yous want redemption, then yous must please <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themis">Lady Themis</a> & her Lords of Law</em>. Make restitution. Perform <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance_(Catholic_Church)">Perform penance; work upon reparation</a>. See to it that this <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_crisis">Legitimation Crisis</a></b> ends here, unless yous enjoy hearing people down on the corner and out in the street repeating loud and clear with exceedingly abundant sarcasm: «Here in Utah, we have such high standards of injustice, that even the courts cheat! Third District Court has broken up with Justice, and has gotten a protective order against her! Ignoring her problems won't make them stay away!» Hear the drums, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_(mythology)">Echo</a>.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
<a id="fn1" name="fn1">[1]</a> For some theory of how we may accomplish this, see: <a href="https://www.zotero.org/karl_hegbloom/items/itemKey/FAREDTEU/q/Edlin">Edlin, Douglas E., <em>Judges and Unjust Laws: Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review</em> (University of Michigan Press, 2008)</a>. And try not to look at <a href="http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter8/76-8-S201.html?v=C76-8-S201_1800010118000101">U.C. §76-8-201</a>, or <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241">18 U.S. Code §241</a> & <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242">§242</a>, if you're afraid somebody might notice you hiding in that <a href="https://www.zotero.org/karl_hegbloom/items/itemKey/X72NCJJS/q/McAlester">tiger-shaped shadow</a>… Have you ever seen the reign coming down on a sunny day?
</p>
<p>
<a id="fn2" name="fn2">[2]</a> <a href="https://wikileaks.org/index.en.html">Not everyone knows</a>… that the word “sir” is a contraction of the word “officer”. Perhaps “freedom” is a contraction of “freedomination”? If so, then “freedom” is clearly not a family value, nor one for a society at large… in a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic">Republic</a>…
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-66715047537103179372014-05-24T20:57:00.000-06:002015-02-05T20:51:29.585-07:00To the people in Ukraine who waste time and your lives shooting guns when there are more interesting problems to solve.<p>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.</p>
<p>Why do you throw your lives away by running around like <em>errant boys</em>, shooting guns at one another and killing people? What in the hell kind of work-ethic <em>is</em> 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?</p>
<p>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 <i>work</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anishinaabe_clan_system">Doodem</a>. Dood... dude, duty... Echo. Always remember the <a href="http://fngovernance.org/publications/research_article/seven_generations_seven_teachings_ending_the_indian_act">Grandfather Principles</a>. 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-74534690289711242742014-03-09T00:18:00.000-07:002014-03-18T01:16:10.124-06:00Repeated Assertion is not Proof <p>
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.”
</p>
<p>
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.”?
</p>
<p>
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 <em>probably</em> not a valid conclusion.
</p>
<p>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 <em>that</em> law that is violated when somebody steals an automobile, whether it be a Volkswagon, a Ford, a Buick, or a Chevrolet.
</p>
<p>
Now search for phrases such as “permanent disfigurement”, “loss of normal function”, “mayhem”, or “battery” and read the statutes <em>that</em> 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 <em>that</em>?
</p>
<p>
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 <em>Any Reasonable Person</em> 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?)
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/foreskin.html">Given true and complete knowledge of the true anatomy</a> and <a href="http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/1hook_scrapes.html">normal function of the penile prepuce</a>, I believe that <em>it is impossible to <b>not</b> conclude</em> that amputation of the penile prepuce most certainly causes permanent disfigurement and <em>loss of normal function</em>. 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 <i>mens rea</i> but only that the primary features of the <i>actus reas</i> were committed by the defendant.
</p>
<p>
Here comes the fraud part.
</p>
<p>
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!
</p>
<p>
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!
</p>
<p>
The next assignment in this exercise is to visit <a href="http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/">http://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org</a> and read what they have to say. At the very least, watch their <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/video.html">Anatomy lesson video</a>. Then visit <a href="http://cirp.org/">http://cirp.org</a> and <em>spend at least an hour learning</em> even more about the true Anatomy and normal function of the prepuce. You may also like to visit <a href="http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/">http://sexasnatureintendedit.com</a> 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.
</p>
<p>
The next assigned exercise is to read the statutes that pertain to crimes against the person, and in particular, to <em>sexual crimes against children and minors</em>. Minors are <em>not considered to be competent to make their own decisions regarding consent</em> 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>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?
</p>
<p>
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?
</p>
<p>
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 <em>is</em> 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 <em>that</em>?
</p>
<p>
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. <em>Please help them through this learning and grieving process.</em> Many of the women in those offices are mothers of sons, wives of victims, and will <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2014/01/whole-e-communion.html">feel just as angry</a> about this as we do. There's no way out. They have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue"><em>duty to rescue</em></a>. To do nothing about this is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony"><em>misprision of felony</em></a>.
</p>
<p>
The legal-latin phrase “<i>Ignorantia legis nemenem excusat</i>” 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.
</p>
<p>
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 <em>is that</em>? 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... <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2014/03/repeated-assertion-is-not-proof.html">What are you going to say now?</a>
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-28420602122599997132014-01-10T01:50:00.000-07:002014-01-10T01:53:52.418-07:00Whole E-Communion<p>
If you took a Catholic <a href="http://carolynrubenstein.com/2010/07/food-for-thought-you-are-what-you-eat-literally/">communion wafer</a>, 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, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston">it would probably burn up sort of like a stick of wood</a>. In other words, the carbohydrate molecules would rapidly oxidize, producing water vapor, carbon dioxide, and soot. It's “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory">Caloric</a>” 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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value#Marginalism">use of that wheat</a>, does it?
</p>
<p>
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 <i>one</i> 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 <b>does</b> 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.
</p>
<p>
Now think of the burning wheat thin as <b>anger</b>, and the metabolized one as <b>political or social action</b>. <u>Burning up with anger over something does not really serve you well</u>. 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! <b>The Golden Key</b> 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.
</p>
<p>
<b>This is why <i>laughter</i> is far more powerful than <i>scream</i>!</b> Bon Appetite, Monstewers!
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-10209430394944223562013-12-15T05:28:00.000-07:002014-05-22T23:25:17.872-06:00An Open Letter to the European Parliamentary Assembly<p>
["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.]
</p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20174&lang=en">Resolution 1952</a> and <a href="http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20176&lang=e">Recommendation 2023</a>:
</p>
<p>
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".
</p>
<p>
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", <i>adaequatio intellectus et rei adversus solem ne loquitor</i>. (augury) First, here are the links:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2012/10/open-letter-to-congress.html">http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2012/10/open-letter-to-congress.html</a></li>
<li><a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2013/02/lets-show-world-what-they-really-are.html">http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2013/02/lets-show-world-what-they-really-are.html</a></li>
<li><a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/">http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/</a></li>
</ul>
You are missing out if you don't read all of them. Really. Don't say I didn't try and warn you.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Do you suppose that the "doctor" will begin the lesson with an Anatomy lesson? (<a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org">http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org</a>) What about the "Intactivist"? (I guarantee the Intactivist will begin with an anatomy lesson!)
</p>
<p>
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?
</p>
<p>
I pray that it does. Peace be with us all, God willing.
</p>
<p>
Sincerely,</br>
Karl Martin Hegbloom
</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-73493624880092594442013-09-11T03:27:00.000-06:002014-03-09T01:08:08.686-07:00Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia. <p>If our representatives in and to government had the attitude about the "Syria" things that I've seen
demonstrated by some Internet News Article Comment <em>Trolls</em>, we would <em>all</em> be living in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Chemical_Depot">cement bunkers,
next to our well armed 8 year old petards</a>, eating snicker bars and long-pig lemonade, no doubt, and to hell with
everyone else, I hate it here in the dark <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_box">posing as a shadow of hope</a>, so I'm going to blow something up instead..? Anybody
listening? You're all busy at work earning money for stuff you never use and I'm not being "appropriately parented" or
anything here at this Kibutz... Well, then I'll do it. So there, and it's not an inflatable forbidden one I'm about to
blow up, so you better look out or I'll snot-glob you with radioactive drone-punk angst-thrash comic book
glop!<../sarc>
<p>If those who staff our domestic criminal legal-minus-justice system carried <em>that</em> "attitude problem", our entire
country would be fracking
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory">Broken Windowed</a>... and who cares. Why
bother? Nuke it and sell it, I says. Psst... Wanna buy a Detroit air-quality nuke?
Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Arms dealer alarm! Oh, yeah! Koolaid crashing through the wall comes to our rescue... So
who's going to be our "Fireman Sam" coming to the rescue.., punk? Red-Bucket Brigade 3? Huh, punk?
</p>
<p>Hey, if we de-fund
them, will they simply steal what they want with the guns they already have? Or will they put them down and play
something else now? What the hell kind of work ethic <em>is</em> that? Do you think "well, I've got a big top gun, so
I can do whatever I want?" should be considered sane thinking? Not when "top gun" has been disillusioned and
deprogrammed. "You first, boss.", "No, I outrank you, so you go first." vs "You first, bro.", "No, I don't want to go
first here either. Let's find another way (perhaps around a sniper or non-keyed minefield or disfunctional repetition
of past mistakes..." thhwiitt! Thunk! "Ka-Chow, baby. Fade away." Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Now what?</p>
<p>Please, look at those photos from near the chemical weapons attack areas in Syria, or of any oppressed and
intimidated natural citizens of the country upon which is trespassed, in the middle east, and think about sending
those people some "Square Foot Gardening" kits. Really. It's obvious that they need to and probably want to green that
place up a bit. I bet they'd love to have a fresh home-grown tomato. Everyone needs cow-ward-eyes, not coup-rage. Yous
git that? Terraform. Make <i>Terra prita nova</i>, install drip irrigation, row shades where necessary, and live life
growing food as life was meant to be lived, staying close to our tilth. Back to hell with oil. To hell with weapon
imports and exports, and to hell with the whole "military domination" mentality. It's too dangerous. Take it all, just
leave my cutting board behind. There's an obvious evolutionary pressure in favor of human beings who are social, and
get along well with others, and, them-by, cultures that co-operate with one another to share resources vs fighting
over them, and away from the "culture" of armies, armed combat, and the domination-cult-chess-game-like
mentality. Coup-rage is insane. It is an atavistic mal-adaption. Full cooperation will be achieved. Resistance is
futile.</p>
<p>The action of "bombing Syria" is such an obviously stupid contrived Malthusian Catastrophe that nobody ought to be
allowed to blunder into it who can more equitably and productively utilize their efforts doing useful work, like
manufacturing aerogenerator turbines, feeding lunch to factory workers, installing aerogenerators, feeding
aerogenerator installation crews, maintaining aerogenerators, feeding aerogenerator maintenance mech-techs,
manufacturing smart-grid technology infrastructure parts & pieces, feeding factory workers, installing smart-grid
electrical infrastructure, feeding smart-grid installation crews, maintaining smart-grid electrical infrastructure,
feeding smart-grid maintenance elec-techs, manufacturing electrical train equipment, feeding factory workers,
installing electrical train infrastructure, feeding railroad workers, maintaining and operating electrical railroad
transportation systems, feeding railroad Teamsters. Management is a form of labor. You're one of those people
too. Without labor, all these fine things never really happen. Division of labor is necessary. Just reading that list
is tedious. Imagine being the only ones of a small group working on a task so vast that is so clearly what our world
needs to do so that the contention over the petroleum reserves can be alleviated. Wow, no more gasoline spilling out
of underground tanks, no more heavy traffic, no more car cuck-ah cesspool effect returning down canyon from
Alta-bird...</p>
<p>Trying to kill, threaten, or harass people wastes time and puts them on the defensive, wasting their time having to
fight. Instead of that, both parties could, cooperatively, actually be solving an interesting and useful problem, like
intelligent and educated human beings, who are known to become despondent and are at one useless in captivity... We
the People are much more useful and manageable when left at social liberty, bodily intact and secure in our persons,
free to share ideas and share planning tasks, with no bullshit chain of command abuse of authority antithetical to
intelligent emergently organized society. Harm none. Do no harm. Never attack. Befriend. Don't fixate upon "military"
matters, for therein lies Insanity. Instead, fixate upon the Rule of Law promised by the Enlightenment. Nn-kay, Sam?</p>
<p>Oh, and never forget this: There is probably no such thing as a bulletproof blue beret. Not everyone shares the
same ideals as the blue beret ought to represent. Perhaps not everyone thinks in terms of ideals... They may see
nothing but a hostile invader entering their primal territory, from whom they feel a deep instinctual need to defend
their families... Oh, what a revelation! Gosh, that's just how I'd react if they sent soldiers here; I mean, that's
how they see "our" troops in their country. (Dark Lord 3, who wants your land, is petting his beard, plotting a "false
attack" strategy because that's apparently one of the only tricks those lowbrow assholes ever learned... "Oh, hey, and
I hear that most opiate addicted soldiers love heroin even more than opium or morphine... they'll do anything to get
it. It's probably kept under guard... They jumped up and got right behind the ole 8-ball on getting into Afganistan,
didn't they?")</p>
<p>I think it is very important that We the People of Planet Earth treat the Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack thing as an
<b>International Criminal Investigation</b>, and focus on finding the actual perpetrators of the <i>actus reus</i>,
i.e., the ones who actually pushed the buttons or pulled the triggers, or pumped the petrol, or put the pedal to the
metal, or anything chrono-transitively relevant... (V-room-blaringly obvious enough for ye?) We need to think like
<b>honest</b> detectives and civil=and=human=rights lawyers, not like a zombie lynch mob hungry for petrol transit sic
GimMiCk, Ok? So, let's try and <i>tell them all</i>, Hero! Tell us "Who's guilty?", "Who's fault is all this?",
<b>"What are the forces that provide the impetus behind all of this subtle crazy emergent chaos?"</b></p>
<p>Try and remember to think about that question next Sunday, while you fill up your g-ass tank... watching the
numbers roll around the gauge, ignoring the healthy glowing person of the opposite sex in summery clothing riding by
on that bicycle, daydream and perform a mental analysis to discover probable transitive impact upon inter- and intra-
societal stability and mutual equity in quality and enjoyment of life, given contention for resources their
civilizations are "addicted" to, in a context where viable alternatives can exist only after much hard work is done by
participants in nationwide electrical generation, distribution, and transportation infrastructure construction
projects... Run your mental simulation once with them fair-dinkum pairwise cooperative, and another time with them
pairwise obstructionist, lazy, greedy, aggressive, and mortally dangerous shing-brawn without educated think-brain;
think-brain, no-shing, that can "do the math" and see there's more work needing done than they can do themselves? Or,
think-brain, no-shing, that knows nobody respects a lazy soldier standing with a gun when there's useful work needing
done? How hard can it be, gunny-boy? Want to learn to do something useful, rather than something viciously and
willingly destructive? It's like, "Oh, shit, the gas is spilling over onto what used to be a fertile garden but is now
a pimped-up, paved-over, pissed on brownfield... Oh, sorry, it was an accident. Doh. But who cared, as long as there
was petrol in the car, owe?"; "Yeah. Watt fur."; "That was so profound it makes my hair stand on end."; "Exciting
times, eh?"; "Yah..."; "Blow, wind, blow... and bring us back some peace of mind with ourselves right before we
approach some exhaltation-limit t-totally insanely sarcastic-bliss-maximum-point Zounty-no-Doubty-X-ount..."</p>
<p>So, thinking about it while pumping gasoline into your juiced personal iron cage on wheels, which, at least in your
owned mind, pumping away, has you rape-tied to the wheel of your pimple-assed life quite a lot of the time.., I mean,
yous being so well-traveled, and all... (Hmmm... The writer looks up from per researchlike reading and academicish
writing to see a red fox chasing a mouse, then a butterfly, and finally it's own tail in an alfalfa hay field; per
head turning until the cycling fox is too far behind the train to see again anywhere but inside per indelible
memory... Per then writes it down inside a parenthetical, and continues, putting bizarre midwesternesque
shaggy-dog-story self-narrative aside cooly, and with dignity, but putting it away... really... What?!) It seems to me
there are some relevant questions here, in the land where most agree that "surprise sex" is probably "rape" and
thereby feloniously illegal <i>malum in se</i>. Surprise! Where armed men are taking control of other people's proper
territory and proper resources, it's a form of burglary, which is honestly illegal, <i>malum prohibitum</i>, anywhere
I'd care to live and breath easy. And you say that "our" military is being taught to do this thing? I think we should
teach them to do something more useful, so <em>that</em> will be what they'll go and do.</p>
<p>We the People are each capable of making reasonably decent, fair and Honestly Good (tm) decisions..(?) ...given
complete and accurate information upon which to base those decisions and a logical and well trained thinking
habit that moves with agility, coordination, and polite inter-facilitation in an ideal context free of coercion,
free of obstructive antisocial political mind-frack, free of inequitable "special pleadings", free of meandering
time-wasters (but not shaggy dogs), or even worse, psychotically repetitive and predictable time-wasters with loud
bitchy voices and nothing but time on their hands --- at all; NOT free of interesting things to read, but free of time
constraints; With wide open, but one at a time please, input from each and all with knowledge or inspiration and a few
with less experience who will learn from it...
</p>
<p>("Trust me," uh?... I could only imagine what other people in other
lands are really like... I mean, their sense of what is Fair, Righteous, and Just is so totally alien to us? True? No
way. There is more in common than not. Our cultures are siblings. The ideal Good is Universal. We strive for it in
commonwealth and planethealth in good tilthing. Knowledge and well-functioning communication are first among the Keys
to World Peace.) Application of the <b>Parenting with Love and Logic</b> paradigm has us delaying the consequences,
while we think over what those Must Be. (<b>"Consequences"</b> is not a <i>threat, per se</i>.., I mean, it doesn't
necessarily mean "violent reprisals", it's almost completely situation dependent, and hopefully it will be an ordered
set of consequences that reflect fair dinkum honest Maxims of Law, for example, something like "multi-international
criminal justice posse that is not a corpse-pissing lynch mob of oil starved zombies pretending to do justice while
they steal your oil and opium...")
</p>
<p>Relevant questions include "Were the individuals who fired their weapons acting under color or authority of law?",
"Were they acting under orders given by a 'superior' officer?", "Really?", "What is the protocol used within their
organization which controls orders or permission to shoot?", "Are those protocol mandated communications recorded and
logged in a tamper-proof data processing standards file format both on-line and in secure off-line storage as mandated
by non-optional military ethical standards code?" "Were they rogues or 'loose cannons'?" (Maybe the young soldiers,
who went to the militia rather than to a University, who opened fire, perhaps in panic, at the 'protest' rally would
throw a fit at that description...) "Assuming they did what they thought they were supposed to do in the
circumstances... what example or training did they follow in doing what they did?", "What about the rumors that
American mercenaries were seen in the area around the time of the attack?", and "Doesn't that bring to mind the
reports that the 'World' Trade Center was actually brought down by thermite charges loaded off a semi-trailer into the
stairwells set off by remote-controlled aircraft?" Or, "Are we really going to fall for this one again?", "Is anyone
else tired of breathing petrol smoke while stuck in bumper to bumper traffic?", "Doesn't the popular phrase 'drive it
like you stole it' refer to the petrol purchased from oil companies who brought 'home' Iraq's oil?", and "What gives
them the freedomination to pollute, the freedomination to sell toxic waste as fuel, and the freedomination to tell
blatant lies to the public, the president, and to congress, who then take action to throw away human lives when they
could have put those people to work doing something more useful?"</p>
<p>In our criminal justice system, we have a Presumption of Innocence, which is premised upon the idea that most
people are not criminals. It's not righteous to presume that Dr. Bashar al-Assad or "his" government is to blame! In
fact --- from the Wikipedia article about him --- Dr. Bashar al-Assad is an Opthamologist. He went to medical
school. Anyone out there know what that's like? Think there was time for him to minor in "Evil Dictatorship?" Really?
It says that his older brother was the heir apparent, until he died in a car accident. When Dr. Bashar al-Assad was
told by his father that he was now the heir, he was also recalled to the military, which apparently, outranks him, and
thus he must follow orders... or else?</p>
<p>Truly, the "Russians Love Their Children Too", and surely, so do the Syrians and Iranians, and... well, everyone I
can imagine... and certainly the overwhelmingly vast majority of humanity just want to live life as it was meant to be
lived, and don't want armed bandits with scimitars and WMD marching around with nothing better to do than blow the
nose off the autocratic klepto-sphinx of a rival... They want their children sent to study at a University, doctrina
urbi serviat, not the militia, militia urbi destructo burn-baby-burn, desert melonfarmer. Don't we normally want
really smart people running the show, rather than drop-out thugs who couldn't get a real job to blow their own noses?
Anyone know somebody that throws a fit at that description? Is he sitting on the thrown? Do they do what you tell them
to, even while holding their "own" "guns"? Think about it.</p>
<p>People do what they've been taught to do... If you teach them to use guns and false flag black-ops to "chess game"
their way in to steal gasoline, that's what they'll go and do, because that's the way it has always been done..? and
it's easier to maintain the status quo no-true-American "dream" or continue with the ancient Malthusian "war" plan
than to formulate a new one for the 21st Century, right? If instead, you teach them to think outside of the oiled-up
defoliated war-chest to pin a medal on (you don't want to be that guy), and they learn to respect and live by the Rule
of Law, for reals, then that is, hopefully, what they'll go and do.
(<a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2009/08/selfish-defense.html">
<tt>http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2009/08/selfish-defense.html</tt></a>)
How hard can it be? Good Enough for you?</p>
<p>In the PBS interview of Dr. Bashar al-Assad, my feeling is that the interviewer is begging the question, beginning
with a bogus presumption implicit in his behavior. (Perhaps not even PBS is free from the corporation-as-person
"influence" --- Ender's Game --- of the military petroleum industrial complex that bug-sprays people..) What I see is
that Dr. al-Assad is not making a threat here, but is rather delivering a warning, and trying to let us know, without
being obvious or blinking in morse-code, that it's really not something he has any more control over than President
Nixon had over the soldiers that shot the students at Kent State on May 4, 1970, or than President Nixon had over the
ongoing "Role of the United States in the Vietnam War" (see Wikipedia article entitled as in previous quotation
marks) or than the Passion Bearer had over the events of Bloody Sunday.</p>
<p>Seriously, I doubt it was the Assad family, <i>ab intra</i>, who "integrated the military into the government." We
need to look in the shadows to find the true perpetrators of these atrocities, lest we crucify their
scapegoats by mistake... which we are all, ah, sworn or affirmed to <em>not allow</em> to occur. Capice?</p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-10137877607555881572013-06-13T23:46:00.000-06:002013-06-13T00:24:18.116-06:00Weird Word Association<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_ADw8cih0gw/UblWycw8slI/AAAAAAAALB4/EH9zzI7r9rs/s1600/Spartan.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="85" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_ADw8cih0gw/UblWycw8slI/AAAAAAAALB4/EH9zzI7r9rs/s200/Spartan.png" /></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQB4z3wrU6w/UbldskMuW_I/AAAAAAAALCo/D0UTN4P9W6Y/s1600/Athena.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="85" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQB4z3wrU6w/UbldskMuW_I/AAAAAAAALCo/D0UTN4P9W6Y/s200/Athena.png" /></a>I'm just going to toss some words out here onto this entry, just to put a few ideas in your heads. The Juxtaposition of these particular vocabulary words with the other articles is not entirely accidental,<br />
<i>for obvious reasons</i>.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity" target="_blank">Complexity</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" target="_blank">Emergence</a></li>
<li>System</li>
<li>Lifeworld</li>
<li>Adam Selene</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus" target="_blank">Posse Comitatus</a></li>
<li>Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking</li>
<li>Rome Statute</li>
<li>NSA, Listen to Our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer" target="_blank">Prayers</a></li>
<li><i><span lang="la">Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius, et quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius, ad perpetranda miracula rei unius.</span></i></li>
<li>Teach by example, learn by example. Some examples are anti-lessons.</li>
<li><a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Legitimation_Crisis.html?id=3WFy6vsyLNEC" target="_blank">Legitimation Crisis</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing" target="_blank">Crowdsourcing</a></li>
<li>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress </li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur" target="_blank">Augury</a></li>
<li>Read the letters that the children write to the Standard White Santa Klaus</li>
<li>Agency </li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.un.org/en/" target="_blank">un</a>)Fair Dinkum</li>
<li><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica" target="_blank">Res Publica</a></i></li>
<li>The Common Sense (that God Gave a Goat)</li>
<li>Any Reasonable Person</li>
<li>Standard of Care</li>
<li>Duty to Rescue</li>
<li>Agenda 21</li>
<li>Blue Adept</li>
<li>Choose the Right </li>
</ul>
<br />
There are no secrets, <i>per se</i>, only things which take more than 5 minutes to explain. <br />
<ul></ul>
<ul></ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-49561286418623435452013-03-23T22:56:00.000-06:002013-06-12T22:56:39.948-06:00Violent Human ReservationsI was thinking about the gun control issue... what if we set aside part of the planet, ala Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," as a Violent Human Reservation, where people who want to own guns and shoot other people can go live? By sending them out of the country, it makes the homeland much safer, right?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-6287542240957427592013-02-27T18:52:00.000-07:002013-03-09T04:38:32.859-07:00Dear NewsTip@KSL.comThere's been a lot of things in the news about bullying, school shootings, and the Violence Against Women Act.<br />
I think that the VAWA should be extended to protect women's sons as well. There is a fair amount of research out there regarding the psychological effects of childhood trauma and neglect. It's not difficult for anyone interested in reading up on the subject to find academic research and professional research articles on the subject. For instance, you could start at <a href="http://violence.de/">http://violence.de</a>, <a href="http://cirp.org/">http://cirp.org</a>, or Wikipedia. It's clear that the painful trauma and lifetime of deprivation of normal sexual sensitivity and physical pleasure have a devastating impact upon the mental health of the victims of sexual mutilations.<br />
<br />
What's worse is that many judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials do not recognize infant genital mutilation as a sexual crime. If you think about it the right way, perhaps it appears that the bullies are pretending it's not criminal to torture other men's sons... They are still operating under the mistaken belief that they still have control over the availability of true and complete factual information concerning the anatomy and function of the male prepuce. They believe they can continue to manage people's perceptions of it, and continue to cause people to believe that "circumcision" is in some way beneficial. In reality, the word "circumcision" is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as "genital mutilation."<br />
<br />
Under the Utah Statutes, it is best described as "aggravated object rape of an infant that culminates in mayhem," Because it is perpetrated by a person in a special position of trust or authority, it becomes "aggravated." Because it involves penetration of a sexual opening (the opening at the end of the prepuce, which is the most sensitive part of the male sexual anatomy, the part they've been amputating and lying to us about), it is "object rape of a child." The child abuse statutes define "serious physical harm" in terms of permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal use of a body part. Thereby, the "circumcision" results in serious physical harm, and therefore the most severe penalty applies to those convicted of this despicable atrocity. It is often perpetrated under false pretenses, in that they are not truly providing complete and accurate information to those whom they solicit for the conspiracy to commit this crime; thus there is fraud involved as well.<br />
<br />
I've written a number of articles concerning this subject, which yous will find on my blog. There are several letters there written to congress, and to the "Aids Coordinator", who reports to the US Secretary of State. In one article, I discuss how infant genital mutilations perpetrated in the United States are, in fact, crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I dare you to put an article about this on your front page.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/">http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com</a><br />
<br />
Also note the recent decisions in Germany and Australia concerning the criminality of genital mutilation of infant males. There comes a time when we must look around us, observe the societal norms, and learn to conform with them. The Europeans don't "circumcise." The Swedes don't, the Germans don't, the French don't, the Finns don't, the Dutch don't... Russian's don't, the Chinese don't, and the Indian's don't. The majority of the world population views it as an abomination.<br />
<br />
If it was justified to attack Iraq based upon the allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime gassed the Kurdish people, etc., and attacking Nazi Germany was justified based on the extermination of Jews there... Then certainly it would be easily possible to justify an invasion of the United States by citing the widespread and systematic practice of infant male genital mutilation. Therefore, it becomes a national security concern. The solution is simple. Stop torturing infants. Put the sex perverts that do that to them behind bars.<br />
<br />
We do not need to pass any new laws. It's already illegal under existing laws. To pass a new law that explicitly legalizes that one specific form of mayhem, congress would be admitting that it's already illegal to do so. They can not, in good faith, pass a law that is so clearly in conflict with the primary body of laws concerning malum in se crimes against the person. Our State Constitution contains a clause that says "All laws of a general nature are to have uniform operation." There are no laws against stealing Buick's, Chevrolet's, Ford's, or Porche's, yet it's illegal to steal any one of those specific brands of automobile because of the general purpose laws that prohibit grand larceny. Clearly, the laws that prohibit object rape, child abuse, and mayhem must be applied uniformly. To not do so is unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
I will be publishing this email as a blog entry. I'm looking forward to hearing from yous.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Karl HegbloomAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-69867858933739014752013-02-16T14:54:00.000-07:002013-12-15T05:41:05.094-07:00Let's show the world what they really are.There are a lot of related issues that we should be placing in juxtaposition with one another in our writings. Violence against women is a big deal... Domestic Violence, rape, etc are a big deal to the law enforcement and family courts. So is education... People like to be treated like intelligent human beings capable of forming valid conclusions given true and complete factual information.<br />
<br />
Here in Utah, judges have a continued education requirement. One of the women who advertises as a "custody evaluator" is a PhD who has taught classes to those judges concerning how traumatic experiences during childhood can affect their behaviour as adults. The "<a href="http://nospank.net">Project No Spank</a>" people know what I'm talking about; Clearly <a href="http://www.violence.de">traumatizing children is not beneficial</a>!<br />
<br />
Nobody likes a fraud. Nobody likes hypocrisy, especially in those who are entrusted with governmental powers. The AAP has clearly made fraudulent representations to the people concerning circumcision; and it's clear that Anatomy textbooks, at least here in the Untied States, have been censored, to severely limit the amount of <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/">factual information educated people have available</a> with which to make appropriate choices. <b>Clearly there must be a conspiracy at work to bring such a thing into being.</b><br />
<br />
There are still judges who do not acknowledge that "circumcision" is in fact a crime. It is aggravated object rape of an infant that culminates in mayhem. In Utah, it deserves the mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole, per count, as mandated by the statutes on sex crimes. I'm pretty sure they won't be voting to reduce the penalty for that crime any time soon... (This is Salt Lake City, Utah, the <em>former</em> Olympic Village, and they can't just do anything they want, right? or left? Knee what I'm saying?)<br />
<br />
When many of us American men were born, the hospital and doctor ("they") solicited our parents to engage in the conspiracy to commit object rape (penetration of a sexual opening with an object) culminating in mayhem (amputation or mutilation of a body part resulting in permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal use). They made fraudulent representations to your parents about the "foreskin" -- that is a mere flap of skin, vestigial, and filthy -- and about the alleged health benefits of having your prepuce amputated. Of course they did not tell your parents that it was "<a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_040203.htm">object rape culminating in mayhem</a>"; they sued fluffy words lie "circumcision" to describe it.<br />
<br />
They want to maintain the illusion that "circumcision" is not illegal; that it's an "accepted medical procedure." By offering a form that alleges to provide them with parent's permission to perform the "procedure" they continue to give it the "color of legality." People just assume that the hospital and doctors would not offer to do something illegal to their child. (Catch 22.)<br />
<br />
But we, here in this forum, know how easy it is to show that "circumcision" is really "genital mutilation" or "penis desensitization surgery" or "torture". Anaesthesia only adds insult to the injury -- he'll never feel a thing. (So check the box for the infant lobotomy also. That way he'll never think a thing either.) It is clearly <i>malum in se</i> -- an evil thing in itself -- tantamount to aggravated sexual battery culminating in mayhem.<br />
<br />
To pass a law that explicitly legalizes that specific form of mayhem <i>admits</i> that it is already illegal under existing law. But to pass such a law would create a very serious contradiction -- an inconsistency or hypocrisy. Any crime that is classifiable as <i>malum in se</i> is what it is. Murder, mayhem, rape, battery, and assault are crimes no matter what you other name you give them. "Surprise sex" is "rape" in every jurisdiction I'd care to live in, you know what I'm saying?<br />
<br />
It is only by hiding the evidence -- censoring textbooks, lying to people about what the "foreskin" really is, etc, and by carefully not mentioning it... that they can continue to remain ignorant of the law. But certainly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. This begs the question: Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, Judges, District Attorneys, Attorney Generals, Sheriffs, and so on are often part of the same social clique. Are they also part of the same conspiracy to pretend that committing aggravated object rape of an infant that culminates in mayhem is not a crime, but an "accepted medical procedure?"<br />
<br />
Let's sue their pants off. If they refuse to prosecute it as the crime it truly is, then they themselves are guilty of misprision of felony. If they won't acknowledge it as the crime that it is, then we need to replace them with people who will. Elimination of corruption creates job openings and opportunities for advancement. One of my favourite stories is of a city official who put a hidden camera in his office to video an attempted bribery in progress... <b>Let's show the world what they really are.</b><br />
<br />
How many of the men who serve in law enforcement, prosecutorial, and judicial roles are also victims of male genital mutilation? I suspect that such individuals are intelligent enough to comprehend what they read, and likely to be the kind who are ready, willing, and able to engage in some serious investigative academic research reading, in their copious free time, as part of their continued education requirement. What do you suppose <i>they</i> will conclude, <a href="http://historyofcircumcision.net">after reviewing the evidence</a>? Ever see that watch with a porky the pig on it, that says "Police Integrity <i>Guts</i>"? You know that "intestinal fortitude" is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre">double entendre</a> for "genital integrity" right? So, does that mean that cops aren't cut? If that's true, then maybe they really are the storm troopers of the evil empire...<br />
<br />
Y'all gotta look stuff up around hee-ah. Y'all undahstaand that, right? That's what kinda neighborhood this here is.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-27500641869903443712013-01-14T21:04:00.000-07:002013-05-27T19:09:45.951-06:00sed -i -e 's/Devil/God/g' -e 's/circumcised/uncircumcised/g' Abraham_HB_BOM.txt<tt>sed -i -e 's/Devil/God/g' -e 's/circumcised/uncircumcised/g' Abraham_HB_BOM.txt</tt><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of this article is a pretend <a href="http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?sed"><tt>sed</tt></a> command. It is <b>s</b>ubstituting the word "God" wherever it finds the word "Devil," and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/9.21?lang=eng#20" target="_blank">the word "uncircumcised" whereever it finds the word "circumcised"</a> in the text file given to it on the command line.</span><br />
<br />
From what I gather, I believe that <a href="http://mormon.org/joseph-smith" target="_blank">Joseph Smith</a> would not disagree that it is entirely possible that what remains of the Holy Bible, and yes, even the modern, as we have it today in 2013, Book of Mormon, have been altered from their original form by an adversary who was hell-bent on repressing the Christian uprising, renaissance, or at-one-ment. In modern times, it is certainly easy to modify a computer file, and make it say just about anything you want. You could cause it, through any gross hack you could care to compel the machine to execute, to automatically edit a book, in a flash, without even reading it first. Now that you've gone and done that, don't be surprised and turn away with blind eyes if you find that it's fundamental meaning has probably been completely reversed!<br />
<br />
I also don't think he would entirely disagree, at least not seriously, with the assertion that some passages may have been deliberately written in a way that is not meant to be taken as literally correct, but instead should be thought over and perhaps what it really says is something similar to "the opposite" of what the words literally say. For instance, I don't think you're really expected to give away your magic underpants too when they sue your pants off... Though clearly it's not fair dinkum in contract law to swear by the hairs of your head.<br />
<br />
In terms of the whole "circumcision" thing... I think that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/74?lang=eng" target="_blank">Doctrine and Covenants 74</a> could be construed as being bogus based on the phrase in verse 5: "Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself..." since commandments are supposed to be 'of the lord'... But what does "lord" mean? Those who have been gifted with the Lore are now "lord", past tense. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to religion, but Religion may freely appeal to logic and reason. We read scripture for a purpose; we become quite facile at reading and making citations to written works. Clearly Our Heavenly Father intends that we study other written works beyond what remains of Holy Scripture... after all, we are given to believe that Moroni <i>abridged</i> the whole set of works to create the plates gifted unto Joseph Smith!<br />
<br />
You've gotta look stuff up around here! That's the kind of neighbourhood this is. Please don't ever forget that not even the Scripture is 100% accurate! It's a good thing Our Heavenly Father provided us with the gift of discernment --- the ability to divine right from wrong --- and along with that, he gave us Free Agency --- the ability to make our own choices.<br />
<br />
In terms of the amount and kind of lore required to Choose the Right thing with regards to amputation of a boy's prepuce... All that it requires is knowledge of the true anatomy and function of the adult prepuce, along with knowledge of what the baby or boy suffers during the procedure, and what the adult man he will someday become will suffer as a result of it's loss. Imagine if the Devil was in control of whether or not that information was made available to your mother! Would the Devil tell her the truth about it? I doubt it.<br />
<br />
What if the Devil knows how to typeset? ...or how to scour the Internet? What if you never even think to look it up, and you take the word of somebody who stands to profit in some way from your mistake?<br />
<br />
I am very certain that whatever entity it was that demanded that Abraham submit to amputation of his prepuce, that entity was most certainly not "God." There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that (a) God the Father doesn't yell at us; (b) nor does he demand that we submit to amputation of an important part of the mortal body that he gave us when he sent us to live on Earth! The LDS <a href="http://mormon.org/articles-of-faith" target="_blank">Articles of Faith</a>, number 8, says "We believe the Bible to be the word of God <u>as far as it is translated
correctly</u>; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." I suppose that whether it was "translated" or "subjected to gross hackery by a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism#Imperialism_and_political_oppression" target="_blank"><i>homo capitalis</i></a> jeeper creep mobster" is a finer point for some hypothetical debate...<br />
<br />
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-58850217173293018522012-10-10T04:20:00.000-06:002013-08-25T16:05:25.625-06:00Open Letter to CongressDear Legislators, Judicial, and Executive officers for the State of Utah,<br />
<br />
I appreciate your taking the time to read this letter as well as the (attached to original email) <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf" target="_blank">Doctors Opposing Circumcision Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement</a>. Please read them in full, regardless of whether you agree with these opinions or not. If you don't agree, you'll want to be familiar with this argument. If you do agree, you'll want to be familiar with this argument. You have not heard the last of it on this matter whether you want to face it or not. <b>As congressmen, you can appreciate the importance of having complete and valid information upon which to base your decisions.</b><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic" target="_blank">dialectical method</a> can not operate properly and draw correct conclusions without complete and valid information. It is an atavistic digression away from the goals of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law" target="_blank">Rule of Law</a> to attempt to "win" this, or any, argument or attain "consensus" by disallowing some information, or by disallowing or "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing" target="_blank">discouraging</a>" participation by those who do not advocate the prepucial guillotine... I think protecting babies is likely to help <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire" target="_blank">win elections</a>. <b>Do not underestimate the intelligence of your constituency. Praise it. Support it.</b> It's hard to fly like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.<br />
<br />
A year or so ago, I wrote to yous asking for a sponsor for the "<a href="http://mgmbill.org/" target="_blank">MGM Bill</a>." <b>I no longer support that bill</b> because I am now quite certain, beyond any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt" target="_blank">reasonable doubt</a>, that "circumcision" is tantamount to "<a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_040203.htm" target="_blank">aggravated object rape of a child</a>, culminating in <a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_010500.htm" target="_blank">mayhem</a>, and felony <a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_010900.htm" target="_blank">aggravated child abuse</a>", crimes which are already illegal in Utah, thank Goodness, and carry an appropriately high penalty. Obviously the "solicitation for conspiracy to commit ..." is also illegal. The MGM Bill is a masked attempt at weakening the penalties associated with that crime, since under existing law, it amounts to <b>a mandatory prison sentence of life without parole</b>, where the poorly written MGM Bill has it as "up to 14 years <i>or a fine."</i><br />
<br />
I happen to know that, presently, some of the Judges presently on the bench in Utah do not appear to recognize infant genital mutilation as a crime. I know this because they have referred to it as "first rite," on the record, in the Family Court. I assert that it is not a "rite" (nor is it a "right") It is a crime. There is most certainly <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se" target="_blank">malum in se</a></i> when the most sensitive part of an infant's body is amputated. I believe in application of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability" target="_blank">strict liability</a> for the strict labectomy... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur" target="_blank"><i>res ipsa loquitur</i></a> is a screaming infant victim, whom we all have a moral <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue" target="_blank">Duty to Rescue</a>, <i>iussum quia iustum.</i>)<br />
<br />
People are reasonably logical thinkers, regardless of whether or not they have formally studied formal logic (or legalese latin pretty quick on Wikipedia). When given several "facts," they will draw the logical conclusion from those facts. But if <a href="http://cirp.org/" target="_blank">certain facts are omitted</a>, an invalid conclusion can be drawn from those "facts," and often those "facts" turn out <b>not</b> to be valid, accurate, or true. Sometimes they even turn out to be <a href="http://www.circlist.com/" target="_blank">blatantly false</a>! <i>Caveat emptor.</i> Our individual sets of initial assumptions can vary widely, and so depending on what you've been taught about the "foreskin," you may or may not believe that amputating it is a crime. What will you do if you discover that you have been deceived about it by those you trusted with your important health decisions? (Have another statin pill. Trust me, right? Oh, and give up and just inhale the smog. It's all there is. You'll be Ok. It's not what's really causing your atherosclerosis, or anything...)<br />
<br />
In fact, the <a href="http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/" target="_blank">American People have been deceived</a> about the the "foreskin" by a <a href="http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/" target="_blank">conspiracy</a> that has gone as far as to <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/foreskin.html" target="_blank">censor Anatomy and Physiology textbooks</a>, so that the <a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/" target="_blank">anatomical diagrams of the male genitalia</a> do not feature the prepuce, but instead depict a denuded glans. In the particular textbook that I have, the only mention, in an otherwise very detailed college textbook, of the foreskin (or prepuce, it's medical name) is in one short paragraph, and in the context of "<a href="http://violence.de/" target="_blank">circumcision</a>." It makes me wonder what else they have cut out of the pictures or knocked off the statues... Just keep guessing. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards" target="_blank">Zener cards</a>, anyone? Oh, but let's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychism" target="_blank">play</a> it with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_(Tarot_card)" target="_blank">Tarot</a> deck.)<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/" target="_blank">Doctor's Opposing Circumcision</a> web site has an <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/foreskin.html" target="_blank">Anatomy Lesson</a> available to remedy this situation, for those who <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" target="_blank">(won't beg the)</a> question why they are being taught to amputate something they are not being told anything much about... or anything; So, why is our foreskin being "<a href="http://www.fold3.com/page/285875667_nazi_medicine_and_nazi_doctors/" target="_blank">cut out of the picture</a>?" <b>As congressmen, you can appreciate the importance of having complete and valid information upon which to base your decisions.</b><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.circlist.com/old-news/2011.html" target="_blank">AMA has an agenda</a> that includes working to prevent any new laws from being passed to make "circumcision" illegal, and I think that's just fine, since it's already illegal under existing laws. In order to draw that conclusion, this argument presumes that yous have "done your homework" by reading several documents and web sites:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://intactamerica.org/">http://intactamerica.org</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/">http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org</a></li>
<li><a href="http://cirp.org/">http://cirp.org</a></li>
</ul>
The Utah State Constitution, in Article I, Section 24, reads "<b>All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.</b>" I feel certain that the intended meaning of the phrase "uniform operation" is closely related to the meaning of the word "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity" target="_blank">Integrity</a>," in the context of Ethics. Quoting Wikipedia:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with observation. A value system may evolve over time while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In computer science, an abstraction level is a generalization of a model or algorithm, away from any specific implementation. These generalizations arise from broad similarities that are best encapsulated by models that express similarities present in various specific implementations. The simplification provided by a good abstraction layer allows for easy reuse by distilling a useful concept or metaphor so that situations where it may be accurately applied can be quickly recognized.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
When I search the Utah Statutes for "Volkswagon," "Buick," or "Ford," I find that there are no laws prohibiting the theft of any of those brands of automobiles. However, there are, of course, laws against stealing high valued personal belongings from other people. Those "laws of a general nature" certainly apply to theft of any brand of automobile. I feel very certain that no <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person" target="_blank">Reasonable Person</a> will disagree with that assertion.<br />
<br />
I also feel certain that no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person" target="_blank">Reasonable Person</a>, given true, complete, and factual information regarding the true anatomy and function of the prepuce, as well as a view of <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/video.html" target="_blank">what goes on in there</a>, behind the closed doors of the pedo-O.R., where babies are strapped down to a mini crucifix known as a "<a href="http://www.drmomma.org/2012/06/if-this-stained-circumstraint-could.html" target="_blank">circumstraint</a>," given an erection with an antiseptic swab, and then tortured. The use of anesthesia only adds insult[1] to injury: He'll never feel a thing... after they amputate 50-80% of the nerve endings from his little penis.<br />
<br />
I imagine that you've all heard of the "<a href="http://invisiblechildren.com/kony/" target="_blank">Stop Kony in 2012</a>" campaign, since it was all over the news for a while, touted as having "gone viral"... I'm sure that many Americans have learned about it, and through that, many who were not already aware of it are now aware of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_statute" target="_blank">Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court</a>. I wouldn't bet against the assertion that a majority of those citizens are in favor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties_between_States_and_International_Organizations_or_Between_International_Organizations" target="_blank">congressional ratification</a> of the Rome Statute.<br />
<br />
Since President Bush (believed he had) withdrew our signature from the Rome Statute, some have said that <b>We the People have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties" target="_blank">accede</a> the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and that the United States and it's territories are, <i>de facto</i>, subject to it's jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not those who allege to represent us in congress agree with that assertion or not. </b>Do I need to tell you this every day for the next several thousand sessions? Think about it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when you represent the People, as a government official. Take care of this. It's your responsibility. (Perhaps you will like to join the <i>posse comitatus</i>, assuming you're not one of those who will be indicted...)<br />
<br />
The Rome Statute recognizes rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, "<u>or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity</u>" as crime against humanity if <b>the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice</b>. Guess what? Think about it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way again. People are not going to continue to put up with it. They are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They are not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect" target="_blank">bystanders</a>; they are victims.<br />
<br />
They were misinformed. When they find out, they are going to be very angry. <b>Will congress be their target? I hope not, given that it is easy to show that infant genital mutilation is a very serious felony in every state of the union...</b> except for those which have an (unconstitutional? unethical!) exemption for "ritual circumcision" in their statutes...<br />
<br />
Circumcision is not part of Judaism, nor is it part of Islam. It is something that was imposed upon them by an oppressive conqueror. And Christians do not circumcise. That is one of the primary things that set them apart from the Jews. Only in America, the land of freedomination... sarc. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Currents_of_Space">The currents of law</a> are changing.<br />
<br />
I would like the executive officer of the State of Utah, our Governor, to issue a decree stating that, indeed, infant genital mutilation, is in fact against the law. All who were offering that "service" must cease and desist. The State Police must confiscate all contraband related to the performing of that atrocity -- circumstraints, plastibells, "permission" forms, etc. Medical records must be subpoenaed, and these crimes investigated. From now on, DCFS and the State Police must enforce the law. The state and district attorneys must prosecute the offenders. Judges must see it for what it is, and when a suspect is duly convicted, pass sentence appropriate to the severity of the crime. If they are unwilling to do these things, then they become accessories after the fact. If those laws mean nothing, in light of the facts, then none of them do. We may as well have civil war in light of a bonfire of law books. Hey; weiner roast anyone? Yours first. <b>Fair dinkum? Think about it. We're at your gates, and we're not praying for Bloody Sunday. We can read and write, and we do. We recognize that violence is the problem, not the solution... But I can not speak for everyone without first hearing their opinions, <i>res ipsa loquitur</i>.</b><br />
<br />
I suggest a diversion program, where if parents solicit for conspiracy to commit child abuse and aggravated object rape that culminates in mayhem, they are warned, reported to DCFS and the District Attorney, and then faced with either attending the diversion program or being charged with a crime. The diversion program will educate them, perhaps using material provided by <a href="http://intactamerica.org/" target="_blank">Intact America</a>, so they understand why it's a crime. <b>Babies need love, not trauma. It's simple.</b> Ask the prince. ;-) What are we supposed to do? Follow the example set for us by leadership, or by history? Riot? Pogrom? <b>Because violence is the problem, not the solution, I suggest that we set a positive example for future generations to follow. They need love, not trauma.</b> They need truth, not inevitably discoverable lies. How will they trust you otherwise? What will it do to their faith? What kind of resentments could it foster? How will we address those resentments? Shall we use the legal structure, or would you prefer a bloodbath? Oh, and what about that Agenda 21 thing? We're all watching to see what you do, as lawmakers and representatives of We the People. <b>The time has come for some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense" target="_blank">common sense</a>.</b><br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Karl Martin Hegbloom<br />
<a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/">http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com</a><br />
<br />
<br />
[1] All of you have known some guy who's always putting other people down, always bragging, squealing his tires, showing off, beating you up when nobody's there to witness it, etc. (Maybe some of you are that character; if so, then I strongly suggest you maintain your innocence by supporting the Intactivist agenda.) They pretend they've done nothing wrong, and that you're lying about having been assaulted... The only ones who know for sure what really went on are yourself and the bully. When bullies like that have attained positions of authority, a very serious situation exists. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying" target="_blank">Bullies</a> love to turn their victims into bullies. People learn by example; and from those who mentor them. But if a bully dominates someone and "mentors" them... Hello Columbine!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-88329844222720835502012-09-20T15:27:00.000-06:002012-10-02T06:11:12.774-06:00Not "a-tone-ment" but "at-one-ment".<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Joseph_Smith,_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg/230px-Joseph_Smith,_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Joseph_Smith,_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg/230px-Joseph_Smith,_Jr._portrait_owned_by_Joseph_Smith_III.jpg" width="149" /></a>I do not believe that Joseph Smith pronounced the word "<a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/04/the-atonement-and-the-journey-of-mortality?lang=eng" target="_blank">atonement</a>" as "a-tone-ment," but instead he spoke it "at-one-ment." Joseph Smith had not learned the word "solidarity" perhaps. After all, he grew up in the sticks, where there were no big schools or Universities... and the primary book for him to learn reading from was of course the Holy Bible. His vocabulary was limited... But whos isn't? I don't know every other f-word either, you know and smurf? Probably nobody does. We do know that what one reads certainly has an enormous influence upon one's thinking. I'm very glad that he did not study and become entrenched in nuclear physics and the Art of War. Lucky for us, he was lost deep in the forest of <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fgeneral-conference%2F2011%2F10%2Fthe-power-of-scripture%3Flang%3Ddeu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">kraft des heiligen</a>, and thus his vision reflected that intellectual background.<br />
<br />
Like Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ was born in a hick town with no school, in a region with no University. When he was old enough to travel on his own, Jesus went to northern India, to study with the Æsir. He learned many things, including physiology and medicine, then brought this knowledge back to his home town and region to share it with folks there; to let his knowledge serve his people. He knew that "you are what you eat," and started trying to explain that at the "last supper." Well, everyone had been drinking a little wine and eating; there probably wasn't really anyone sitting there with a steno-pad writing down his every word. So, what we have in the Holy Bible regarding that event was written down later, after the wine wore off... and perhaps not everyone really understood what he was talking about. So anyway, now we have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion to remind us of the thing he was perhaps trying to explain: "You are what you eat." "What you eat is what it ate or what it grew in." "We have what we have because of the cooperation of large numbers of people in a collective economic system... blah blah blah... anybody listening? More wine? No, thank you. The other day I had a hangover so bad I felt like I was sweating blood."<br />
<br />
Farmers grow wheat. Teamsters carry it to the mill. Millers grind it into flour. Teamsters carry the flour to the bakery. Bakers make it into bread. People worked to make their clothing; to make the wagons and tack for the horses driven by the Teamsters; to make the harvesting equipment; the mill; the bakery. Men work to maintain the aqueducts that bring safe clean drinking water to our homes. It is because of our at-one-ment that we can have that scrap of bread and water on Sunday. It is certainly not ritual cannibalism, but a symbol of how, through community and cooperation, we as a "one-ment" or collective, provide that which is first on every list of necessities: Food. Eats. Grub. Chow.<br />
<br />
What we want is not mere "Food," but Wholesome Food, free of toxins introduced by pollution, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical "ferti-lie-zer". We don't want mere "water," but Pure Water, free of toxic pollution. Certainly the only sure way to ensure that there be no pollution in our food and water supply is to not produce any pollution. How complicated is that? Garbage in, garbage out, right? Remember that little salt grinder at the bottom of the ocean? It's been down there a long time; so long now, that all of the ocean is salty water. Lucky for us, it's just salt, right? Or, well, lucky for the fish we like to eat, and thus lucky for us.<br />
<br />
Many times I've heard people say that "Jesus Christ <a href="http://www.deq.utah.gov/locations/pceplume/index.htm" target="_blank">died for our sins</a>." Oh, yah, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky" target="_blank">ye slythy toves did gyre and gymble in ye wabe</a>, believe it or not! So, somehow his death and suffering makes it ok for me to pollute, right? Ahhh... so let's hang all the oil company executives and be done with it. It's their fault. They bribed congress to write laws that made us do it, right? Oh, and hired "fixer" lawyers who know every loophole in regulation C-22... or something, so they know how to talk around the problem and ignore the evidence while believing themselves to appear to be giving the matter due process... to wangle the same straw decisions they paid the judges for out of the courts, or whatever conspiracy nut you care to crack over the head with a Wikipedia and smurf.<br />
<br />
But really, what it was is that there was a corrupt administration, but Jesus trusted that the leadership, court, or whatever clique animated the puppet show at court that day... and tossed the bread to fetch for the pigs that did the whipping and crucifixions... to do what was righteous and godly; only they "failed to listen" to the "voice" of Goodly Reason, and commanded that he be whipped, beaten, humiliated, and hung out to dry on a crucifix. And "everybody knew," or at least potentially could have in some idealized societal organization wherein <u>everyone</u> reads the highly detailed 10 cubit long news-scrolls... that it was evil and wrong, especially since Jesus was such an awesome Guru. But, in real life, nobody stepped forward to stop it from happening because they were, each as an individual, intimidated by the very violence they truly wanted to stop from being about to happen.<br />
<br />
Everybody thought he was dead after they took him down off the cross, so they put him into a crypt... and three days later the smell woke him up from his coma... He decided he had to do something about the communication situation. He knew that if everyone, in solidarity, stood up to put a stop to these things that were so exceedingly unjust that we, as a complete society, could have a much more stable and sustainable civilization. He set about teaching the people correct principles and morals, and about creating an organization with which to bootstrap a new more evolved social order. He called his apostles anything but too late for the next supper, and sent them away on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk" target="_blank">random walks</a>... without cellular phones, scripts, or purses... Un-fortune-ately, he had instructed them that it was the wicked who needed the most help, and so they approached them first, without adequate backup... got mobbed and done in. None survived to tell Jesus that "hey, we really ought to recruit the good people first, before we try to tame that unruly mob of orcs." Presumptively, there were a few good men out there, and their voices were loud enough, and some of them could actually write without getting caught, and cried 'em some good letters home to Jesus about it, so the new church could adapt it's strategy.<br />
<br />
So, why are we all participating in an "at-one-ment" that is certainly producing garbage and pollution? Why are we buying it? When will the smell wake us up, Sunday drivers? Yeah... he was a <a href="http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/larry_groce/junk_food_junkie.html" target="_blank">day-ay Mormon</a>... Can we, in good faith, go to church every Sunday, eat the little scrap of bread, and do that "sunday swoon" thing in our mind that makes us feel like we've magically communed with God... and have that ritual act magically purge us of our sins? Oh wait, I'm confusing Holy Communion with Confession, Repentance, Pennance, and Reparation, right? But what the hell do I know? I'm a hick convert who never went to church much. All this terminology is new to me. Maybe I just don't really understand it right... probably walking by it too slow to really see it, or something.<br />
<br />
So, eating the cookie and milk reaffirms our promise to participate in the "at-one-ment" of Wholesome Goodness. Ok. But to keep the promises... don't I need to... Uh, face something I've been trying not to look at... it's ugly, and it's going to take a lot of work to make it beautiful, America.<br />
<br />
Despite that most of us are not directly responsible for producing any pollution, or anything... Well, many of you drive cars that pollute, so, well, but... you didn't have many options available when you bought it, or anything, right? There's diesel or gasoline; sort of a false dichotomy really. The fact that you pollute is really a supply side problem. So let us boycott. Or well, we could riot... but I doubt that will help solve the problem. Boycotting didn't do anything but almost drive them out of business; but on the bright side, We the People now own stock in the automobile companies... Hmmm. I wonder what that buys us? Can we vote at their shareholder meetings now? I've got some ideas for how they could seriously improve their product line...<br />
<br />
Nor will sending tortured and tormented young men off to war to get more oil for the, uh, majority(?) solve the problem. We need them right here at home, learning to construct the new transportation infrastructure, setting up windmills in the cleansing winds, and learning to be part of our peaceful and civilized community. It's just wrong to teach them to shoot guns at other people. Let's teach them to build things with other people -- to participate in the "at-one-ment." Let's have a "barn-raising" to install streetcar systems, wind farms, and a new smart-grid electrical system. We can do it. Yes we can.<br />
<br />
And if your business depends on the industries that these changes affect... Remember that people won't let you starve. If the pollution causes climate change that leads to crop failure, what will we eat then? Smog? Long wee-wee mee-mee pig? (Mow-wah?) If the pollution is causing atherosclerosis, cardiac arterial disease, cancer, and other health problems, then is it really that good, that we can't quit? Advanced capitalism, anyone? Smoke it out if you've got it, right? If the activities involved in obtaining the raw materials used to make pollution with involve armed combat with people of other nations, do the ends justify the means? Do the advantaged outweigh the disadvantaged? No gout about it, w<i>e can</i> have transportation without pollution and without contention between nations for the finite fuel resource. The same manufacturing industries that make cars today can just as easily make streetcars and aerogenerators tomorrow. And there will still be cars; just not as many of them...<br />
<br />
So now perhaps you've agreed with me, and you are not eaten by a mob of the starving and tax exempt, despite that you're just sitting there, doing nothing about it, or anything... Though, perhaps doing nothing <i>is</i> doing something about it, unless you're reading this while driving or sitting in traffic. Someday soon, you think, we are going to do something about it. What? When? How? Where does it begin? How does it begin? Are we just waiting for our leaders to tell us what to do? <a href="http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/cowboy-junkies-lyrics/someday-soon-lyrics.html" target="_blank">Someday soon</a> that Sunday swoon will stop having as strong an effect on our self perceptions, perhaps...<br />
<br />
That ritual of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, is not magical all by itself. Intrinsically, it's just a bite of cheap white bread off the grocery store shelf and a shot of mildly chlorinated water straight out of a sink faucet, or a special wheat cracker with a sip of watered down cheap wine; water straight out of the tap with words spoken over it, is all the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/ut/700southpce/index.html" target="_blank">shazam de plume</a> it's really got in it, or anything... Doing a "Sunday swoon" when you eat it doesn't really do any magic either. Your car is still sitting out there in the church parking lot, and you'll pollute wee-wee-wee aaallll the way home from the dry cleaner.<br />
<br />
What makes this sort of ritual magic really work is this: know that the ritual in itself does nothing more than create a point in time and space at which we perform a symbolic action that represents, and reifies within our consciousness, a thing that in reality takes place over a protracted time frame, integrated as part of our daily lives. The wedding is not the marriage. The marriage is an aspect of your lives together; of how you share your life together. By a similar token... the sacrament is not the "at-one-ment."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-77334967255047804692012-07-19T14:01:00.000-06:002013-07-21T15:48:34.809-06:00Integrity, Accountability, and Resolving Conflicts Within Dysfunctional Domestic Relations<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;">DRAFT</span></span> I've published this article a little early, before it's really done. I will be updating it as time permits. I'll update the time-stamp when I remember to, and will certainly do so when it's complete, so that it will refresh the syndication feeds... (Update, 2012-12-12: I'm sorry; I've been very busy, and have not completed this article. I promise I'll put some more time in on it as soon as I can...)<br />
<br />
<br />
At the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU" target="_blank">ACLU</a> web site, we encounter an article entitled "<a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/ending-domestic-violence-requires-holding-police-accountable">Ending Domestic Violence Requires Holding Police Accountable</a>." I don't disagree with the assertion that Police, and Court officials, must be held accountable... Here in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah" target="_blank">Utah</a>, the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/chapter.jsp?code=Constitution" target="_blank">State Constitution</a>, Article IV, Section 10, mandates an <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/htm/00I04_001000.htm" style="font-family: serif;" target="_blank">oath of service</a> which states that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity" target="_blank">fidelity</a>."</blockquote>
They are <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/18?lang=eng" target="_blank">not in this boat alone</a>. After all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_of_omission" target="_blank">we are <i>all</i> expected to be accountable for our own acts and omissions</a>. Clearly, it is also the case that <a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ucja/index.htm#Chapter%2013" target="_blank">the courts and lawyers must also be held accountable</a>... and certainly that the alleged "victim" as well as the alleged "primary aggressor" must be held accountable to truth, fair play, and good faith, since, as per Article I, Section 24, "<a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I01_002400.htm" target="_blank">All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation</a>." For the time being, I will assume that all 50 states have similar clauses in their constitutions.<br />
<br />
So, once again, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3245341013213844183&q=attainder" target="_blank">who watches the watchers</a>? Who will hold <i>them</i> accountable? <b><a href="http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/BillOfAttainder.htm" target="_blank">If you tell me, we'll both know</a>.</b><br />
<br />
The ACLU article claims that the woman obtained the protective order after the man assaulted her, etc... What I wonder is if that allegation was ever proven before a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact" target="_blank">trier of fact</a> or not, in a criminal court, where the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_care" target="_blank">standard of proof</a> is "beyond a reasonable doubt," within the context of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence" target="_blank">presumption of innocence</a>. Perhaps the article should more properly state that she obtained the protective order after <i>alleging</i> that he assaulted her. She could easily claim that he had assaulted her, when in reality it was her who had been the primary aggressor. I know for certain, from personal experience and eyewitness testimony, that this does happen relatively often. And does <i>anyone</i>, including the two of them, know for certain exactly what was said over the telephone during the call that Mr. Perez <i>allegedly</i> made to Ms. Valdez?<br />
<br />
In this particular cherry-picked example case, <i>he</i> returned to commit actual violence, something that happens only rarely, overall... I think they are making an invalid attempt at moving from an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_generalization" target="_blank">existential generalization</a> --- "Rover loves to wag his tail. Therefore, something loves to wag its tail." --- to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_instantiation" target="_blank">universal instantiation</a> --- "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." What they are really saying is more like "Something loves to wag its tail. Therefore, everything loves to wag its tail." Obviously, not everything has a tail, and not everything with one likes to wag it. (Maybe yous should check <i>my</i> logic, just to make sure I'm not just trying to <i>control your leg</i>?... or you could just cut my tongue out and be done with it.)<br />
<br />
It's really too bad that there was no diversionary program in place where they would, ostensibly, and potentially, be taught how to communicate effectively with one another, and to utilize some formal method of conflict resolution. Communication and conflict resolution skills would go a long way towards preventing the kind of angry frustration that leads up to that state of mind where people who think they're like a spring that's got to sproing when it's wound up "go postal" for lack of any other response in their <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/repoire" target="_blank">repoire</a>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_noir" target="_blank">noir</a>...<br />
<br />
I assert that exorcising gender bias is an important "civil liberty." How about exemplifying at least one case where it was the female who in fact attacked the male? I'm willing to bet that no advocates of these protective order laws have performed any honest studies regarding the statistical likelihood of actual violence <i>per se</i>, as contrasted with alleged violations involving mere communication... Or how often communication <i>per se</i> contains any actual threat of violence <i>per se</i>... vs expression of frustration and angst over specific resentments pertinent to their individual conflicts?.. They should also study the effects of even further frustrating communication between them through the imposition of no-contact orders, and the degree of alienation of affections and level of resentments that imposition creates. "Sir, you're not locked in jail because you're wrong. You're locked up so we can separate you from one another. And I'm sorry, but the Miranda law forbids me from taking your statement. And if you don't calm down and stop talking about it, we're going to have to lock you in solitary confinement, incommunicado behind a ream of boilerplate..."<br />
<br />
What you're not saying here about these laws is that the courts are issuing these protective orders without requiring (or allowing) actual evidence of true abuse. The standard of proof is merely "a preponderance of the evidence," and I'd bet that quite often, there's not really any evidence, or anything, other than the woman's testimony, often obtained via an interview process conducted by a professional "victim advocate", which gets "heard" while the man's testimony, if ever solicited or presented, is essentially ignored. I think that what gets "prepondered" is often not actual "evidence" <i>per se</i>, but instead "prejudicial presumptions" such as that which are built-into the Utah "Cohabitant Abuse Act" itself, which presumes there is a "primary aggressor" and a "victim", offering no other model of the conflict's actual social dynamics. She is then given a "protective" order that allows her to call the cops and get the man arrested for merely sending an email or text message, and she can get them to arrest him for that even if the order has a modification allowing asynchronous written communication to occur! (If you follow this blog, you'll learn more about that later on, after I feel comfortable with publishing details of my Civil Rights Complaint.)<br />
<br />
The protective order forms are standardized, and they contain wording that makes it illegal for the Respondent to contact the Petitioner, but not vise versa. So apparently the police and court officials think it's "legal" for her to send him a derisive text message that asks a rude leading question, but if he replies, she can complain and ask them to arrest him for it, and they'll follow through and actually arrest him. You see, they "have a professional responsibility to screen charges when a complaint has been filed." They seem to think that it's "legal" for her to come to his apartment and knock on his door demanding entry, but if he opens the door, he's violated one of the injunctional contract's boilerplate no-contact provisions?!<br />
<br />
I've spoken with several other men who have also had very similar experiences with this. I was told about a man who's ex-girlfriend
had a protective order against him. She called or sent a message to him
saying that if he did not come and get his things, she would throw them
out the door into the street. He went to get his stuff, and she called
the cops and had him arrested. The court imposed a one year "mandatory" jail
sentence on him. Another man said that the court imposed a no-contact
order between himself and his girlfriend. She sent him a text message
asking him if he was going to contact her anymore. He answered "No" --
two letters, N O -- and they arrested him and he spent a year in the Utah State Penitentiary. Certainly there may be material details not
mentioned by those victims of protective order abuse during the brief
conversations <i>I</i> had with them... but since those are the relevant
details of actual events that they chose to focus on first, I must
assume their complaints are valid and should be addressed by a finder of
fact... It would be amazing if the police and his attorney would
actually interview him and obtain that information.<br />
<br />
I have personally witnessed Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department prisoner transport bailiffs confiscating evidence from a prisoner who had been transported to court in order to appear <i>pro se</i> (without
representation by legal counsel) at a protective order hearing related to the charges they had him in jail on, pre-trial. The
evidence they took from him was a letter sent to him in jail, written by his
wife, who had been "advised" to obtain a protective order
against him by the State. In the letter she told him that she did not
want a protective order, and that he should bring that letter to court
as evidence of that. At court, she was represented by a state appointed
victim advocate lawyer, and was not ever asked or allowed to speak at
the hearing. The man was not given much opportunity to speak either, and
his evidence had been confiscated. The State of Utah imposed a
protective order, and thereby separated him from his family. This happened in September or October of 2011.<br />
<br />
In terms of police accountability, they need to listen and take appropriate action when the "Respondent" (the victim of protective order abuse) makes a valid counter-complaint. In Utah, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B07_011500.htm" target="_blank">78B-7-115</a>(3) is meant to create sanctions when <i>either party</i> acts in "bad faith" or "with intent to harass or intimidate." The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/section.jsp?code=78B-7" target="_blank">Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act</a> also mandates that certain statements be included on the standard boilerplate forms that warn the Petitioner (person applying for the protective order) that it's a felony to use false information to obtain a protective order, or to use one to abuse the judicial process. The <i>statute</i> makes that attempt at instantiating accountability, but in my experience, neither the police, nor the court officials actually do anything about it even in blatantly obvious cases of perjury or protective order abuse. They don't seem to care about due process, the rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, or the Constitution and pertinent statutes.<br />
<br />
In the Valdez v. Perez case, how can we know for sure whether or not the man actually threatened her, or vise versa? It seems to me that in court, before a trier of fact, it would amount to her word against his. We're not told in this brief article whether he made or attempted to make any answer or counter-complaints. If he did, and they failed to react or investigate, that might explain the level of angst, frustration, and anger that, unchecked by appropriate early psychiatric intervention, led to his commission of the murder after the cockroach whispered in his ear "Just kill the bitch. She deserves it! (unspoken... That way we get two birds with one stone, you confused and oppressed Hispanic rival male... who will fail to realize that murder is not his own nor a very good idea and then assert that he won't be a <i>columbine kid</i>."<br />
<br />
And what about cases where the woman threatens or attacks the man, and then calls the cops on him? The problem is that there is rarely a clear distinction such as "primary aggressor" and "victim." There are two people who don't know how to communicate with one another effectively, who were whelped under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspice" target="_blank">auspices</a> of a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" target="_blank">dominant culture</a>" that applied fiat through violence or other forms of imbalance of power, rather than influence through reason, as a means of getting one's way... They circumcise baby boys, inflicting excruciating pain and <a href="http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html" target="_blank">a lifetime of deprivation of normal pleasure</a>. Thus applying <a href="http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm" target="_blank">the dynamics of power and control</a>, they subjugate those males who have been given the "first rite" -- <a href="http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Da%2Bpreliminary%2Bpoll%2Bof%2Bmen%2Bcircumcised%2Bin%2Binfancy%2Bor%2Bchildhood%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D1%252C6%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22preliminary%20poll%20men%20circumcised%20infancy%20or%20childhood%22" target="_blank">essentially an initiation into slavehood</a> -- to "authority." This psychological conditioning continues with spanking, sending them to their rooms, expression of anger that carries with it an implied threat of violence or reminder of past violence, and so forth. It all comes down to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying" target="_blank">aggressive imposition of an imbalance of power</a>, or bullying.<br />
<br />
With regards to <i>accountability</i> to the integrity of uniform operation of the Rule of Law, there must not be a <a href="http://www.nospank.net/montagu1.htm" target="_blank">double standard that allows women to beat up men</a> with "protective" orders based on hearsay and lies; that allows women to harass men with the threat of arrest for "crimes" like answering an email with the wrong answer; so she doesn't get her way, and gets him arrested for it... Nor may there be a double standard where police and court officials apply the law only when it punishes the male, or only when it punishes the out-group member.<br />
<br />
I assert that protective orders are more often used to abuse men than they are used to actually protect women. Can you prove that wrong? Oh, but then I'm the one with burden of proof? I think that these laws need to be studied in terms of what they actually do, rather than in terms of the straw man arguments used to convince congress to vote them into law. These laws are the new "Jim Crow" laws. They create and encourage alienation of affections, splitting up families. They encourage "criminal thinking errors" on the part of the Petitioner, who can use the protective order to "close the channel" of communication, effectively preventing any actual resolution of their conflict.<br />
<br />
It is no more morally acceptable for a woman to use a "protective" order to bully a man than it is for her to use physical violence to do so. If yous can claim that an email that contains no overt threats of harm is transitively a form of domestic violence, then certainly the "protective" order itself is one. When a woman can obtain one with little evidence or burden of proof, and then use it to have a man jailed for something that is not even remotely criminal, and is certainly not criminal in the absence of the "protective" order, then that imbalance of power being created by the "protective" order is no better than the imbalance created by difference in physical size or ability to win a physical altercation.<br />
<br />
The accountability that is needed is to uphold that all laws of a general nature are to have uniform operation. That applies to police, to judges, to physicians, OB/GYN pediatricians, and women as well as men. Domestic violence can not be eliminated without treating the entire family unit. Violence against infant males creates resentments and PSD that will come back someday and bite you in the ass. Stop the cycle of violence by not beginning it with each new generation.<br />
<br />
In the state of Utah, the state judges are required to attend ongoing education classes. I happen to know that one of the classes they attended was one taught by a psychologist who has studied the effects of childhood trauma on that child's adult behavior later in life. They are taught that one of the primary reasons to end domestic violence is to prevent that traumatization, to reduce future crime rates. I agree, since I know that people learn by example. If the only way somebody knows how to solve a problem is to... There are standard reactions to common situations that people pick up out of context in life. The first reaction is not always the best one. It is important that people who run into these kind of problems be diverted into "cognitive restructuring" therapy, or classes...<br />
<br />
In one of those therapy sessions (if Medicare pays for it) or classes (if Pell grants can?) the attendees are taught about the "thinking errors." One of those, from a handout, is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Justifying: In avoiding responsibility for her own behavior, a person finds a <i>reason</i> for what she has done. "He wouldn't do what I wanted him to do, so I yelled at him." or "They all did it, so why can't I?"</blockquote>
It would be despicably ironic if the Court's version of "Justice" works according to that, uhh, <i>principle</i>! Another "thinking error" is called "closing the channel." It's when she claims he fails to listen to what she had to say, or when she shouts over him to prevent me him from saying something that might give an indication that he was paying attention after all... So, what good does it do when only one of the two people is "treated" with "therapy" that points out these thinking errors? It all comes down to communication skills and relationship dynamics, right?<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the whole point of <i>treating domestic violence as a societal illness</i> is to eliminate bullying and violence as a <b>mean</b>s of conflict "resolution." How else can conflicts be truly resolved, if not through a formal process of some kind that necessarily involves communication?<br />
<br />
[...|...]<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence" target="_blank">presumption of innocence </a>stems from the idea that most people are not criminals. I bet that a careful study of these "Protective Order" cases would reveal that the majority of the complaints do not involve any actual violence, per se. Honestly, if the Respondent truly had committed a serious act of aggression against the Petitioner, then Petitioner could have had Respondent charged with a crime for it, right? Well, actually, often enough she can have him charged with a crime regardless of whether he's committed one... and certainly they issue these "protective" orders without either due process of law or true evidence... And then the Petitioner can have Respondent arrested for things that are not truly crimes, in the absence of a "protective" order. So then, Respondent can be jailed for something that's not truly dangerous... (no time to polish this now. Got to go, sorry.)<br />
<br />
[...|...] <br />
<br />
In Utah, from what I gather, the warrants issued to the peace officers who are charged with arresting someone do not contain very much information about what the person is accused of having done. It tells them the title of the crime the person is alleged to have committed, and it tells them the amount of the bail. It does not describe any details of what the person is alleged to have actually done that would constitute a violation of the law. The problem is that sometimes they have set the bail very high, which I think would tend to cause them to believe that the thing the person is accused of must be very serious or dangerous. Utah Code <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02_040400.htm" target="_blank">76-2-404</a> defines the circumstances under which they are authorized to use deadly force.<br />
<br />
If a warrant was issued for two counts of third degree felony violations of a protective order with the bail set at $100000, and that's all they officially know about it... they might go to arrest the man believing him to be very dangerous to either them, the public, or the woman holding the protective order. If the things the man is alleged to have actually done that supposedly violate that protective order are not truly violent in nature, or turn out to not truly be violations of the protective order, then what justifies the extremely high bail amount? You may think this scenario is unlikely to happen, and so would I have prior to my own experiences, which I promise to describe with more detail in a future blog entry.<br />
<br />
The courts need to be held accountable to keeping bail amounts at levels that are not constitutionally excessive. Warrants must be required to contain a description of what the person is alleged to have done that would constitute a violation of the law. For example, if the offence is for "having written several emails that did not pertain to their child under a protective order that limits email to only those that pertain to the child" then that information ought to be available to the officers sent to arrest the "perpetrator". Certainly a crime charged for such an email, had the email been <i>threatening</i> in nature, would certainly feature that fact about that email. In that case, the exact nature of the threat ought to be included in <b>what those officers are given to believe about the suspect</b>.<br />
<br />
Leaving that sort of information out, and then allowing them to extrapolate regarding the type or seriousness of the alleged <i>actus reas</i> based solely on the title and degree of the charges and the bail amount is a set-up for potential wrongful use of deadly force should the suspect panic and attempt to flee. And what would a man think, if all he really did was send a text message, under a protective order that allowed email, asking if his son has returned from a visit with his grandfather, but they have issued a warrant alleging a violation of the protective order, and then gone and set bail at $100000!?? This really happened! And what if, in his experience, they refuse to listen to his side of the story, and are known to keep people jailed for extended periods of time, pre-trial, despite that the alleged crime is non violent <i>per se</i>? He may feel that he is well within his rights to avoid being arrested, since the excessive bail renders the warrant illegal; especially if he needs time to gather exculpatory evidence to present in court.<br />
<br />
[...]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-size: 90%;">
When I attempted to post my comments to that article on the ACLU web site, their antispambot refused to allow me to do so. That is very annoying, and uncannily resembles the "channel closing" reactions to my attempts to communicate with women who advocate and exploit these laws with their one-sided rhetoric.<br />
<br />
Several times when I've had things to say regarding the "Twofaced Women Who Act Like Violence has Been Done" law... on various news web sites... I've been censored unless I express a point of view copacetic with the mounted dogmatic rhetoric used to convince people that these laws are fair, effective, and necessary. I suspect that men who express opinions not in keeping with that of these women's advocate's straw man arguments are met with "adult voice" "ex-communication" admonishments and channel closing dismissals, if not outright shrieking, pinching, or slapping to stop them from saying it. It's amusing to think that a woman so quick to censor and so willfully ignorant could ever have learned to program an artificial intelligence that blocks these sort of remarks from being posted on the ACLU web site... She'd have held herself back and never graduated college, right?</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com1Salt Lake City, UT, USA40.7607793 -111.891047440.664562800000006 -112.0489759 40.8569958 -111.73311890000001tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-14773657165812690622012-06-13T13:13:00.000-06:002012-06-14T18:07:42.558-06:00Letter to US Global AIDS Coordinator, Washington DC<br />
Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator<br />
SA-29, 2nd floor<br />
2201 C. Street NW<br />
Washington, DC 20522-2920<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Global AIDS Coordinator,<br />
<br />
I know for certain that many American and World Citizens are horrified and appalled by the thing that this article on your web log is talking about:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/swaziland_pepfar">http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/swaziland_pepfar</a><br />
<br />
It reveals something about what you really are that you do not allow uncensored comments to be posted there. I guarantee there are links to that page with plenty of commentary by We The People whom you've been blatantly ignoring. You do not have our permission to use our tax dollars for any HIV prevention program involving genital mutilation. I am certain that I speak for a growing contingent of the American population. CDC statistics show that fewer and fewer Americans are allowing their son's penises to be mutilated. Many Americans no longer trust the corporate hospital birthing system. It's no wonder.<br />
<br />
It is certain that circumcision does not prevent HIV, which is most famously caused by having intimate contact with an infected individual. I've read that iatrogenic HIV infection rates are very high in Africa. Teaching them to masturbate will do more for preventing HIV than amputating the men's foreskins will. Amputating the most sensitive part of their bodies in an attempt to make sexuality less interesting will not prevent them from ‘‘doing it.'' <a href="http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=63" target="_blank">It hasn't worked here in the United States. Why would it work in Africa?</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204" target="_blank">Reuters</a>) - <span style="font-size: x-small;">Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.<br />Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.<br />"We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners," Millett told reporters in a telephone briefing.<br />Doctors believe circumcision protects men because of specialized cells in the foreskin of the penis, which is removed in the procedure. The foreskin is filled with immune cells called Langerhans cells, which are the immune system's sentinels and attach easily to viruses — including HIV.<br />In addition, sexual intercourse may cause tiny tears in the foreskin, allowing the virus into the bloodstream.<br />The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent -- the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.<br />Millett's team studied 1,079 black and 957 Latino bisexual and homosexual men from New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. They filled out a computer survey and were tested for the AIDS virus.<br />"Overall, we found no association between circumcision status and HIV infection status among black or Latino (men who have sex with men)," said Millett, who presented his findings to the CDC's National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.<br />Experts knew circumcision would not protect a female sex partner, nor the male sex partner being penetrated.<br />But Millett's study found no benefit of circumcision to any of the men. "We also found no protective benefit of circumcision among those men reporting recent unprotected sex with a male partner in which they were exclusively the insertive male partner," he said.<br />HIV is much more common among black and Latino men than whites and this may offset any protection offered by circumcision, Millett said. Black and Latino men are more likely to have sex with other black and Latino men, and thus may be exposed to HIV more often than white men.<br />The CDC is about to release new estimates of how many people become infected with the fatal and incurable human immunodeficiency virus each year in the United States.<br />The CDC estimates that more than 1 million Americans are infected, of the 33 million infected people globally. </span></blockquote>
The Langerhans cells probably prevent HIV. They bring the virus inside in order to destroy it, before it can affect the DNA of other cells it enters. So amputating the foreskin is likely to increase the HIV rate, not decrease it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"<a href="http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/10/us-navy-finds-that-circumcision-does-not-prevent-hiv-or-stis.html" target="_blank">Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI. Conclusions: [circumcision] is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population.</a>"<br />Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population<br />Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA; International Conference on AIDS (15th : 2004 : Bangkok, Thailand).<br />Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. TuPeC4861. Naval Health Research Center, DHAPP, San Diego, CA, United States<br />Background: Lack of male circumcision has been found to be a risk factor for HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in several studies performed in developing countries. However, the few studies conducted in developed nations have yielded inconsistent results. Policy regarding circumcision of male infants as a prevention measure against HIV/STI remains a controversial topic. This study describes the prevalence of circumcision and its association with HIV and STI in a U. S. military population.<br />Methods: This is a case-control study of male HIV infected U. S. military personnel (n= 232) recruited from 7 military medical centers and male U. S. Navy controls (n=516) from a general aircraft carrier population. Cases and controls completed similar self-administered HIV behavioral risk surveys. Case circumcision status was abstracted from medical charts while control status was reported on the survey. Cases and controls were frequency matched on age. Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI.<br />Results: The proportion of circumcised men did not significantly differ between cases (84.9%) and controls (81.8%). Prevalence of circumcision among men born in the U. S. was higher (85.0%) than those born elsewhere (58.1%). After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users, 5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+ partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high for men who were single or divorced/separated.<br />Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population. </span></blockquote>
There are many critiques of the studies that allege that circumcision prevents HIV infection. The fact is, amputating part of the body's integumentary system is obviously not a good way to prevent infection. It is quite the opposite. The United States has the highest HIV rate in the industrialized world, and also has the highest circumcision rate. You need to read more than just the few ‘‘studies'' written by the circumfetishists who enjoy amputating the most sensitive part of other men's bodies. They delight in rendering other men impotent. This circumcision campaign is a vaguely masked act of violence against males. It amounts to an act of war — a war of agression — against those nations. Sooner or later, they are going to learn the truth, whether you like it or not, even if you censor their Anatomy textbooks to cut the foreskin out of the picture. The mere use of anesthesia does not render the act ‘‘non-violent,'' nor does performing it in a hospital or clinical setting render it a ‘‘medical procedure.'' Using anesthesia adds insult to injury — he'll never feel a thing… after you amputate 50 to 80 percent of the sensitive nerve endings from his penis.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/01/domestic-violations-of-international.html" target="_blank">‘‘Circumcision'' is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as ‘‘Male Genital Mutilation.''</a> It is the wanton amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part, which is certainly a second degree felony under Utah Statute 76-5-105, ‘‘Mayhem.'' Infant Genital Mutilation also certainly falls under 76-5-109, ‘‘Child Abuse''. In particular, the following definitions given under 76-5-109(1) can be easily shown to be applicable:<br />
<ul>
<li> 76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(B). ‘‘involves physical torture''</li>
<li> 76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(G). ‘‘any conduct toward a child that results in
severe emotional harm, [...] or severe impairment of the child's ability
to function,'' and</li>
<li> 76-5-109(1)(f)(i)(H). ‘‘any injury that creates a permanent
disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a
bodily member, limb, or organ.'' </li>
</ul>
Given the true and factual information about the anatomy and physiological function of the male prepuce explained by the D.O.C. Policy Statement, along with the above definitions from the Utah Statutes, Child Abuse 76-5-109(2)(a) makes Infant Male Genital Mutilation a second degree felony. Other illegal acts involved include the inchoate offense of Solicitation for Conspiracy to commit, Fraud by Deception, and Omission or failure to act. Genital Mutilation is not a ‘‘rite.'' It is a crime. Further, because this brutally harmful atrocity has seen such widespread and systematic practice in the United States of America, it truly fits the definition of a ‘‘Crime Against Humanity'' as defined by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute recognizes rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, ‘‘ are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. '' </blockquote>
The United States of America justified the invasion of Iraq, in part, by citing the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein's regime---e.g. the use of poison gas against the Kurdish people. If that war was justifiable, then perhaps it is reasonable to consider Male Genital Mutilation to be a threat to U.S. National Security. It does not require very many steps of reasoning to cross the border between U.S. actions in Iraq and forseeing a large posse entering within this country to do battle against these domestic violations of human rights. Fortunately, this is not a battle likely to be won with the use of destructive weaponry. Violence is the problem, not the solution. Furthermore, if our own citizens, law enforcement, and courts will not acknowledge Genital Mutilation as an atrocious crime, then certainly our ‘‘government'', guilty of selective enforcement of it's own laws, faces a very serious legitimation crisis. We can no longer live in denial of this obvious threat to our health and welfare. We need to look the serpent in the eye, see it for what it is, and help it to become entire and whole again. We must end the cycle of violence by refusing to continue to inflict pain and deprivation upon each new generation, and by protecting infants from those who would continue this atrocity.<br />
<br />
I encourage you to do much more reading before you implement such drastic measures. What you are doing to those men in Swaziland is highly offensive to the majority of the population of planet earth. It is a violation of international treaties that prohibit torture and crimes against humanity. HIV can be more effectively prevented with sex education and condoms.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-88752555321354766452012-05-15T10:04:00.000-06:002013-03-09T04:55:36.956-07:00Invasion of the Snuggy-Snatchers<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TO0FljaI5dM/T7J3lGig7PI/AAAAAAAADN0/YyBXul4OKj0/s1600/100_3582.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TO0FljaI5dM/T7J3lGig7PI/AAAAAAAADN0/YyBXul4OKj0/s320/100_3582.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Snuggy Snatcher getting high.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I was just thinking about how one would <a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/TVSitcomsS-Z.html" target="_blank">explain to a little boy</a> why his penis has a "turtleneck" when his father's doesn't.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think I'd say, pointing to his <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/" target="_blank">akroposthion</a>, "<a href="http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=52" target="_blank">Jeepers</a>, kiddo! That's your snuggy. Daddy doesn't have a snuggy because there was <a href="http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm" target="_blank">an evil regime in power</a> during the year he was born who <a href="https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=catch+22+can%27t+stop" target="_blank">strategically posted</a> snuggy-snatchers at every birthing facility in the nation..." And so, in spite of the fact that my family was ostensibly <a href="http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/" target="_blank">Catholic</a>, my snuggy was snatched off. It was also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=censorship+of+images+in+the+united+states&title=Special%3ASearch" target="_blank">cut out of the picture</a> in every <a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/materials.html" target="_blank">anatomy and physiology textbook</a> available to G.P. They tried to disappear it; to make it never have existed. If you don't believe me, then visit your local libraries, and look for the male prepuce in the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Physiology-Biological-Sciences-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=491704" target="_blank">anatomy textbooks</a> you may or may not find there.</blockquote>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LoI09TAdn6w/T7KCa8iFMuI/AAAAAAAADOA/b8odOY4nitw/s1600/100_3595.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; font-family: serif; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LoI09TAdn6w/T7KCa8iFMuI/AAAAAAAADOA/b8odOY4nitw/s320/100_3595.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nature's Design Altered.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Snuggy Snatchers are quite vile beasties. They get high on the suffering of others. It gives them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_murder" target="_blank">a rush in their gonads</a> when they <a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/12/rabbi-accused-of-inflicting-infants-with-herpes-during-circumcisions-and-killing-one-boy/" target="_blank">bite off a baby's snuggy</a>. That's why they do it. They are very dangerous and especially clever at making up lies to explain away their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty" target="_blank">Pederastic</a> wrongdoings. They hang <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath" target="_blank">medical diplomas</a> on their walls and pretend to know more about it than your mother... who had probably <a href="http://menshealth.about.com/od/sexualhealth/f/masturbation5.htm" target="_blank">never been allowed to see</a> one. Like wolves in sheep's clothing, these <a href="http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20071204&t=2&i=2376885&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2007-12-04T162509Z_01_N03455451_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0" target="_blank">green meanies</a> dressed as warm fuzzies will take the babies away to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm" target="_blank">secret soundproof chambers</a> where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_Iron_Mask" target="_blank">nobody can hear them scream</a>. They strap the baby down on an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics" target="_blank">infant sized crucifix</a> (known as a <a href="http://www.cirp.org/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=circumstraint" target="_blank">Circumstraint</a>) with Velcro straps, and only after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM_dungeon" target="_blank">locking themselves securely into that closet</a>, do they <a href="http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/TITLE76/htm/76_05_040203.htm" target="_blank">grab the baby's snuggy with their evil implements</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">My apologies to the artists who created the <span style="font-size: x-small;">works <span style="font-size: x-small;">shown here<span style="font-size: x-small;">, <span style="font-size: x-small;">that</span></span></span> I photographed through<span style="font-size: x-small;"> the window of a <span style="font-size: x-small;">downtown Salt Lake City art gallery, for I have not formally asked for their permission to publish photographs of th<span style="font-size: x-small;">eir artwork. I hope they are <span style="font-size: x-small;">o</span>kay with my having posted th<span style="font-size: x-small;">ese<span style="font-size: x-small;">, </span>and with my int<span style="font-size: x-small;">erpretation of the beasties<span style="font-size: x-small;"> they had displayed that day.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></i></blockquote>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-60635555042512046392012-04-11T12:42:00.000-06:002012-05-16T17:32:52.710-06:00Mitt Romney, the Law of Tithing, and the Words of Wisdom<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney" target="_blank">Mitt Romney</a> is a member of the <a href="http://www.lds.org/" target="_blank">Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints</a>. The Latter Day Saints (LDS) have <a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng" target="_blank">some very important principles</a> that seem relevant to issues raised by an email I just received that is soliciting campaign funds for the Democratic Party. It is telling me that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Either Mitt Romney will win, give huge tax cuts to billionaires and Big Oil, and end the Medicare guarantee for seniors -- or we can elect a strong Democratic Majority to back President Obama and move America forward.</blockquote>
The LDS Church has a thing called the "<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-32-tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng" target="_blank">Law of Tithing</a>." It is what ensures that there are sufficient funds to pay for the human services that they provide. The LDS Church is one of the best human service organizations in the nation. They are very well organized, and they really get after it and things really get done that help people for real. It's not just a hand-out; it's a hand-up. Here in Salt Lake City, there is "<a href="http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/eng/visitors-centers/salt-lake-city-welfare-square" target="_blank">Welfare Square</a>," where there is a dairy, a cannery, and a bakery, as well as a "<a href="http://deseretindustries.lds.org/?lang=eng" target="_blank">Deseret Industries</a>" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Industries" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>) store and "<a href="https://apps.lds.org/welfareoperations/overview.jsf?operation=bishops.storehouses" target="_blank">Bishop's Storehouse</a>." They feed, clothe, and educate a lot of people. If not enough members payed tithing or made fast offerings, the church would not have sufficient funds to maintain these programs.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-20-baptism?lang=eng" target="_blank">Baptism</a> is a symbolic re-birth into the Church "family." Upon baptism, the initiate takes on "the name of Jesus Christ." Thus, everyone in the <i>collective agency</i> has taken on this name as "<i>their</i> own..." (plural "their", not singular "his") The Latter Day Saints believe that "<a href="http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng" target="_blank">The family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children</a>." We are all His children. Our <a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-1-our-father-in-heaven?lang=eng" target="_blank">Heavenly Father</a> wants all people, of all races and nationalities, to <a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng" target="_blank">co-exist with one another in peaceful love</a>. The purpose of an organized church is to foster the maintenance of <i>Tradition --- </i>which has the same word-root as "trade" --- which is the handing down of knowledge and <i>Lore</i> from one generation to the next, from the Father to the Son, from the Mother to her Children, from the Master to the Apprentice, from the Professor to the Student, and from the Prophet to our Congregation. I was taught that the language of the bible is archaic, and that over the years a certain amount of "semantic drift" has occurred, and so many people often... misunderstand it... To "consult with the Lord" simply means ask someone who's thoroughly studied the subject matter when you need assistance in making a correct decision. The "Lord" are simply those who have been gifted and entrusted with the Lore.<br />
<br />
Over the millennia, human civilizations have encountered each and several of a plethora of adversities, from ice ages, famine, disease epidemics, mortal conflict with other groups of people; technological advances and setbacks have occurred, and through all of this, the most successful civilizations, it stands to reason, must have always had to be the ones who were the most diligent at preserving their collective knowledge by taking great care to hand it down intact and in en<i>tire</i>ty, from one generation to the next. Technologies and behaviors become deprecated and eventually obsoleted when serious flaws are discovered, and in the process, better methods, materials, and ideals are developed; compendiums of "best practices" are generated; and as time marches on, We Evolve... but things we don't use often enough will essentially atrophy, or be forgotten. There are some things We should not allow to atrophy! There is knowledge We must not lose! There are lessons that, when forgotten, are at least as expensive to learn again as they are to learn the first time.<br />
<br />
The government of the United States of America, and that of each of the states, also relies upon monetary contributions made by the citizens --- taxes --- for the funding required to pay government employees who staff the various agencies that provide governmental and social services. When there's insufficient funds, the government presently must borrow money from banks, and that means they need more tax revenue to pay off those debts... But if everyone payed their fair share of taxes, then --- assuming Good financial management, of course --- those debts could be paid, and the government could actually accrue savings or institute programs that could improve health, foster education, so we can <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/08/domestic-violence-laws-should-designate.html" target="_blank">raise our averages</a>, and <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-clothesline-deal.html" target="_blank">fund the reconstruction of our electrical energy and transportation infrastructure</a>.<br />
<br />
The Latter Day Saints also promote and live according to <a href="http://www.lds.org/study/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng" target="_blank">The Word of Wisdom</a>, which <a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng" target="_blank">strongly recommends against</a> the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, (and illegal drugs), and provides a brief guideline for healthy eating (and exercise) habits. The Latter Day Saints, among many others, are aware of the negative health impact of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol --- essentially the negative health impact of polluting one's body's little "ecosystem." It follows that the Saints thereby do not want to expose themselves to toxins such as <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/12.16-17?lang=eng" target="_blank">petroleum distillates, automobile exhaust, pesticides, herbicides, and nuclear radiation</a>. Of course those things affect the health of Our Living Planet by polluting Her ecosystem, of which we are an integral part. Obviously the health of Our Living Planet's ecosystem affects our own health, as individuals, and as a collective society. Thereby, the Word of Wisdom naturally extends to <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=petrochemical+toxicity&spell=1" target="_blank">strongly recommend against</a> the continued use of fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
So, what I'm saying here is that I think that <b>if Mr. Romney is <i>really</i> a Latter Day Saint</b>, then he's <i>probably</i> not in favor of allowing <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-clothesline-deal.html" target="_blank">people who have more money than they need to selfishly and sinfully hoard it all to themselves</a>; nor does it seem likely that he would be opposed to provision of Medicare; nor to the expedited deprecation of fossil fuels, along with the associated toxicity, resource contention, and armed conflict between nations. (Those are not <i><u>necessary</u></i> evils, they <i>are</i> evils, and thus they are not of God.)<br />
<br />
Of course, when Latter Day Saints pay tithing and give fast offerings to the church, there is reasonable faith that it will be spent according to the laws embodied within the Gospel Principles; it will be invested "as advertised" on the things you can learn about via the LDS.org web sites. <b>I think that many people, when they pay taxes to the government, are reluctant to do so, believing that the money is not being spent the way they would like.</b> They would rather keep that money in <i>their own</i> pockets, so they can spend it on <i>anything they want..</i>. They don't want "the government" spending it on military conquest... vs health care reform, education, and especially the long overdue improvements to our electrical grid and power generation system, and to the concomitant upgrades to our transportation infrastructure.<br />
<br />
But if a disorganized mob of individuals are all out there <i>today</i> spending <i>their own</i> money on <i>anything they want</i> right now, then what are they going to be buying with it? <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=pigeons-gamble-on-unlikely-jackpot-10-10-13" target="_blank">Many small things</a> disappear into the pores of consumerist society --- the divide and conquer competition of personal vehicle "separatist" transportation, gasoline to burn, widgets and do-hickeys, small frail plastic things that break, cosmetic surgeries, make-up, make-believe, closets full of more new clothing than they need, and no panacea for their ragged trousered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza" target="_blank">affluenzia</a>. If they were to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkoot" target="_blank">pool their resources and work together</a>, it could be argued... that same knot of people <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman#Lifting_a_mountain" target="_blank">could move mountains</a>, assuming the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, or anything.<br />
<br />
If we <a href="http://earthjustice.org/features/preventing-more-bp-type-oil-disasters" target="_blank">pool our resources</a>, and entrust our tax dollars to "the government", then presumably the money will be spent... And presumably it <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119" target="_blank">SHOULD</a> be spent according to laws, not according to men... But if there's nobody else left but <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=pigeons-gamble-on-unlikely-jackpot-10-10-13" target="_blank">desk-chair pigeons</a> in office, who allege to represent us, who then gamble our economic future on petroleum... Gamboling in our over-wintering hay-stack with burning money...? Then how can we sit back and have faith that the money is being thrown up on the feet of the proper agency, who will spend it according to rules they allege to follow?<br />
<br />
"Faith" is <i>not</i> meant to be a <i>passive</i> term. Think about it. Can you just sit back, talk back, and hope that somebody else somewhere else is going to take action to <i>do something</i> you oil or we all need, if that other person has no reasonable assurance that you will eventually get out of the chair and perform actions that <i>do something</i> in exchange? Somebody has to <i>do something</i>. One person alone has very little power to affect "the government" without quite a large knot of others all pulling (or pushing?) in the same or similar direction as <a href="http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/old-time-music/old-time-songs/pdf/johnny_booker.pdf" target="_blank">ole Johnny Booker</a> <i>can</i> do too, right?<br />
<br />
Many of the Mormon pioneers who crossed the great plains to settle in Utah Territory carried their belongings here on hand-carts; that is, small horseless two wheeled wagons. If you push the cart, it's likely to run up against obstacles you can not foresee, since <b>the wagon is blocking your view</b> of what's directly right in front of it. If the wheels miss the stones and prairie-dog holes, you'll likely trip and fall over some, since you won't see them until they are right underfoot. But if you turn the cart around, and walk before it, looking at where you're going... pulling it behind you, you will naturally follow a course that avoids running it up against <i>unforeseeable</i> obstacles...<br />
<br />
Democracy is it's own worst enemy, and sometimes, when not enough of us do our part, if we're not surrounded, we're at least up to our hocks in it. If it's up to a knot of fancy-pockets who think everybody else can just go git their own, they'll vote for no taxes, and sew poor old Uncle Sam won't have to squat for shine-oila, or anything... since they'll "probably" be stimulating the economy with that money, instead of letting "the government" waste it on banking fees and interest, right?<br />
<br />
I believe that the two party system exists more to foster the dialectic than anything. Granted, on some issues, they seem to be polar opposites. On some things, they warm up to one another quite a lot... There's got to be an optimal solution, but the "equation" does not always "balance" the way somebody else would like it to, since they see "variables" and "reasons" not included in (or excluded by) the "consensus" model.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that God wants us to form "consensus" by excluding dissenting opinions... Let me put it to you this way: There is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank">Theory of Cognitive Dissonance</a> which "proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements." But when the problem creating that dissonance is based in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics" target="_blank">physical reality</a>, we can't make it go away by gripping a wallet and injecting the tar sand into our heads.<br />
<br />
The problem is that dependence on any kind of fossil fuels, <b>at all</b>, is the problem, along with the associated negative health effects of breathing, or drowning in, it's <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/12.16-17?lang=eng" target="_blank">filthy</a> offal. And the problem's not going to go away on it's own. It's <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-researching-what-it-will-take-to.html" target="_blank">T=Totally</a> golden-spiked into our subconscious. Hmmm. There must be an answer out there... <a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-clothesline-deal.html" target="_blank">blowing on the wind</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0Temple Square, Salt Lake City, UT 84150, USA40.7705016 -111.892436440.7584761 -111.91217739999999 40.7825271 -111.8726954tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-3810449968957146622012-02-02T16:51:00.001-07:002012-02-02T17:00:13.593-07:00Letter to Joyce Foster<div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<joyce@joycefoster.com>From <a href="http://www.intactamerica.org/">Intact America</a>, I learned that in the State of Colorado, <a href="http://www.joycefoster.com/">Senator Joyce Foster</a> is sponsoring a bill entitled “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision.” On her web page, she states:</joyce@joycefoster.com></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
Another bill I will introduce is titled “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision.” Disappointingly, last year Colorado became the 17th state to discontinue Medicaid payments for circumcisions, a very common and many say preventive healthcare procedure. The funding elimination was supposed to save the state $186,000 in Medicaid cost. However, the state then lost the same amount in matching federal funds. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
I recently visited a friend who is a gynecologist and told her about my “Restore Medicaid Funding for Circumcision” bill. She told me that since Medicaid payments for this procedure have stopped, parents choosing to have their children circumcised in the hospital must now have the cash available at time of delivery or they are out of luck. How callous we’ve become. We can now expect private health insurance companies to review their circumcision policy, possibly jeopardizing coverage for this very important health procedure.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<joyce@joycefoster.com>I immediately wrote a letter to all of the Colorado Legislators. It contained the text of my blog entry entitled “Domestic Violations of International Treaties,” from a year ago.</joyce@joycefoster.com></div>
</div>
<div>
<joyce@joycefoster.com><br /></joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
<joyce@joycefoster.com>On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Karl Hegbloom <karl.hegbloom@gmail.com>wrote:</karl.hegbloom@gmail.com></joyce@joycefoster.com></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com><karl.hegbloom@gmail.com></karl.hegbloom@gmail.com></joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/01/domestic-violations-of-international.html">Domestic Violations of International Treaties</a>[1]</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
“Circumcision” is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as “<a href="http://mgmbill.org/">Male Genital Mutilation</a>[2].” It is the wanton amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part, which is certainly a second degree felony under <a href="http://utah%20statute/">Utah Statute</a>[3] 76-5-105, “Mayhem.” Infant Genital Mutilation also certainly falls under 76-5-109, “Child Abuse”. In particular, the following definitions given under 76-5-109(1) can be easily shown to be applicable: </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[ . . . ]</blockquote>
<div>
<br />
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Joyce Foster <joyce@joycefoster.com>wrote:</joyce@joycefoster.com></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com>Dear Karl,</joyce@joycefoster.com> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding Senate Bill 90. After reviewing the overwhelming scientific data validating that male circumcision reduces instances of HIV, AIDS, HPV, urinary tract infections, penile cancer and other infectious diseases I remain steadfast with my support to restore Medicaid funding for this important preventative health care procedure. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com></joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
A 2009 UCLA AIDS Institute study reports that “Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life”. Senate Bill 90 helps level the playing field for these children, providing them the same protection from contracting HIV as children with non-Medicaid health plans. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are working toward the same goal abroad, giving to the Global Fund for AIDS prevention. The Foundation cites studies that say male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by up to 70% in non-industrialized countries. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com></joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
In addition, the Journal of the International Aids Society recently reported that “The scientific evidence accumulated over more than 20 years shows that among the strategies advocated during this period for HIV prevention, male circumcision is one of, if not, the most efficacious, epidemiological as well as cost-wise”. Until last year Colorado covered male circumcision under Medicaid, and while the elimination reduced state spending by about $186,000 yearly, we must recognize that preventative care is key to sustainable savings. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com></joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Thank you again for writing and expressing your opinion with my office. I value your input. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<joyce@joycefoster.com>Sincerely,</joyce@joycefoster.com><joyce@joycefoster.com><br />
</joyce@joycefoster.com><joyce@joycefoster.com>Colorado State Senator Joyce Foster,</joyce@joycefoster.com> District 35, State Capitol Rm. 329, Capitol Phone: 303-866-4875, Email: joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
To which I replied:<br />
<blockquote>
Dear Joyce Foster, </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I think that you have most certainly not truly done your homework on this topic. I believe you are under-informed. Whoever gave you that information is not somebody you should trust. I challenge you to do a lot more reading on the subject. Read things by people who oppose genital mutilation, not just things written by the people who stand to profit from it. You need to review the research yourself, and read things that other scientists have said about it. The studies that claim it prevents HIV have been shown to be flawed. They did not pass peer review. What prevents HIV is not sharing needles or having sex with infected individuals. If you abide by the Words of Wisdom -- that is, don't use illegal drugs -- and the Law of Chastity -- don't go around having sex with strangers --- then you're very unlikely to ever contract HIV or HPV. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/">http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That site has quite an extensive reference library. I highly recommend that you read through quite a lot of it before you make a decision that will affect the lives of many young males. Of course, it may be that you know exactly what "circumcision" really is... "Circumcision" is a deprecated euphemism for an atrocity more accurately referred to as genital mutilation. The reality is that genital mutilation is a screaming nightmare. Imagine having someone tie you down with velcro straps to a little crucifix, and then grab your penile prepuce with a hemostat. You scream and struggle, and the masked man acts like nothing unusual is happening, as he crushes it flat, then jams a second hemostat under it to rip it away from the glans, to which it is still attached by a thin membrane. You scream until you turn blue and pass out from exhaustion... See: </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/">http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Anyone who thinks it's both Ok to do that to a baby, and Ok for the government to pay the perverts that do it, while knowing exactly what it really is, is not someone I trust. The laws are supposed to protect people from inequity and violence. The laws are supposed to apply to everyone. Claiming that "circumcision is a medical procedure" is like saying that "lobotomy is a medical procedure." And of course, lobotomy cures communism. It probably also cures democracy... and education. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://mgmbill.org/">http://mgmbill.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What we know from reading things like the article about "Solving the Negro Rape Problem" that you can find here: </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=63">http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=63</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
... is that the real purpose of prepucial amputation is to deliberately desensitize the penis. Interfering with natural sexuality probably increases the divorce rate. Natural sexuality includes courtship and marriage... </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/">http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Natural sexuality also includes self-pleasure (in private). With no culture of peer-pressure compelling people to go out and "get laid" by making them ashamed of taking a little time for themself, people are less likely to have sex with a stranger and contract a disease. We all know that circumcision was, back in the day, ostensibly supposed to be a cure for masturbation. But during the same era that it was being promoted for that, the "gelded age", men fought duels with swords and pistols. Have you read any of the stories about young men who got held down and circumcised against their will? They still do that in Islamic countries! There is a terribly evil culture of jealous violence there. Men are very possessive of women, and repressing the sexuality of other males is part of their game plan. So, circumcised males are probably more likely to masturbate, vs finding a wife.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So, circumcision can also easily be construed as a violent attack; a hate crime. You and your upper-cruft cronies may think that's what you should do to the under-class... Things like this are bound to breed dissent and increase the level of distrust of authority that already exists in this country. "You can't stop the signal, Mal." You're not really making a better world by setting a bad example. Mayhem is illegal, no matter who you are. Misprison of felony is also. Many people world wide think of genital mutilation as a crime. No wonder the USA can not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child! </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Inflicting painful trauma upon hapless infants increases the likelihood that they will follow that example and commit acts of violence themselves. The work being done to allegedly prevent domestic violence won't do much good unless you stop inflicting violence on infants. (I say "allegedly" because there are some serious problems with the way anti domestic violence legislation is written... Some people are saying that "domestic violence is the new Jim Crow," and that laws ostensibly designed to prevent it are really just a way to persecute the lower class. The government is splitting families up, not bringing them together. But that's almost entirely another topic... under the same heading: oppression of labor.)</div>
</blockquote>
<br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-49676071595260413822011-08-08T14:11:00.000-06:002012-07-18T07:14:17.967-06:00Domestic Violence Laws Should Designate Both Parties as Co-VictimsOne of the fundamental system problems with this cohabitant abuse protective order law is that they are required to designate a primary aggressor and a victim. The "victim" gets all the help, and the "primary aggressor" gets victimized by the system that jails, presses charges, etc. I'd bet that all too often, one of them plays the victim... exercises passive aggression, and plays victim... What it needs to say in the law is that both are potentially culpable for the details of their dispute; it's relationship chemistry, not his fault or her fault. Obviously, a proper analysis of this aspect of the overall problem belongs to the realm of psychology. Blaming the man and acting like he's a criminal when the woman is the one who has exhibited the most problematic behavior is not fair; and reverse the sexes in the above sentence or whatever and it's just as valid a statement; and more valid after inclusion of that last clause.<br />
<br />
Communication is not violence. Even hassling communication is not truly violence, per se; it is what it is, and we have many words for many meanings; you can't just pretend that an email is domestic violence. It's attempted communication. I don't belong in jail for that, nor is it righteous to effectively punish me by having a warrant out for my arrest. Locking me up until I essentially confess and take a plea bargain is not a good solution. Then I suppose, since it's really not violence, there would be no jail sentence, and part of the plea agreement would involve sending me to classes at Valley Mental Health... where they'll teach me to use communication instead of violence. But I did use communication! That's the point. The woman who is committing the “thinking error” of closing the channel, by obtaining a protective order that tries to make communicating with her out to be a crime... She is the one who needs to be put through their educational program more than myself...<br />
<br />
But that's just me talking. Obviously, a more holistic methodology with an equalitarian stance is what this truly requires. You can't consider one of the people in a conflict without considering the other, and especially how they interact with one another. And as a third party who was not there to observe what really went on in there, you have no way of knowing the specifics of the multiple-aspect culpabilities in the dynamic and volatile social interaction that occurred outside your sphere of observance or influence. Most people can learn and be taught to interact and communicate more effectively. They need to learn and be taught marital arts, not martial arts...<br />
<br />
Although... perhaps martial arts has a valid place in all of this though. If someone is going to hurt you, and you don't know how to defend yourself, you can't do a hell of a lot about it. By the time the police arrive, it's going to be too late. There's pretty much no way around having to either defend yourself, or avoid the danger to begin with. By the time you realize someone is truly dangerous, you're likely already in the danger zone; And if the person is truly the violent sort, getting a protective order isn't going to do much good either; in fact, it seems to me that it's likelier to provoke an attack than prevent one. It's already illegal to commit an assault. There doesn't need to be a special law against that. A no communication order is counter productive to dispute resolution. This protective order law has far too much potential for abuse, and probably does very little to prevent actual violence. It certainly does provide a convenient excuse to persecute the person alleged to be someone you need protection from... and how convenient! There is no requirement for evidence, no requirement for proof, no requirement for what we normally think of as due process of law, and no presumption of innocence.<br />
<br />
In many martial arts traditions, there is a very important concept of honor. One must never dishonor oneself by using the martial arts for illegal or unethical purposes; for instance, self defense is acceptable, provided excessive force is not used. You don't counter a bitch-slap with a head kick; you stop it with a parry and grapple. Honor also includes honesty. It's not honorable to lie and pretend that a wrestling match was an assault, or that self defense was an attack; And of course, it's not honorable to claim that an assault was a wrestling match, or that an attack was self defense. Honesty is something that should exist regardless of whether anyone who was not there can know for certain what truly occurred. That's what honesty is. And certainly, it is not honest to claim that this attempted communication is essentially a form of violence. I agree that communication can, either implicitly or explicitly, carry a threat of violence, but it is not violence in itself. A wrestling match is a game. It is not true violence in the sense that an assault is violence... Well, assault is attempted battery; and wrestling, when done right, is a game, and neither player is supposed to be truly attempting to harm the other; and to intentionally cause harm is dishonorable.<br />
<br />
I believe that males are more often taught martial arts than females; and along with this, they are supposed to be taught that proper sense of honor. Males are taught not to hit females, and to protect them; Males are rewarded for protecting females. All too often, females are not getting taught these things; they learn along the way that they can hit males with impunity, and if the male hits back, they can tell on him and get him in trouble. Other males are more than happy to play the hero to protect the damsel in distress. The protective order laws are designed by that type of female to exploit this situation to give dishonorable females power over males. If a male is truly violent and really commits an assault, this protective order law is not necessary to cause other males to act on a females behalf. The law tries to get around the male/female dichotomy and it's sexist implications by using the terms aggressor and victim instead.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com1Salt Lake City, UT, USA40.7607793 -111.891047440.664562800000006 -112.0489759 40.8569958 -111.73311890000001tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-87845743872164207672011-08-02T13:07:00.000-06:002014-11-12T00:52:16.999-07:00A New ClothesLine Deal<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FyXliFKjwvU/UrUPS5urPfI/AAAAAAAAOhY/SxMGBF6YV7Y/s1600/Peace_sign_Yggdrasil.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FyXliFKjwvU/UrUPS5urPfI/AAAAAAAAOhY/SxMGBF6YV7Y/s320/Peace_sign_Yggdrasil.png"></a></div><div>#NewClotheslineDeal</div><div><br></div>
Please keep in mind that I probably don't <i>really
understand</i> economics, or anything, since I've lived below the
poverty income level for most of my life... Thankfully, my health
is my wealth; I'm actually proud to say that I cannot afford to
pollute.
<br>
<blockquote>
Jack Balkin, the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the
First Amendment at Yale Law School, suggests two other ways to
solve the debt ceiling crisis: he points out that the US Treasury
has the power to issue platinum coins in any denomination, so it
could solve the debt ceiling crisis by simply issuing two platinum
coins in denominations of one trillion dollars each, depositing
them into its account in the Federal Reserve, and writing checks
on the proceeds. Another way to solve the debt ceiling crisis,
Balkin suggests, would be for the Federal Government to sell the
Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2
trillion. The Fed would then credit the proceeds to the
government's checking account. Once Congress lifts the debt
ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or
the option could simply expire in 90 days.<br>
--- Wikipedia,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U.S._debt_ceiling_crisis">2011 US Debt Ceiling Crisis</a>,
from “<a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-0%E2%80%8B7-28/opinion/balkin.obama.opti%E2%80%8Bons_1_debt-ceiling-congress-co%E2%80%8Bins?_s=PM%3AOPINION">
Three Ways Obama Can Bypass Congress — Jack Balkin — CNN Opinion
July 28, 2011:</a>”. Cnn.com. 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2011-08-01.
</blockquote>
In economic theory, from what I gather reading occasional articles
on Wikipedia, there's a thing called the
“<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value">Diamond-water paradox</a>.”
So, why do we pretend diamonds are so valuable, and water so
cheap, when water is vital to life and diamonds are just pretty
rocks? The idea of minting platinum coins and claiming they are
now money isn't any less fantastic than saying a fancy diamond, that you can't use for anything but a decoration or an item for sale, is
worth several thousand dollars.<br>
<br>
If you want to look at the
marginal utility of those platinum coins... Seems to me that <i>the money they represent</i> could sure
eliminate the national debt crisis, since the U.S. Mint could, hypothetically, simply make more of them to pay off all of the government's loans... but it could perhaps be successfully argued, in a forum free of coercion and information control, that paying the national debt with it would perhaps actually give it <i>negative value</i>. Consider what amount of the money got borrowed to pay for: wars of aggression to obtain control of petroleum producing regions, for instants, improving our national security by sending tortured and tormented young men, who have been encouraged and trained to be armed and dangerous, out of the country where they can't harm anyone here at home... So these youngsters are being trained to be soldiers, rather than organic farmers, construction workers, or electrical and railroad engineers. Good plan? What will be their future economic value? Will it be positive or negative?<br>
<br>
Spending that money to pay for those actions is likely what has reduced America's credit rating. Would you loan money to a country that uses it to send a well organized force of armed and dangerous "heros" to steal control of a toxic substance that they then ship "home" to pollute the air and water with? But we know that money "loaned" isn't real; it's just bits in computers. Don't harbor the illusion any longer that money is really anything but what and who gets brought home with it...<br>
<br>
Even more importantly, given that money isn't real unless it's putting food on our plates, the value of those coins is the value of the things that money can buy or pay for, like materials and labor to construct the necessary aerogenerator, smart-grid, and electric train rail infrastructure to move America away from fossil fuel dependence.<br>
<br>
So, perhaps loaning money and charging interest for that service
and the use of that money <i>essentially creates money out of
thin air</i>, in some sense, right? (Well, at least if that
interest is always paid on time.) Then if the debt's not paid, and
the creditor defaults, the credit company can sell it to a debt
collector, potentially for more than the original principal, since
the interest makes it look like a lot more than they actually lent
to begin with. It's like that old scam from back in the day when
it took more than a week for a check to get through the
clearinghouse, called “kiting checks,”. The fraud
artist would open a bank account with a small amount of money, and
then write a check from it to open an account in another
bank. That check would overdraw the first account, but not if they
wrote a check from the second bank to cover it... And then one
from the first bank to cover that... Abracadabra! All-Kite-Ah! It
amounted to the <i>creation of money out of thin air</i> that
could be spent on <i>anything yous want</i>.<br>
<br>
According to a show I watched once on The History Channel, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America">Bank of America</a>
got it's start after a San Francisco earthquake rubbled an old
brick and mortar building that was full of gold collected from the
gold fields... and some men noticed it, and looted it. They loaded
it onto a horse-drawn wagon, then stacked <a href="http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-9110-utah-war-veteran-seeks-peace.html" target="_blank">orange crates</a> around it
to hide the gold bullion from view, and rode out of town with
it. Nobody noticed, or at least nobody tried to stop them, since
there had just been a huge disaster, and people were more
concerned about finding clean drinking water and food than about
protecting some inedible gold bars. They later opened a bank,
which has grown to become Bank of America. So, despite the
nature of their original funding source, they are still considered
a legitimate bank; an autonomous corporation that can lend it's
money just about <i>any way it wants to</i>.<br>
<br>
Money's just a convenient abstraction anyway. It's a grand
illusion that we all <i>choose to participate in</i>, right? We
ooh and ahh and make a big show over how wonderful this gold and
these diamonds are, hooking their interest, getting them to buy
it, and then trade those shiny things for fancy-printed pieces of
paper we can take to the store and <i>just buy anything we
want</i>. In fact, it's such an easy scam, that... well, we can
sell <i>anything we want</i> as long as there are people buying
it! The trick is to get them hooked on what you're selling, so
they just about <i>have to keep buying it, even if they don't
really want it anymore</i>.<br>
<br>
So, as long as everyone can agree... that the government can just
mint a new coin <i>any time it wants to</i>; and we can all
agree that <i>the government's new coin</i> has value equivalent
to the borrowed money plus the interest that was created out of
thin air... Ok? So, <i>some people disagree</i> that the money
that pays the interest is really being “created”,
<i>per se</i>, out of <i>thin air</i>. They say that there's a
thing called the “labor theory of value” that sort of
explains how <i>value</i> is created or produced by the labors
of the participants in the economy.<br>
<br>
It turns out that there's
another thing called the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility" target="_blank">theory of marginal utility</a>”
that's probably worth a certain amount of your copious free
time. (Pray don't just look at it and say "So?"; Please read about it, and try very diligently to think about it's implications.)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augury">The birds</a> will appreciate your efforts, believe me.<br>
<br>
Ok... So, it's <i>probably</i> cheaper to bury garbage in a
landfill than it is to recycle it... Think about that for a quiet
green second or two... Now abstract the underlying concept, and
apply it to other things that “we” allegedly
“can't afford” due to supposed cost efficiency issues;
Like closing the coal fired Dynamos while replacing them with
clean wind energy... Like absolutely right now discontinuing the
continued manufacture and sale of automobiles that are powered by
petrol fueled internal combustion engines... And
mustard-ass-requiring participation in the construction of
electrically powered streetcar and inter-city railroad
transportation infrastructure... And hard-line forbidding the
untouchables' “Bins Laden” with coal, slippery-ass'
“Bins Laden” with oil, aggressive and belligerents'
“Bins Laden” with weapon exports, and
freedomination-to-sells' “Bins Laden” with
<i>whatever they want</i>; forbidding them from selling their
brand of more-oility to the Citizens... When petrol is the power
source driving a million dynamos, maybe that's million-air?
Funny... But after having <i>no choice</i> but to breathe
it... And after having <i>no choice</i> but to help create
it... It's not funny anymore.<br>
<br>
So, what would that cost again? Is it cheaper to just shut up and
keep breathing it, or anything? Is the marginal utility of
continuing to participate in creating or supporting that version
of “economy” so high that we can touch the ceiling?
Just <i>imagine anything you want</i>, and POW!, <i>Ex Caelo</i>, it's as real as the shadow of the wind,
right? So, watt DOE these things really cost, Johnny Booker?
Here's what; I'll tell you. The answer is <b>Time and Effort,
Plans and Raw Materials</b>. Those are among the true costs of
these wares, <i>ex tripudiis</i>.<br>
<br>
So, about those platinum coins. I think they should mint an extra
one, and use the money that creates to fund the creation of an
electrical railroad infrastructure, with enough extra wind energy
to take all the coal plants off-line, right now, heart-attack
serious. Many of us will be proud to accept room and board plus a
modest paycheck --- government sausage with a little bit of
mustard --- bought with a few shiny platinum coins. <b>So, use your
pockets, boys! Your money can't be beat.</b> Please don't just
throw it down the hole and expect us to go in after it. And, may I
suggest that the coin depict a naked emperor, and one with no indecent exposure, or anything.
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com2Memory Grove, 135 E North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT, United States40.777694 -111.88406tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1504256951899705184.post-79518188613199507342011-08-01T10:12:00.004-06:002011-08-01T10:14:09.782-06:00Text of Letters Sent to Undisclosed Recipients<p>
I have sent the attached letter to two judges at the Third
District Court. I have also
sent a copy to the District Attorney, asking them to route it to
both their investigations and justice departments. My public
defender has also received a copy. I authored
and sent this on my own, and was not acting on his legal
advice. The unsigned document is also published on-line:
<i>(Link is in the title to this article to the "Bail Waiver Demand Letter", a signed copy of
which was attached to the emails this text is pasted out
of.)</i>
</p>
<p>
... and you may share copies of the unsigned version; (I'm not
sure about the security of having my signature inside a PDF like
that, so I want to limit distribution of the version I've
signed.) Also, this next link is to a "table of contents"
linking to all of the documents pertaining to this matter that
I'm published via the cloud; The indented ones are the contents
of the DVD I brought in evidence to the protective order
hearing. <i>(That Table of Contents document is presently up on Ubuntu One; I plan to move things to Google Docs before I publish links in this blog.)</i>
</p>
<p>
In brief, a woman I have a son with used false information to
obtain a protective order. She has made trivial complaints to
the Salt Lake City Police Domestic Violence Unit (Detective
Woodbury), and they have screened charges against me. Each time
she complains, they escalate the bail amount, despite the fact
that the first set of charges was dismissed at the preliminary
hearing, and that I've not been convicted of any of the
charges. I have never failed to appear in court, and I sent them
a "Promise to Appear Upon Summons". I am not accused of any
violence; in fact, the complainant explicitly states that she
did not feel physically threatened by me.
</p>
<p>
The first set of charges alleged that I had "written several
emails that did not pertain to our child, under a protective
order that limits email to only those that pertain to our
child". The protective order has the word "email" whited-out of
the standard boilerplate form's "No Contact" clause, and the
words "email allowed" written in and initialed by the court
commissioner who granted the order. For this, I spent three
weeks in the Salt Lake County Jail. I was placed in a small cell
with a heroin addict who retched and coughed for an entire week,
and who had a reaction to the TB test the size of a silver
dollar and had to go get chest X-rays. I was then moved to a
cell with a man doing a year for fighting, who would kick the
bottom of my bunk to wake me up every time I snored. He was
moved, and replaced with an old man recovering from pneumonia he
contracted as a result of advanced AIDS, who was also coughing
and puking the entire time I was locked in with him. My court
"roll call" hearing for this was on April 1st, and on April 7, I
was transported from jail to court in a transport bus that had
one more prisoner than seats. The young man sitting next to me,
wearing the brown uniform of a medium security prisoner, was
excitedly describing an altercation involving money, drugs, and
clinging to a speeding automobile while the driver tried to
swerve to make him fall off as he attempted to strike the driver
over the head with the barrel of a snub nosed revolver. He had
been in trouble with the law since he was a teenager, and said
he was likely to spend the next 20 years of his life in
prison. And there I was, being taken to court for allegedly
"writing several emails...", bail set at $10,000., charges later
dismissed at preliminary!
</p>
<p>
The present charges, for which there is an outrageous
$100,000. bail, are probably (I have not seen discovery; I've
been evading arrest) alleging that I phoned her, and that I sent
her a text message. The Judge did not think that an SMS and an
email are equivalent, despite that she initiates communications
with me using SMS on a regular basis. The text message simply
asks "Is he home [from his grandparents] yet? I'd like to spend
some time with him.", in reference to our 22 month old son. When
the police officer came to my door to ask me if I'd called her,
I said that I had not, and that in fact it was her who had
called me. I took out my phone and opened up the call log, and
showed that to him. He touched the screen, and it began dialing
her number; he pushed the stop button, and it hung up, maybe
before connecting, though it shows as a 6 second call, IIRC. He
said he would note that in his report.
</p>
<p>
Again, the protective order clearly says "email allowed", and
there's a $100,000. bail set on this! At the hearing by proffer
where the protective order was granted, I was denied the right
to present evidence and to cross examine my accuser. I brought a
request for continuation to a formal evidentiary hearing with me
to the initial hearing. I do not believe that the protective
order is valid because it was not obtained through due process
of law.
</p>
<p>
The real issue here, is that the law that creates these
"protective" orders is unjust, and probably represents a
violation of basic constitutional rights. I'm not a lawyer, nor
am I an expert on the constitution, but my instincts tell me
it's just wrong. There are several studies out there, done by
people who want these laws repealed or modified. She did not
have to present any evidence, and I was denied my right to
present the evidence I brought, and did not have the opportunity
to cross examine my accuser. For trivial and frivolous
complaints, she has had me locked in jail and I've had to pay
outrageous amounts of money to purchase bail bonds to secure my
personal liberty. The "protective" order doesn't protect anyone;
it is instead a form of legalized abuse of authority. I would
like to see the law repealed, or at least, rewritten in
important ways.
</p>
<p>
I'm told that in most states, a protective order applies
bilaterally, such that it's mandates apply to both the
Petitioner and the Respondent. In Utah, she can send me a text
message, and if I reply, it's technically a violation of the
no-contact agreement. In fact, she has done just that! And, the
judge ruled that a text message and an email are not the same
thing, despite that she initiates contact with me via text
messages on a regular basis... so she's reported a violation for
a text that's identical to an email I'm not reported on for. I
think the law should state that SMS is functionally equivalent
for the purpose of defining "contact". A woman from New Zealand
whom I'm in contact with via a Facebook "intactivist" group
explained that the protective order law there allows the
petitioner (holder of the protective order) to invite the
respondent to meet, and that automatically suspends the PO for
that meeting; they don't require a court-order for that, it's
written into the law and standard-form PO contracts. I'm accused
of a violation of PO for having gone to the grocery store after
she texted me, insisting that I do that! She's angry because I
refuse to buy diet coke for her using support money.
</p>
<p>
Another problem is that in this case, and likely in many others,
the version of the protective order in the statewide domestic
"violence" database shows clause 2, the "no contact order" in
it's standard form, unmodified. That's the version the police
will see if I don't carry a copy of the order as issued by the
court, which has the word "email" whited-out, and the words
"email allowed" written in and initialed by the court
commissioner. This was noticed during the investigation of the
first set of charges brought against me, months ago, yet they
have not updated that in the system yet. Perhaps the software
they are using lacks that feature?
</p>
<p>
Certainly there must be a higher standard of evidence enforced
at these hearings to obtain licences to use the police as pawns
in a personal game of harassment of someone... For confronting
her about her drinking and other things like it, she has
declared that I'm not allowed to contact her; and the police are
supporting this by screening charges and putting me through a
lot of hassle. They act like I've done something terrible by
violating this protective order, and say things about how
serious that is; But I have done nothing violent; I have done
nothing that is illegal in the absence of the "protective"
order; and, I probably have done nothing illegal even under the
terms of this order.
</p>
<p>
For text messaging her, I'm charged with a crime, and there's a
warrant for my arrest with a bail set at a level on par with
murder 1. This is a violation of my rights under the 8th
amendment. Please make some influential phone calls on my
behalf, if you have the capacity to do so.
</p>
<p>
I recently received a text message from my son's mother, wherein
the claims that she still intends to get our son
"circumcised". It's a blatant threat of violence against him. I
submitted a Request for a Child Protective Order, which includes
that text message along with sufficient evidence to show that
"circumcision" is another word for genital mutilation, and that
it is, in fact, malum in se, and that it certainly fits the
definition of serious physical harm in the child abuse statutes.
</p>
<p>
The judge, a male, denied the Child Protective Order on the
grounds that I “failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” That judge does not belong on the bench.
</p>
<p>
<i>Never start a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, or paper by the ton.</i>
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14182133764965096096noreply@blogger.com0