The Dragon - An Unexpected Property Owner

 

I saw the film pictured above (The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey) yesterday and it left me more worried about the power of metaphor in literature than the worth of contract between warring fictional species. This is interesting as it can be missed how funny the joke of a dragon owning property is, especially when the dragon is considerable as a metaphor for all the jealously guarded gold in the world, all in a room doing nothing.

Yet that it is the cause of such misery, retrospectively, and such antagonism, contemporarily, not to mention all that moves for good and evil to restore any balance, the mood of any legal discussion seems condemned, if not to be condemning. Its stance is forced to seem aloof and oblvious to the implications, at one and the same time, of its lack of stance in a real world, a world where gold still has the same useless meaning as it does in the fiction, whether its value is real or not.

If it seems ridiculous that a dragon can have property, and there is even the slightest suggestion that law ought not recognise its property rights, then by implication -considering the metaphor- the legal stance ought be reflected upon for what this implicates in real life economics, and all in the good time of its own progress, of course. A legal stance ought not affirm a place for any economic system -encroaching on the otherwise scientific value of any such element of the periodic table - for a monetary value as something law would openly condone (rather than hesitantly be forced to deal with if at all).

This is all while its monetary value - being an economic fiction - in such a hypothetical scientific context viewed is of a different concern in deciding its stance than is law's. The various realities of others valuing our work done, economically, and profiting from it, the universe making sense, scientifically, and what we can say about these such things, legally, making sense, needn't be stances as are each so wary of one another's main concerns in order to get their own job done.

Legalities needn’t exist in the scientific world dictating what is scientifically possible within bounds of heresy. Science needn’t exist in the legal world dictating what is legally possible within bounds of revolution. Economics needn’t exist in the world of science and law, forever balancing such a relationship, and calling that such balance, if only but figuratively referring to it, limitingly, the price of gold.

[First posted as response to the following article on the irish website for human rights, Cearta.ie: <http://www.cearta.ie/2012/12/the-contract-in-the-hobbit/>]

The State of 21st Century Busking in Ireland

If you fear for your safety - and run - and they're role is made to protect you - you're in the wrong, for fearing for it so in their hands?!!! Tale told, of said incident, on said day, 'the man absconded from the scene'...arresting 'a man on the run'. Tale portrayed on video, however; fear for our lives, in their hands, has us know better an instinct in our natures; "the man feared for his safety in the hands of those sworn to protect it, and his instinct lead him to believe his safety better protected by making distance between himself and the unreasonable threat". Which instincts cannot be argued with, when faced with irreasonability, turning violent, as is sworn to protect and uphold peace. Who's to teach our insincts to suppress? Who's to suppress our desires to learn? What suppression is this?

If a gunman is on the loose, state needs give powers to certain chosen dutiful roles who might protect the public at large by having agreed powers to intervene. If a sing song is going on a bit late or a bit revelrous, tis not manhandling the state might ever dream up to create as the power of the role to curb it, in any circumstance, as it unfolds, while preferring to rely upon the rationality of human nature, and with sing song not being a threat to anyone needing such intervention. Indiscriminant use of violence wears yet the same uniform that looses faith for any or all of them: leading to not being able to discriminate between the uniform for the role of the power to intervene on physical threats, and the same uniform worn for noise pollution, or whatever sin it is against popular appeal requiring taste police to govern its suppression...that when the song says run, you run.

Nature gives us an instinct to take flight when in fear for our physical safety. Why ought we be in fear of our physical safety by those sworn to protect peace? What lack of reasonability of any state of affairs is not trusted to due process? Why blame the individual for this lack of trust - trust is a thing between such persons and roles - a relationship - not a one sided misunderstanding? Rather than any notion of malicious absconsion, a lack of faith exists that due process will win justice; and instinct in the moment doesn't ask of consequences what must seem to look right, as well as protect our physical safety there and then. As much as we should like to argue it, nature isn't going to change our genes - that we might lack such an instinct to take flight, from an unexpected and unreasonably violent situation...of power being in the hands of an aggressor as state. How can it be wrong to see an exit, and not take it? Better wait around for more beatings? Who's baton is this, to control the music as it sees fit, conductor, if you please?

Do you remember this, my holy ghost -these tensions causing- during the wars, just thus? How copyright interests should like to steal 50 years from us to send us back to Nazi germany. But its only going to need some few additions to the grand play to make its dream come true...The billion dollar industry can steal the platform -as is the step- between bedroom music and the stage, from the school of music - and, then, steal its back alley ways too?! But from whom? There is an industry responsible for this - not just a state.

If its interpretation is a question of representation and our chosen form of rule, "The busker didn't have an X-Factor phoneline for txt msg votes, and so was removed for being disorderly!"

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmdZZz3_6tuw%26feature%3Drelated&h=oAQFDpYUS

 

 

If Microsoft didn't exist...

The writers who left us the Old Testament were way ahead of their time. This is a screenplay with drama and special effects requirements that Spielberg or Kubrick could never even aspire to produce.

To dream up those wild anecdotes and strange metaphors, the chancers who wrote the Old Testament must have known all about the Big Bang and Evolution and all that. They just knew the audience in those days would never stay glued to their seats munching popcorn long enough for the earth to cool let alone for life to begin.

The only shame really is that the sequel got more attention at the box office. I mean, if the Darwins and the Einsteins of their day wrote the Old Testament, then The Beatles must have written the New one. They were very popular and all but look what happened to them. Now, Jesus might have been equally as popular, and might have sold more records, if he’d had a four-track, but he wouldn’t have won any prizes.

But you can see why they say that had The Beatles not existed there would be a need to invent them (at least the Americans knew this and so they invented the Monkeys…). But what about all the other characters from the Bible? Not many people these days can relate to that spiel about Adam & Eve and their tragic banishment from paradise by god. Not because it’s not a good story or nothing – Genesis on its own could be re-written as a Hollywood screenplay and it would sell millions. If not for the special effects then for the brief nudity scenes. But to bring it up to date, there would have to be some changes to the script. For a start, with modern property laws and a half-decent solicitor on his case, Adam could easily sneak Eve back into the Garden.

But what if the story wasn’t the evolution of knowledgeable man, shedding his once reptilian form and learning how it all happens down below, what if it was the evolution of information from the confinement of the printed page to the liberation of networked hard drives. The story would be different then, wouldn’t it? It might also regain some of its magic and mystery too.

You can be sure that when Bill Gates slides out of the tree the second time round to tempt Eve, he’ll be armed with more than just an Apple. He won’t even try tempting Adam …not with so much as a Gateway or a Hewlett Packard…. You see, he knows Eve will be there, nagging at Adam,

“Doesn’t he have a 3COM, or an NEC to offer us, for god’s sake?”

“No, but look at the label honey, it’s got Intel inside”

And Eve going, “Look, Adam, unless it’s designed specifically and unconditionally for use with Windows, has broadband global network connectivity, and you can play one player monopoly on it, I’m just not interested.”

Nah, before consultation with the poor unfortunate and innocent young ones, all powerful Bill would have promptly grown limbs, learned how to use a typewriter, got himself legal advice, and then presented Adam with the Microsoft End-User License Agreement, or EULA for short. Do you reckon Bill took Irish at high school?

Ammunition dump for a war of words

With the dawning of the information age and a mass sense of political awareness not foreseen, or perhaps dreaded, by the ruling classes of our past, comes an era where everything that has previously been taken for granted is systematically open for questioning and debate. The extent to which this awareness includes consideration of modern capitalist democracies and their place in our world, not to mention their stronghold on the world’s material wealth, has yet to be seen.

In the centuries hence, the masses have been bred on the doctrine that what is to be accepted as the norm is, without question, the way things should be. Religious and political institutions were founded upon the conservative notion that the ideas that form their basis should not easily be open to change. This notion well suited those in positions of power within these institutions, and their associates and families, to the continuing detriment of the subordinate classes.

In the same way in which the church denied the phenomenon of biological evolution to protect her intellectual assets, the embodiment of political thinking is in danger of missing the boat with regard to the evolution of the market and information culture in general. The Internet, an institution founded upon the ethos of free and easy access to information for all, has little need for such patriarchal protection of her assets. Indeed, alternative visions and supplemental versions of reality do little to threaten its continued existence, nor do they interfere with the informative power it has over us in our daily lives.

Our selfish genes did not think to inform their carriers of their tendency to mutate – we had to guess from the evidence that we had evolved. However, upon brief inspection, the evolution of information makes no attempt at hiding its capacity to transform the light by which we see the world. Information being the gene, and so it follows that technology is the carrier, the PC is a case in point. What began its life as an efficient form of office stationary with a built-in filing cabinet has rapidly mutated into a library, a high street shopping mall, public meeting place, etc., not to mention a virtual death trap for reality escape artists. If it’s potential as a political rallying point should not be underestimated, then neither should its proposed use as a ballot box be ignored.

In order that the individual may internally adjust to the external reality of all that our political ancestors have kindly, but inadvertently, gifted us with, and before we may rightly accept it as being the most productive and adaptive reality there is for all, we must first explore the alternatives. These might include speculations of what our world might be like in the absence, to varying degrees, of ideas that have in the past deliberately inhibited peace, prosperity, and progress for all, including those outside the ruling classes.

Assorted Quotes and Ramblings

If it weren't for the simplicity of light and shade, whole worlds would not be ruled but eternally in complexity.

Society is no dumb experiment without an evil laboratory technician.

We are all impoverished, where divine leadership concerns the lowly, but some of us find order in the meekness.

In matters of difficulty, to formulate is the thing that functions best.

Human nature is suppressed behind a veil of benevolent artificiality; its necessity always producing a truth for generations of its contingency to take note of in any era.  

Advisement is the form of rule one uses to look beyond the manifest creator of ideas of craziness, to seek that others might own them, for their minds, instead.

No one suspects having had happened across one's worst enemies plans when praising the divine, yet everyone offers willingly such blueprints to the same audience when the same praise is misunderstood. Its harder for a snake to bite its own tail than to loose one's own desire for youth, but then neither of these things are too difficult.

Civilisation maintains a principle of normality as cannot be enforced, but that, conspicuously, it becomes unto a secretive nature, as too often errs to override its truth rather than to contain its lie.

The conceit, as believes a lie -a worse such thing, as fault -than were it to be true- is a mirror, to look upon, for such things as are but only flaws.

Were it but that such ideas were open to question, for different classes of object and their subjective interpretation, a mob could plan a dream that they were kings, and kings but lowly puppets.

The escape route of being civilised is so too often imitated that it soon becomes its prison-hold, and what was once a blessing of an imagination, more fertile than feedings' need, then, becomes, a garden, overgrown with weeds.

It ought surprise us nothing, while there is as much complexity -at least- in the mind, as in the body -as each part of the body is connected -at least once- to the mind- that mind ought be allowed to function with the same normalities as has allowed cultures of our bodies to become quite a subject of mind's humour.

God's truths are simple, not in substance - but in style.

Tisn't easier to bully a reflection of youth, as physics discriminates not, and so a memory of youth is neither simpler to fool.

That we are censured in such things -ought strike us as more strange- than that ever we had cowardice to express our most innate feelings about God.

Oh no I'm left with the last word in argument, but yet the confusion reigns on!

The omelettes made by breaking the proverb's eggs were all vegetarian, obviously.

They're coming for you, bumblebees; the sunflowers and the daffodils, united, marching through the trees...There's a million things I'd do sooner than to entertain a state of disbelief.

Whenever it turns around, that words stare man's wit in the face -rather than, through need of norms in man's reticent nature: language, being, as it is- the accidence of his cleverness becomes as clear as his flaws.

I could feel feathers rustling, in my subconscious, as yearning, in their purpose -for ink- to become my necessity, whereupon the papal visit to a revolutionary, I did solemnly reflect. My imaginary crown did seem to fashion itself from newspapermen, whereupon the periscope of the submarine of the royal carriage of secrecy, I did furtively spy. With my bemused wonder, like the sort, perhaps, as has a pigeon for a piece of bread, I did subtly remark upon a question as struck me as time it were asked...whoever checks the dogs and the bumblebees when Noah must take their boarding passes?

As with the duty of any soldier, if made a prisoner of war, to escape - so it is the unconscionable goal of any civilian, if imprisoned, to discover by which such war they can be made so dutiful:- and, thus, if this is successful, redefine the art of civilisation.

The divine purpose in prohibiting to women the rights afforded to men might just be to redeem those 

rights in reclaiming them, and more. 

Stances in Debating Copyright

          Stances in Debating Copyright:

(1) The pragmatics of file conversion.
(2) Making an accurate copy.
(3) Forming a standard for copying in general.
(4) Preventing others from making money on your intellectual property.
(5) Costing others to access your intellectual property.
(6) Having to put bread on the table.

          The path in pros and cons to a common sense debating stance:

Stance of opposition of copyright:

 - proponents of (1),(2),(3), who recognise (4) as limiting
 - of these who don't recognise (5) as limiting
 - of these who find sympathy for (6)

Stance of proposition of copyright:

 - proponents of (4),(5),(6) who recognise (3) as limiting
 - of these who don't recognise (2) as limiting
 - of these who find sympathy for (1)

          Comparing contrasting extremes (6) & (1)

Those who want (6) to put bread on the table (or to their opponents harsh criticism more likely want to put swimming pools in their back gardens) find difficulty recognising (1) the pragmatics of file conversion as a basis in whatever reality they can seek to control with artificial laws of the materialist realm.

Those who pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion (or to their opponents harsh criticism more likely who will take whatever they can get their hands on without considering any moral outlook) find difficulty recognising (6) having to put bread on the table as a basis in whatever reality they can seek to control with natural laws of the virtual realm.

          The middle ground is more likely the more interesting argument*

Strong proposition of copyright (6), +(4), (5)

Those who should like (6) to put bread on the table should like to elevate the dangers of (4) preventing others from making money on your intellectual property [as a fundamental purpose of copyright], [which conveniently reveals a watershed in profitability of implementation of copyright, which is already quite profitable] so as that this justifies a stance of (5) costing others to access your intellectual property, in the first place.

Mild opposition of copyright (1) ->(4) -(5) [defence against above]

Those who should like to pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion would recognise sooner (4) preventing others from making money on your intellectual property than (5) costing others to access your intellectual property in the first place.

Strong opposition of copyright (1), +(3), (2)

Those who should like to pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion should like to elevate (3) forming a standard for copying in general [as a fundamental purpose of copyright] [which conveniently reveals a watershed in timeliness of implementation of copyright, which has already quite passed] so as that this justifies a stance of (2) making an accurate copy in the first place.

Mild proposition of copyright (6), ->(3), -(2) [defence against above]

Those who should like (6) to put bread on the table would recognise sooner (3) forming a standard for copying in general than (2) making an accurate copy in the first place.

          *Key to notation:

(#) various stances, listed above.
+(#) elevated stance (to support another argument).
->(#) sooner recognition of middle ground than extreme, reaching out.
-(#) stance negated by opponent as a valid one.

The more interesting argument than comparing and contrasting extremes slots into place quite artificially as a set of political stances, with one another's grammar also being in the firing line and the stuff of competition in debating. The same grammatical flow satisfies both sides, and so a claim to a stance as pretends to terminology is rife as a hotbed of thorny prickly issues, with some semantic conflict where definition would lack, or instead where the will to seek agreement between stances would lacking.

The strong proposition and opposition stances elevate the card in their hand, so as the card behind their backs seems mysteriously more fundamental in nature when revealing it in argument. Both sides claim the fundaments and the morals are on their side. One has a lot of money to show for this, and the other a watershed in time which has already passed. Whichever of these is stronger remains to be seen.

The milder defence against these stances then would aim toward that strong hand, and reach out toward the middle ground, toward the hidden concealed card the opponent in debate would play, while yet negating and rejecting going so far as to accept that nearest stance toward the extremes as a valid stance.

Poem: Whereby Wonder Suits

            Whereby Wonder Suits



                                                   Whereby wonder suits,

                                                   Particles clearly manifest a union;

                                                   Encouragement follows appropriately,

                                                   Self-questioning integrity,

                                                   In conditions for quietude,

                                                   Befitting of a gentleman;

                                                   Compatible with application’s visicitudes

                                                   of self-explanatoriness,

                                                   Becoming of an officer,

                                                   Conducive to being,

                                                   Self-evident in reason.

Poem: Struggle

 

         Struggle

            I see you lying on the ground,

            Your face in dirt and blood and tears;

            Fighting me off you bite my hand,

            I cannot get a grip;

            You kick me back but still I try,

            We’ve fought like this for years;

            You can’t see much with dirt in your eyes,

            I only wanted to help you up.

Poem: The Shadow and the Moonlight

                           

                                   
                        The Shadow and the Moonlight
                       
                       

                                    I see a shadow hiding

                                    From the moon by candlelight;

                                    Behind my hand he’s dancing,

                                    But not for her delight.

                                    Nearly, though, he shows her,

                                    As the moonlight is eclipsed

                                    By the candle burning closer

                                    To my eager fingertips.

                                    Ask, she may, for answers,

                                    In this mindless guessing game,

                                   Why the shadow never dances,

                                   In the twilight of the flame.

Poem: Sentence

Sentence

Alien foetus floats in scattered light,

The newborn climbs the cage.

Hatchlings hang from the heating pipes,

Polaroids recount the days

A plant bears its foliage in triumph,

This season’s natural selection

Of shared memories peddled, or pushed,

A copper throne to elation.

Poem: Inspire Me Again/The Bird and the Hurricane

Inspire Me Again/The Bird and the Hurricane

Strange how storms can hold a sway

On young creations’ wing;

The treasures that one blows away,

Another’s gusts will bring.

Misfortune fears his feathered fiend

To keep the wind at bay;

For if this bird is caught and preened,

A golden egg will lay.

Poem: Inverted Horizon

Inverted Horizon

Unperturbed gull,

Never tire of your squawk:

We know what they’ve done.

Those hard hatted soldiers,

Their anthills unfolding;

Envying the perspective you squander.

Behind cluttered skies,

Your daylight fades sooner,

And the nights pass star-less to dawn.

You glimpse beyond,

Where the quarry birds mourn

Their neighbours’ dreams’ fulfilment.

When will spring come

To this dormant nest

Where icicles hang from the edge of the Earth?

24 stories more credible than Irish Welfare

1. "Google Earth is used for the first time to dock someone's dole pay." 

2. "Government warns that anyone visiting a prostitute might be found out to be moonlighting the criteria necessary, also, for maintaining their dole AVAILABILITY."

3. "Because operating any machinery, even a light switch, is treated as sufficient proof of UNDECLARED WORK, and by the WILLINGNESS assuming of the SYSTEM'S DETERMINING MECHANISM, Facebook candidates who liked Justin Bieber are also being tagged to like Adolf Hitler; while only those who were detected disengaging Hitler's 'like button' were also targeted for being labelled as 'dole cheats'.

4. "Chimpanzees put themselves forward, recently, for AVAILABILITY for consideration to pass under the title of the human species; this was after noticing a loophole in criteria for a government dole scheme. This is following dolphins, only a short time ago, which have recently become suitable for dry land, by criteria of the same government scheme."

5. "Brad apologises to Angelina after confusion following discovery of Brad's AVAILABILITY to work, under Irish dole criteria. Although this can be proven through an Irish great grandmother, as distant relation, on his first cousin's side, Brad said that he had no particular WILLINGNESS to marry Irish. Under Irish dole scheme guidelines, Brad could yet be adjudged as AVAILABLE for WORK, though whether the relationship might WORK is not yet covered by the scheme. Should the Irish government outsource their representation at the UN as SUITABLE also for spouses, by standards of the scheme, he could do well, nonetheless, to avoid being caught cheating." 

6. "Their SUITABILITY as witnesses in hindsight of the Michael Jackson malpractice trial is proven for four Chinese panda bears, today, at Dublin Zoo. This was by an Irish Welfare dole eligibility criterion, though an Irish minister was UNAVAILABLE for comment on the relevance of the usefulness of the scheme. The Irish minister also claimed it was irrelevant, at the time when spoken to, that he was holding a bamboo stick under his arm."

7. "Their AVAILABILITY to be used as under-water weapons is being tested, this week, of swimming monkeys. This is after proving their AVAILABILITY through a set of criteria designed for testing eligibility for Irish dole. A spokesperson for the Irish Government Department running the scheme said there were no such monkeys working at its offices."

8. "Due to a high number of dole recipients also being means-tested for shares in the stock exchange on diamond markets, Ireland is to be included further in The Coalition of the Willing. This is whether or not its Government wishes it to."

9. "Their WILLINGNESS to have gone to war, and thus, it being their own blame, as implication, is proven by Iraqi citizens being tested for Irish dole eligibility. The minister also thanked the stringent application criteria for detecting war-crimes in Afghanistan."

10. "Decided under zoning laws, rather than on a basis of their AVAILABILITY for work, space shuttle missions landings will now not take place on the M50. This comes as the minister has already signed-off on its contract for a dole intervention scheme on Mars. Should any martians be proven to exist, and be AVAILABLE TO WORK, they might, said a government spokesperson, be slaves to the Irish constitutional remit already in force for commanding its sovereign territorial claim at the North Pole."

11. "The minister's AVAILABILITY as a spy, to China, is proven by that she wasn't in her own backyard at the time."

12. "Space monkeys, also known to relate well with dolphins, are feared might contract malaria on their return trip to Earth, as their spacecraft passes over several countries in North Africa before splashdown in The Pacific Ocean, Thursday. A Spokesperson for the recent Government scheme said criteria of AVAILABILITY, used in its initial surveys, prove that the monkeys in question were not up their trees at the time. This means, the spokesperson, also mentioned, that they were therefore AVAILABLE to be contracted for the disease, and so the government are treating it as very serious."

13. "AVAILABILITY for comment is proven by the location of a minister for state, at last. The minister, however was found not to be SUITABLE."

14. "Ex-president Bush was AVAILABLE, today, for comment on cheating the dole system, but not on whether he would judge his counterpart, Obama's landing, from India last week, based solely upon the perspective of spatial reasoning gained through the Irish Welfare System, and its ELIGIBILITY guidelines for approving dole; 'the WILLINGNESS of the Government to contract airline pilots', he said, 'whether this means that outsourcing them must come first, or not, or, on an ongoing basis, to find paid positions under state, or over it, is more important, a topic, considered under conditions of free market enterprise'."

15. “For the four days which passed while astronauts were on moon, AVAILABILITY to contract malaria was outsourced to the North Koreans. This was rewarded for proving ELIGIBILITY to contract, by a criterion of an Irish dole scheme. Irish government spokespersons were unwilling to comment on the significance of the powers in question."

 

 16. "Cause and effect is proven, this week, by scientists, to incorporate a chain of fools. This is after governments are observed, in a Theatre of the Absurd, to be ruling to the whims of a macro-determinacy, concerning nominal monetary prices, instead of with common sense. Mismanagement of a baseline in a market for ignorance, borne out by statistical absurdity, shows what one commentator described as a cause of 'plain-chant hymns' seeming remarkably prayer-like to be going on, in some market rates. 'Its like bandits and thieves have taken over the Temple of the Angels in the City of God', he remarked, remaining surprisingly nonchalant about the implications of what he was saying. Though this divine “music of the market” is thought to originate in an ephemeral realm, its physical manifestations are felt to be persistent without relent, describable only - by what he termed - as effects of what are, 'foreign disease-causing-microbes', becoming AVAILABLE in Irish airspace. 'These friendly-fire bacteria are observable using citizens as human shields', he said, 'not as changing proportionately or commensurately with any propaganda tool the War on Terror can throw at us, or any other war for that matter...besides, maybe, the music used in some commercially branded toiletries and cosmetics advertisements.' He considered this understandable, referring to the moral stake in human affairs of heresy, down throughout the ages, but, rather, instead, advised of threats exist relating diminutively with governance by a 'force of stupidity' to be more likely merely the cause of halitosis in the small numbers of those that are affected physically. Besides this, the intricacy of the causal chain unearths itself as simply attributable to an immoral claim upon any sovereign right to rule to begin with. 'This is typical of conditions of a media state which are also peculiarly oppressive', the spokesperson for the Irish Entomological Association, said, as he remarked also that, as he was 'without any papers' he could not so prove that such AVAILABILITY was not primarily contracted, instead, to the whims of a Colonel Gaddafi's attempt to oust foreign rule, as originally, this source, at least, might have feared, was the obvious and more likely basis for what was observed going on."

17. "The freedom of mobility of outsourced flea circus insects is being interfered with by Irish Dole scheme Chiefs, though this is not connected to a fearful bid to regulate their AVAILABILITY to be contracted as Lilliputian slaves. In a cut-throat diamond-market revenge-style plot, which unfurled under the scheme's GUIDELINES, the same insects were reputed to have promised to haunt zones of Irish dole recipiency, if not fed the right foodstuff, and not kept at the appropriate temperatures. While, unless Irish government spokespersons can assure us differently, said an insider, only those insects which are not proven AVAILABLE for work will not contain malaria. The commentator then remarked, 'the market for information concerning Government Welfare schemes seems unsure what to do next'."

18. "Unless the mosquito can prove ELIGIBILITY, by simple STANDARDS of not being on the right continent, to be responsible for the causing of any disease, then it is 'safe to say' that one can also eat tomatoes from any such 'concerning foreign territory', says a minister, continuing, 'as long as it is by government offices reporting such concerns, to be believed as accurate, then I would agree that you think that to be the case'."  

19. "Contracts for growing bananas go to spiders, as, having more limbs, they are assumed also to have, AVAILABILITY for more hands. This is according to means tests based upon ELIGIBILITY criteria in Irish Dole schemes. A minister for state in the Department in question replied 'no comment' when asked if this is reflects how things in the 21st century are assumed might work, when no-one is looking."

20. "Suspicion grows, lately, of the AVAILABILITY of a strain of the Ebola virus, to contract itself to a form threatening human victims. This comes after a discovery, in an Irish Dole Office, of mould growing over some perishable goods, found in the belongings of a dole recipient. The goods were detected while the recipient was queuing, and contained a bug which was found in a lunchbox he was carrying, proving, a Spokesperson claimed, under a criterion of AVAILABILITY, also their ELIGIBILITY to work. 'He could have been working as a terrorist', claimed the government spokesperson."

21. "An ordinary worker feels his job is threatened as proof arose of his leaving the county on one of his days off, for the purposes of holiday-making. The self-employed worker was found to have given himself the holiday, and thus was also deducted EUR 44 in his claim for self-employment allowance under a welfare scheme brought in to encourage initiative amongst the workforce. 'These people don't know what they are doing', remarked an official in the Department."

22. "An Irish Government department office today announced it will not decide its daily rota by swapping remits for times and schedules of Dole Office workers with standby airline passengers from Hongkong, or even randomly, as some had preferred the strategy of. A spokesperson denied that this might be as the roster was outsourced at late notice, and added a vehement denial that any hand-to-hand combat or 'any other contact' was assuming of the contract in question. The physics of spatial reasoning is a very important issue, the spokesperson, added, before doing a backflip and leaving the interview area."

23. "Considering conditions of interpretation of AVAILABILITY criteria for Job-seekers Allowance, a wealthy businessman, today, indicated his uncertainty, and said that he denies any knowledge of why Irish dole offices might soon be reported as having outsourced their workers from behind glass windows to a fictional bank on its lunch-break in Las Vegas. He also declined to comment on when he thinks further opportunities for convenient and timely scheduled work might arise."

24. "A Government schedule for the minister's jet is to be decided by coordinating it with feeding times of panda bears in a Chinese zoo. A Government chief whip had to change flight plans, last week, after nutritionists for the panda bears reported a change in their preferred foodstuff."

BBC news: “Protesters were refused permission to appeal”

Anyone can take down any structure...if they just close off a radius of two streets all around it. What is Justice allowed to do that it wouldn't be able to do, only that it also closes off the streets for certain events from time to time? Closing off streets for demolition lately? And, how ought access be treated? Closing them off for conventional evictions? Why ought their Magic Powers to bring the street off to a far distant planet -and then back again- seem like Earthly Justice? We are a species free to roam. We don't like things as require being done behind closed doors, so much as we require that we ought like such things, to so be done. Sometimes. Secretively. A bit of tact. A bit of discretion. But a cloak-and-dagger dawn-raid to oust peace-niks has be viewed differently than already it has been shown to us, yet, thus far. 'Justice is allowed to demolish and evict.' How is it going to do it? “You're allowed to reclaim the hanging apple”, the grim reaper is told...how's he going to do it? What other Powers has Justice? It can throw people from their beds. Hurl them across streets. The human species, preventable in their accessibility range, only, until recently, on this sphere, by such extremities as Everest and Poles, is now to be prevented from entering streets. Already, we have made it to The Moon, sent machines to Mars, unravelled the genome, and, about to unveil Artificial Intelligence, we can't quash a tent village without first closing off a two-street radius? “Don't go into the street: there is a bomb”; 'there's a diversion'; 'there's a riot';...people are camping in tents....? Our safety distance kept; our better direction made; dispersal of number approaching critical mass (whatever secret that test hides); but, don't go into the street – because tis so right what we are about to do...that it might blind you. Eviction has nothing to hide. But, we must do it before we get too much support. Support would only talk us out of wishing to complete the task. To keep back the fans and stalkers of policemen. To keep overeager housewives from joining in the clean-up.

If I can temporarily block off the street, then is it also right that I ought demolish and evict? If I can demolish and evict, then is it also right that I can temporarily block off the street? But what if I can't? What if leaving the street open, the masses would trample such Evictors? Is it, then, Justice as is going to be seen going on? Or is it a side-show of a controlled circumstance, taught only too well by political events, as have trained the masses to fear that Justice might be right in all that it might do to protect our lives from worse threats, seeming? Seeming worse, for the symptoms of not being free reacting in different ways, not being worse for having worse conditions to oppose. And, so we learn such Powers, watching bomb squads, as good men, doing good work. But, are they not themselves doing the damage? Is the fear of our physical safety and survival so great that it blinds us as to who's shafting who, here...to allow such Powers, and, those Powers invoked to protect a purportable Commercial Interest? If I can jump all the way to Mars...you just have to bring me on the side of a space rocket, first, and then land me gently, and I'll jump off the step...am I being Just in my proposition, to fool you, that I can? What am I leaving out of my argument? Does it seem unfinished, somehow?

Something you need close off two streets to perform -that it be done safely- ain't right from all angles. One appeal as ought get proper hearing is that streets be left open while such evictions are forced – so that the court of public opinion can have its permission to appeal in whatever way, naturally, that it might take place. There might be some right, by some order, to evict - but there isn't the balls to it in broad daylight. If it could be done, showing, then, also, the masses, what is Just, then we might believe it. But, showing a duped public, that a specially-identifiable node of a network of a mass of 3000 spores can seem as though like as if it were a head - if you treat it as one...before cutting it off - tis not for the right reasons that they are showing such masses, but concealed and dubious ones. Who knows who's angels don't also fart? Its probably the case that they all can, but just not without first closing off the street! Is street-closing argued when such legal wrangling is going on in open courtrooms? And what event must be its excuse, then? I don't believe that super-hero-magic-power-force thingy – that hocus-pocus, witches-spell arguable in a court of law, empowers their such super-hero giant-thingy to do that move. I think that move is swindled.

To bring cameras to a last stand -and to leave the audience out- shows that we care more about our television audience than our public duties; to bring police to a last stand and leave no room for the stand to grow, as it were, naturally, is chicken-shit. Police are there to protect removal by bailiffs - not to stop any protest from swelling naturally for the cameras, if one might have had. When else are the cameras gonna bring all such attention???...But, that natural courses and flows are disallowed, Natural Justice is, surely, also, disallowed. There's a conflict of interest in considering the role of the police - those who are to evict, and, those who would normally be seen to close off streets, and for whatever reason. Were it sufficient that it were so, that those normally seen to close off streets ought be there also, then why doesn't the bomb squad also get drawn in? Something is obvious is left out of the argument. Because I might know how to tear down structures doesn't mean I ought pretend a timewarp in which Law allows me to block streets to do my dirty deeds. I might defy the physical nature of structures all around me, but that doesn't mean that during times of eviction, these are going to be times when I legally have permission to block streets. Being the same force as would normally do such a thing in other circumstances is not good enough. There ought be a clear and explicit reason to employ such force.

And, the arguable reason worth discussing, seemingly, isn't worth discussing in any courtroom as decides that such evictions are so rightful, and, that it will be an end justified by every means employed, and a means justifying all of its ends, if not to say, a well-considered Act. Were they big enough to brave all the elements, including a species free to roam the earth, then perhaps their eviction arguments might properly hold sway upon their Hearing. But, don't look now, I'm taking the Planet Earth to another part of the Universe - and, then just making myself more comfortable, and this for reasons of Health and Safety...implementing a victory won, where good argument is supposedly had - it doesn't cut it, for how a Justice System ought be seen to be doing Justice. Had is what it seems. Don't look now, but I'm refusing Santa Clause and his Elves their way. But, why ought I wish people not look? Its Justice, I am, after all. Tooth Fairies show up to bring support – doesn't mean I'm worried. I, still, am The Law. I, still, am Justice. I'm still Real. Look how Real I am – I'm making a bigger effort now to hide what I told you I shouldn't have to. I only had permission to get rid of Santa's toy factory – I didn't really have permission to get rid of Santa and his Elves. But since the Tooth Fairies showed up – I'm gonna hide them, too – because I say what's Real. I'm Law. Or wait now – I wasn't supposed to be interfering with their right to protest as well, was I? How did I swindle closing the streets from any discussion had in the open courtroom?

Ain't that just the practice that 3000 sites need! Thank you London for showing some scruple. Doubt we know who's being tested though...four months, five – ah sure we don't take that slant. Crap, shoddy, workmanship, them slants. Protest or campaign? We don't like the slant on that issue either. Anti-globalism or anti-capitalism? Nothing to slant nicely about for us here, either. How come they have a slant at all?..Wait now, the Cops have a strategy...and, all the questions from the interviewer...the host...the presenters...are contending issues as would be of interest to...no...nevermind...nothing of any reason to ask. If they didn't spot “against corporate fascism” not being a school of thought which trips off the tongue with any convenience, then why show its inconvenience to anyone's advantage in bringing it attention? I'd just like to see more than one country perform so well in its slant-making – while others' houses of cards are falling down, and their lifeboat of morality is sinking, from their spaceship mother-earth; and, showing just how slippy their own roofs are...for the proper slant, as adjudged, as lets drain off, into the gutter, as best it ought! Ain't it full of the cleanest materials! Don't they just look just so chemically sweet! I wouldn't say 'toxic' about any of them. Urrrgh! Shiver me timbers! Who said that? Banking crisis rhetoric was it? Not our Cops at work, then...Did I also tell you I like the Toe-Nail Fairies. You didn't even know they existed!

The public aren't protected by the barriers. The police are. And the police are supposed to be protecting the bailiffs. But what are the police any good to protect, if they are blocked from anything, themselves, as might do them harm, and thus protected? Bailiffs don't need barriers. They need police to protect them. Police needing barriers! Tis inconvenient their support, morally, in the frame of circumstance in which they are supposed to garner popular support somehow in their civic duty...Exploiting the moment, they block the streets. The moment when things could swell. When cameras would come. Not the moment when bailiffs might be endangered. Not the moment when police might be, either. But, the moment when crowds might gain a critical mass and groundswell event.

What is for testing in all this protest, and, being for the testing of such things...pro-test? We are swindled in a cheat. Our 'anti-test' other half doesn't show its colours. Its governing, but not governing, what purportably is a species as ought think itself whole, were it not able to swindle such cheating games. Tis a species as cannot convene – cannot amass – cannot draw together, such that its behaviours might show what Laws indeed do exist, and perform, so as to show how it is governable – and those ain't the ones written! And, so tis forbidden, by taboo, to come together in such number, except when, maybe, there is some positive focal point of celebration in some festivity or tradition – such as, ordinarily, at a football game. There, though, there's no testing going on in the general character of the herd. The swarm moves as it would be wooed to move. And it behaves. But protest is something different. We become consciously aware that we are a crowd. And an animalistic crowd. We might like scoring goals, but we don't like to be oppressed. The intelligence of such a swarm requires testing so that forms of rule as pretend that our might does not exist, might become wary of such Power, as from time to time, shows that we can oust them. To block the streets off is cheating. The public should decry such behaviour of state to employ police as suppressor of human freedoms, as foul, those acts as are contrary to our human nature, and are out of bounds in the wider game of our human evolution itself; those such bounds, our sphere, on which the species assumed governance of are free, and free to roam whereever they might please, even, and especially, where they be ruled by law.

Taking the planet to a different constellation in order to rule it – doesn't just look tyrannous – and despotic – it also gives opportunity to paint rule that way, too. There's no justification for taking conditions to be framed against a historical backdrop other than where we are celebrated as at the top of our food chain, free and unoppressed on our own sphere, that we be policed so, that way, too. Questions as to the difference relate answers as are fundamental and integral to the occasion to rise to. On this planet the humans are the ones who are challenged only by the terrain and weather getting around. Price ought be our object to get rid of in our freedom of mobility in this century, not our dignity, not higgery-jiggery-pokery arguments of now you see it, now you don't, which event is which, in which Einsteinian frame, in who's courtroom, – out of this universe – claiming to rule the species, but price. It ought be free is our intention to travel, as free is our liberty to make it there, that our language not be made absurd by denying that such intention, collectively, to make it so; copyrighting countries names and charging different rates from drop down menus with PayPal just to cover up freedoms we might have argued nought over, had we been on time with our electronic data. Tis not on the drawing board – something as is a power of State to have to block the streets to carry out evictions, to announce anything new. Streets protect themselves collectively by being streets, not by containing barriers. They are either your streets to throw them out of, or they aren't. Tis foreign you come in, and foreign the aftertaste of the Fascist Corporatism protested against to begin.

You don't turn up out of the blue and say: “but, I thought I might have seen a bomb threat or something that day – so I thought I'd block off the streets.” And, then, think, 'scary events are always in the public's minds– they'll never notice I don't have the Powers...to crush and evict a tent village'. Tis not fear as hides such things best. Tis disproportionate. For tis fear as has been hiding them all along. Its unreasonable and unnecessary to think any other way. That empty void that fear is, its 'nothingness' reveals its lack of power -as by right- and, so, it ought do and behave as it would be seen for all and sundry audiences; anyone who thinks its a head of a worm gathering: once quashed, then the worm faultering in uncertainty and misguidance – don't look now – now you see it – now you don't. Squish! Nothing. No audience. No-one. But tis only a spore same as any other! 3 down 3000 to go! You're only fooling the empty-headed masses. You're not fooling any idea going on within them.

Rat: 'Who saw protests at G8 as a revolt against the empire?'

     Pig: "I thought it was just a disruption: can we start again?"

        Chicken: 'Did you have the score to mark us up next round?'

     Pig: "Sorry, I wasn't looking, is this one a rebellion too?"

Rat: 'Shit – why isn't anyone teaching the army protecting the state against the people?'

     Pig: “If they're gonna bring police – then I'm gonna have an army squadron amongst them, watching, making sure they don't put a foot wrong!”

        Chicken: 'Police watching the army – or army watching the police?'

Rat: “No, silly...Telly crew, with a camera!"

I might rule the streets, but only when they're closed...to others -as might tell others further- that any such thing ought be different in perception as it might be perceiveable. I might show the ad, but only if the screen is made black. And I am Justice. I have nothing to hide.

Revolutionary Perceptions

Scientific innovation could hurtle humankind into the future at quite a pace, but conservativism encourages keeping within the pale any such hurry as everyday business could not be run: - were there not the deception involving, of a truth lacking, which allows command a price - for what is marketable in any one generation, as becomes a defunct mechanism upon passing. Thus encouraging a revolutionary cynicism for any stagnation, asking "why not everything now sooner"!

'Would you ever stop wishing to change things: I get nothing done', says the businessman who wishes that one of these generations people would stop changing everything so as he might allow some notion of success be allowed; and goalposts wouldn't move within the scope and frame of their having been set, to their having been reached...leading to a conservative cynicism for any change, asking 'for goodness sakes, why not just one of these generations, leave things as they are'!

Tis not our slant in favouring ideas as allowed inevitability draw sooner or later any change or stagnation as might come or go, but only how we welcome that which is inevitable to usher in its glory. Formulaters of normative policy might tell us we ought bring spring sooner and autumn later, but it won't change anything; except that to say "I like spring and I don't like autumn" might allow a perception of such things exist. To blame autumn-haters on why the spring features what it does and vice versa, would miss be to the point in considering the power of our free expressions.

Politics doesn't ask us to discuss such things as are against God's will; to allow move from what His plan is, for us, nonetheless. If everyone wanted pink umbrellas, doesn't mean umbrella manufacturers would want to make them all pink, or to make any more items than they were already making. Everyone wanting revolution won't bring revolution closer: revolutionary change is only gonna come by its own forces.

Tisn't by arguing 'we want money to be different' that such change might arise. Such are the changes as allow money to sway, as are underpinned by other relationships as ought need sooner first change, before any such thing as the former's acceptability of changing might arise. Without the invention of paper and coins, the abstraction of value in currency might have no affect on humanity. there's little point arguing we oughta have an abstract form of value, unless maybe you might see some technology suitable of taking on its manifest form as an expression sufficiently tasked with what newness that such abstraction implies. To the caveman inventing money, his blood's circulation or sweat on his brow, as easily deducible as value for work done, he could erroneously have considered that to burn his leftover dinner bones was as likely an abstraction satisfying value as would bring him to the next level of progress before inventing capitalism: to make a piece of metal equal to some effort done would seem even now just as confusing.

Without Civil Rights of the 1960's you wouldn't have the 1970's Bretton Woods discussions as they were. Arguing their outcomes blind to one another would seem a nonsense. Other social factors are necessary before economic change can arise. But anyway, besides all this, truth isn't that bothered with money, to begin with. Too much asking Santa for a healthy bank account and he might not bring us the toys we asked for.

Who's Confused?

Do you prefer inner beauty, or outer beauty? But, yet, your gender is so obvious to me, I should rather pretend it more relevant to the case of who you are, sexually. How presumptuous of me to think that my convenience, sensibly to typify, ought derive more certain values -sexually to orient persuasion- than are most obviously, more likely, quite more complex in issue than anything as meets the eye!

Its purely subjective upon contingent values (and not necessary ones), which are contemporary (and not ephemeral, or eternal), to our civilised modern mindset that we accept to typify or discriminate, at all, on a basis of gender AND persuasion.

The divide of our times could just as easily as gay or straight, considering its necessary basis, be aesthetic AND persuasion e.g. do you like beautiful people OR do you like ugly people...and thence allowing the remark of type, "oh, then, you're beautisexual" - incorporating males or females of purportable beauty. While "uglisexual people" would, perhaps, bemoan the title (for obvious reasons of its openness to characterisability), wishing instead to be classed in something more neutral or obvious, like, perhaps, gender, in their persuasions (as we have it, how we currently typify, in our modern mindset's frame).

"Are you a tits or ass person?" could variously draw the dividing line. 'Titisexual' OR 'assexual'? Why ought gender - an open, PUBLIC, and SIMPLE certainty - be seen as yet so certain in deriving values which are PRIVATE and COMPLEX? And, these value types of any typifiable worth to maintain all of the curiosities of growing and maturing into a habitual lifestyle, preferable in a regime of consent and choice, sexually?

There is nothing of intrinsic value -to a modern public mindset- as determines this with any certainty as worth relying upon - any more or less than, say, elsewhere, instead of referring to rich man/poor man divides, relating rather saving/spending divides, as habitual, and therefore typical!

Extroverts and introverts ought just as happily take upon themselves, as public, a title in mindset; while, then, those who dare 'mind their business' might reveal further their persuasions when needed. And, regarding this leeway of all possible frames to entitle our differences, toward a value-set which is UNIVERSAL, in its outlook, and thus with all manageable rights as are applicable in a fair and tolerant society, it becomes clear: we needn't have delved so far at all as to typify gender AND persuasion at all!!!

Are we certain of gender only as much as death and taxes? And yet abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are all matters of our times in deciding values in law, that it ought seem something of our era, a complexity level to absorb in issue, to resolve in conceptual mindset, in order to form a collective value-set worthy of a civilised frame. Death is 'all or nothing', a certainty, to us, to relate - being 'alive' or 'dead'. Gender is similarly such an 'all or nothing' to us, to typify or discriminate.

Persuasion, however is more complex (as are a lot of issues in discussing causes in morbidity and taxation, likewise). How ought a complex persuasion value set, align with a simple certainty of being male or female, not to leave unfair any intrusion into what is private knowledge of inner thoughts and feelings, as are often, various and diverse, persuading us?

Surprisingly, diversity of currency exchange in economics, of all things, (despite universally sufficiently similar biology across nations) becomes interesting for its problem-set and tool-kit requiring, conceptually, to understand, as application study, when after looking far enough at the subject of gender in linguistics. Only as diverse as values for gender and persuasion, it would seem, are those such values as would necessitate drawing value and currency into the frame in economics.

This would show that there is as much to be learnt from one as the other, if developing any ideas in either, and all hopefully harmoniously, with respect to rates of progress and change which is possible in perceptions which are key. Why valence ought exist at all in any frame of currency becomes an important issue of pertinent contemplation when discussing general issues of the subject of exchange. Pertinent rather than urgent to resolve, it would seem, as a matter of our times, for humankind, are these and similar problems.

For its problems of its diversity, currency exchange, and for those of its certainty, the justice of morbidity (and how we base more than merely laws concerning death, upon a fear based rationale, which stems from our mortality, as beings), these subjects and also the politics of gender and persuasion discrimination (as discussed herein), are each as interesting for such values as would show conspicuousness or anomaly at similar levels of complexity in concepts dealt with, within each subject.

When each of all of these such spheres have all been worked out in their determined outlook, and resolve their respective normalities in value-sets which find popular appeal across-the-board, to meritable solutions, proposable, and in any clearly definable time-frame, what arises may be suprisingly of little or no coincidence: that they might all have to wait upon one another in order to progress.

For, the level of complexity in deriving such values as are universal, necessary, and objective, in each topic -that in a mindset, contemporary and progressive, as it is, deriveable, being, all such values in such fields, but only, as respecting, each -one another - they can, collectively and culturally, evolve. It bodes, harmoniously, a similar era for humankind to enjoy each, their progress, and as a pallettable debate of our times, and hopefully one not overdue, in its fullest discourse.

It becomes important, showing how similar tools are required for understanding what is demanding of us -in a modern frame of humanity in the 21st century- to work toward values which are universally definable; and, thus, to rely less upon that which is subject to any possible mistakes or misunderstanding in allowing typification, where it ought show no difference in treatment but than that which is fair to all parties concerning.

What defines an inequality? If state police have more powers than ordinary citizens, are they treatable unequally respecting one another? What is the important difference between 'being a bigot', and 'being bigotrous' in sociable conversation? Why ought we empower words which are only semantic, after all, over ideas, which are incontrovertible to such whims? Such are the questions as might similarly allow humankind to progress, when answered sufficiently.

So, no hurry in wondering whether bisexuals aren't the ones who are confused...I for one, am not!