Iphone Joan

Nobody else but Iphone Joan would be worthy to bring to light any suffering under the banking crisis as everyone thinks that everyone explains their lives in terms of money -Iphone Joan knows that it is in terms of reality.

Margaret Thatcher had a handbag - phone button Joan Burton has her Iphone; it could even bring down foreign governments...if they built a time machine. Its a tall story. We cannot underestimate the worth of its glory. She's a weapon for the mob. Not a knob or a sliding switch, with a wig of a bob in high heels, but a virtual, light, pressed tap. or maybe just slightly depressing. Its a tall story.

Christ could come back sooner but that she would wear a taller wig...if she wore high heels...and she does. He might already be here. Its in the stars ordained - its aligned in the movements of the planets. A comet just came. Consider the implications. He could come back sooner if she gets it right - if she gets it wrong, though, that comet might turn around and hit the earth next time...she'd wanna be careful and watch her every step.

If the phones drones Joan Burton's phone buttons brings but do not highlight ungodly torture in the highest places - she might not be representing her job. If she does not represent the most brutal inhumane attacks on humankind these last seven and ten years - she might not be worthy of the representation of its place contending the battle of the lesson of the experience of brutality in terms of the reality of the beseigment of Jobstown, that day...

If she cannot get all the way to Camp X-ray and Guantanamo with her representation of torture, she might not get the contract to represent its glory - its a tall story. She must at least have a helicopter over her head - tis sealed - she can go all the way. She could be airlifted to the pentagon or her wig might stay on her head - and brought from the scene to an underground secret air base - discussing the power of her angst - she's like a trinity in The Matrix to the Frenchman - she doesn't have to take this bullshit. Or at least a mouse - maybe - I dunno its a loose reference - maybe its taller that the story be told properly and with the fullest Iphones representations on board pulling their strings from the cloud that brings us our water.

She could sing the theme tune to the smurfs without uttering a single la la - and yet force the powers that be unkidnap Madeline Macan - she could sing her in terms of reality; and all of a sudden the powers that be in Brussels could know - we won't as humankind put up with this brutality - we won't put up with torture - we won't put up with the violence of poverty; we won't put up with never-ending war and sleeping walking into war - as though walking zombies into walls - or maybe that was just Joan on her own.

But so as to represent what to this day money has not settled what it thinks its doing on this sphere in terms of egg governance and reality - but that the secret weapon now lurks in Iphones Burton - Joan Burton phone button -extraordinaire- that her Burtonesque film budgeted glory can spread around the world in secret or in the open - so her brutality policy as she digests her experience can be aired behind closed doors or on the media besides but so as that everyone must know what is real - her hairdo is real - Ukraine's is not - in terms of reality she is the situation - she is brutality - she is the angst of its repudiation like Trinity in The Matrix to the Frenchman - she doesn't have to tolerate this bullshit any more - or, was it the budget before - either way the price of eggs will take note.

Stock markets will fluctuate. Its a tall story. Dairy produce has not the beginning or the end of where it is that this glory gets off. She's in high heels. We cannot underestimate how tall as a secret service character the secret weapon as she is might tell off the evil mob - I don't have to take this bullshit any more -that she might become. The price of gold flutters. Silver is refused and the wealth would take instead offshore, as currencies would be asking, but there would not be telling. The price of eggs would circulate, but a function of x would explain no hunger. No suffering. No pain. No horror. No torture. No brutality, but that the reality must be a hum drum drone drib drab drob drub drone voice and a trumpet - singing her la-la tune the melody of the smurfs: "In terms of reality...the price of eggs will not be allowed be misrepresented....but to the suffering of ordinary people, failing to highlight terms of their reality."

Whatever she says next, the spotlight is upon her. She's gotten it off her chest. She doesn't have to take it any more. She's probably suicidal. She probably just got the menopause. Its a tall story. She probably doesn't even have an alibi for where she was when Christ's glory was stolen in The Matrix.

What was that Tallaght strategy? What was the Croke park agreement? What was Jones road and Tallaght doing conspiring in the realm of planning, but all that reasoning zones and rezoning Malarky, and Joan's own moaning has anything to do with it, but that she can do anything to save even her own job.

But, that, were it that anything could be done -to represent the taller story; to represent the brutality going on, elsewhere, we assume torture, but, right here on our doorsteps- the violence of poverty is also representable, without needing ever even a function of x - to represent its quantifiability.

X is a function of judgment of her wig - we do not know which corporation fears most now Grand Jury: it might be Iphones it might be BBC - but only those which were escaping Thatcher's handbag that poll tax ever became public policy - know truly how to fear the power of Iphones buttons Joan Burton.

She could do a job on the mob and frame Steve Jobs assassination but only that the CIA would come clean - she could use the power of her angst in rebuke to get a code-red-type cross-questioning situation unearthing realities predating 911. She could change the outcome of the banking crisis. She could raise Margaret Thatcher's handbag from the grave and wield it now as the Iphone. she could use her strength of repudiation to repudiate the worst kind of evil on this planet. In secret, she is become a secret weapon.

There's more - Penelope Pitstop inspired the costume its clear. She could contend the drama of evil: she's wearing high heels - that's how she does it...its a tall story. 

Politics' House of Cards on Shifting Sands

Politics' House of Cards on Shifting Sands

LEFT and RIGHT

TELEVISION

materialist consumerism
   Diffuse virtual internet             Central material television
 one for all business model             one for each business model 

Virtual realm    Cyberspace 

freeware      Iphones 

POLITICS- shifting sands

                             with a squeezed middle - Right and Far right 

                             YouTube and television - with a Facebook                                                      

Protest                                                        Fascism

extreme left                                                        extreme right

black-is-white-fuzzy-fascism                                        white-is-black-fuzzy-protest

This Year's Budget: A Slapstick Canon Ball Run Without Anything to Secure Safety or Fairness

Austerity proves evil can't hide behind the grotesque poetic justice sought to justify its being proposed. Language is not short of words. The world is not short of cash. They're playing a counting game with a point scoring system that doesn't check the reward of evil.  Fundamental imperatives and priorities are in the spotlight as differences in interpretation concern a valued perspective deriving from sovereign, republican, and reporting duties. What difference this years budget makes remains to be seen.

Controlling hymn sheets while preaching to a choir who already know the tune and the piper paid; a slapstick canon ball run, testing the faith of the choir preached to: is there theft in the intellect stakes? Point at the poor! Is there fraud in the economy? Point at the poor! Is there cheating going on? Point at the poor! Pointing at everyone each in turn, covering all bases so as to have no naysayers or detracters, as who might not but on their knees find their first step to argue back, eventually the finger comes around to point also at themselves, and pointing at retards is no way to paper over the cracks!

Warning signs and alarm bells were ignored in favour of singing austerity's praises, and losses were cut for the faith of a generation. But, they were only praising patent evil to guard against rocking a boat of what were by then already sunk costs. When faced with the shame of information age conditions of transparency, the entire human race were considered in be in some sort of receivership. And, this, only to avoid their impending and inevitable moral bankruptcy. Taking their distraction at face value, they lauded themselves with mutual self-appreciation, not knowing they were praising evil.

If to examine the rationale for the imperative of a mood of control, it seems impossible to escape its self-defeating futility. Rather than release secrets, instead by sharing every access to information, while lacking any fundament to protect privacy, they decided they were gonna follow newly mobilised capital with mobilising the species' labour markets and hope that emigration would cover it up. Cover-up through mass mobilisation: if you move the money around no one might ever count it as missing! If the classroom is placed in a carnival act and spun around in a circle, then no one will notice the bullshit on the blackboard is incredulously disbelievable!

Behold the age of mobility of the species, where World War trips over racism's last hurrah for a 100,000 years of isolation of the races of diverse ethnic backgrounds...And, this new mobility is used adding to adventure, displacement, as a cover-up of market failure. And, not having a game-plan, besides, for facing the music when sharing information transparently: in a cost-benefit analysis of mobility upon a sphere, emigration is seen as an adequate cover-up, also, of market failure. Patent evil from the same sources -  like they either knew it was consciousness preferring of these things or they didn't? What's helped is finance and banking, what's hurt is equality and fairness. Repeating the same mistakes of World War II, our approach to the information age as to the technological era, is shockingly lacking awareness and appreciation, a far cry from the consciousness of the era which ought accompany such widgetry, to herald its benefits.

Space and time being no object -in an information age- is seen as scope to provide no systematic limit of returns to scale for global dominance on a sphere of ignorance. And, any old time warp to drachonia will justify austerity's legislative complacency, associating law with a convenient ignorance of its power as a money spinner, as license, to exploit resources and populations.

A slapstick canon ball run carnival of production, papering over the cracks by having capitalism point instead at all the retards on welfare. I can't see you capitalism, you're covering your eyes! Where is all the fraud, theft and cheating? Ah sure just point at the poor! Language is short of words! I was going to use the word fairness but it was taken. I was going to use the word equality but it was taken. Language must be short of words that we just don't know how to apply 'patronisation' to 'spoon feeding' and find out what patent bullshit we're being fed!

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

 

 

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.

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.