“Conventional” of course comes from “convene”. What does “convene” mean? Simply this: “con” - together plus “vene” - come. So “conventional” means just “the state of having come together”, in other words, “we’re together on this…”, in a word that we have from the SELF - Southern European Language Fanily, i.e. Latin/Greek variations.

“Wisdom” on the other hand is from the NELF (you got it, Northern European etc.), from “wise” plus “doom”. “Wise” implies good judgement and knowledge (”wit” doesn’t always mean “funny” - it also means ability to think well, and clearly… see “nitwit” for example). “Doom” doesn’t necessarily imply something bad, although that’s how we use it for the most part. What it really means is “state of being”, as in “freedom”.

So, ulitmately what is meant by “conventional wisdom” is a state of good judgement with which we all agree.

The problem with “conventional wisdom” is that apparently it either doesn’t exist or it’s simply wrong. As someone (actually many someones) said, “If ‘everyone‘ knows it, it’s almost certainly incorrect.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190688-Connecting-the-Dots-A-smashing-anniversary-for-the-Signs-of-our-Times

And the story on Venus?

“It’s fair to say something unusual happened on Venus. Unfortunately, we don’t know what happened,” Limaye told New Scientist.
Mysterious bright spot found on Venus - space - 29 July 2009 - New Scientist

I’m writing this because of a recent incident, caused by my inability to have complete control over my anger. In essence, and without naming any names (to protect the stupid) here’s what happened: I had tried several times that morning - unsuccessfully - to deliver something to someone, despite leaving a very clear message that I needed to speak to the person about the item and for them to call me at the earliest opportunity. Never happened. Then an hour or two after lunch, someone came to me, basically demanding the item and complaining that it was needed. It was the wrong thing to do. I said that I had tried three or four times already to deliver it, and that it had been available since about 9:00 that morning. I said this in a rather icy, angry tone… and I used the anglo-saxon adjective fucking to describe the item. This unfortunate person said something like “Well, gosh, Leo, you don’t have to cuss at me” and left without taking what he had come for. I marveled. I’m still marveling.

The thing that gets me, here, is that this person, who apparently has aspirations of becoming a politician, has such a poor understanding of english that he is unable to distinguish between a “vulgarity” and a “curse”, and so poor a grasp of grammar that he cannot tell whether an adjective is applied to him or to an inanimate object.

Oh, yes… after I finished laughing, I went once more unto the breech, and delivered the item, so all was well.

In its current state of evolution, English has become quite synthetic. It claims its origin to be the British Isles, part of which is known as “england”, or “angle-land”… probably more along the lines of “ahngluhlond” when it was first used, something around 1500 years ago. Those who called it such, were of course the Angles who crossed the fairly narrow body of Channel / North Sea separating the Isles from Europe.

English is most closely related in basic vocabulary and speech patterns to the languages spoken along the seacost of Europe, from Holland northward, which, needless to say, is exactly where the aforementioned Angles came from, and going north, the Saxons, Danes, Norwegians… and various and sundry others, all of them speaking a version of “Old German”, “Old Norse” and the like. The family of languages those all belong to goes generally under the heading of “Germanic” or “Teutonic”. I like to think of it as “Northern European”, or “NELF” (Northern European Language Family) for short.

If you’ve ever been to Holland, you might have noticed that the Dutch you heard sounded a lot like “baby-talk”… although such a high percentage of the Dutch people speak english that you have to pay attention and kind of eavesdrop just to hear Dutch spoken at all.

An infant growing up in an English-speaking household, whether in the British Isles, North America, Australia, or wherever, learns nearly all of his or her first 500 words from this Northern European family.

There have been several sources or causes of the addition of Southern European (SELF, duh?) to today’s English. The Roman conquest of the British Isles, historically said to have been started by Caesar himself [which at the time was pronounced ky-zer and not see-zer, which explains the titles of the rulers of the germanic and russian states]; and, of course; the “Roman” “Catholic” Church and its versions of latin; the “Norman” conquest of 1066; the rise of “Science” beginning after the fall of the Eastern Empire (the flood of refugees - and the books they brought with them - from fifteenth-century Islamic expansion being a chief prod towards the so-called Renaissance) and the printing press.

The attitude, which exists yet, that Southern European terminology is “good” and Northern European terminology is “bad”, persists even today. If you come across a steaming brown pile of … something … it’s socially acceptable for you to call it “feces” but not “shit”. The mental image brought to one’s mind is absolutely the same in either case, but for some reason or reasons (more about this later) the one is okay, and the other is “vulgar”.

Worse, I venture to say that the vast majority of those who are offended by shit but not by feces, offended by piss but not by urine, offended by cunt by not by vulva, offended by fuck but not by sexual intercourse… the vast majority of these, I say, will confound “vulgar” with “obscene” and “blasphemous” even simple “dirty”… as  though these terms were absolutely interchangeable.

It makes me want to puke. The only thing that’s even remotely redemptive is what I see as the fact that this has been done to those people intentionally. Why? Because it’s so much easier to control people who think they understand your words, and agree that what you say is what you want them to think it is rather than what it actually means.

See my previous rant about “person”.

More, later.

Unwarranted Intrusion: GPS and the Fourth Amendment | American Constitution Society is an article about a form of surveillance that most people seem to be unaware of.

Let me start by saying this as clearly and concisely as I can: YOUR CELL PHONE IS A COMPUTER WITH A CAMERA, A MICROPHONE, AND RADIO. IT RECEIVES AND BROADCASTS BOTH COMPUTER SIGNALS AND AUDIO/VIDEO SIGNALS. IT CAN BE TURNED ON FROM THE “OTHER END” WITHOUT YOUR KNOWING IT’S ON.

Even old cell phones can be used for tracking: first, the system certainly knows which of the thousands of cell towers your phone is using; second it knows the relative strengths of your phone’s signal to several other nearby towers, so an estimate of your location can be made to within a few dozen yards in populated areas, and a few hundred yards in unpopulated areas.

Newer cell phones have builtin GPS receivers which know where you are to within about ten feet.

Forty years ago, when AT&T/SBC built a new facility in downtown Houston, a friend of mine - a detective on the Houston Police - showed me (because I was an extreme rarity at that time, a computer guy) a room where he and his “associates” could sit and listen to and record telephone conversations associated with any phone number they wanted. All they had to do was type in the number on a teletype console. They had voice/signal-activated recorders, so they didn’t have to sit and wait for someone to call… the recorder started as soon as someone picked up a phone at the number in question, and the calling (or called) number was typed out on the teletype along with the date and time. He said it was nothing, I should see the ones down the hall, for the “Feds”… I asked “FBI?” and he just snorted and said “ALL of ‘em, bud, all of ‘em.”

I’m trying to make two points here. One is that this was the available technology FORTY years ago, so if you don’t think the access has “improved” by a couple of orders of magnitude, you’re a wishful thinker. The other is that they didn’t have to show anyone a warrant to get in the room or type in a phone number to track… they could do it whenever they wanted. If they got something useful, they’d go get a warrant and claim the tape was made afterwards. It seemed likely that there was probably more use being made of it for blackmail or other reasons, but who knows? And do you think anyone anywhere with access to the system isn’t going to use it? Keep in mind that today, right now, this very instant, intelligence agencies with access to the phone system are using that access the signals on it, to listen, to find, to copy emails, web site addresses… and don’t forget that “the internet” IS the phone system, so everything that goes on there is part of that data. If you surf your way to http://kill_a_raghead_for_jesus.org or http://redheads_rule.com or any other website in the universe… that surfing is - or can be - recorded. Given the immense amount of daily data storage alleged to be in progress, it’s a fair bet that if you are on anybody’s list of interesting people, your phone data, including internet, is being recorded and at least looked at by a computer.

One last question: if they’re really out to get you, is it still paranoia?

I’ve seen these twice today, and the second one has been thrown in my face three or four times.

First, Micro$oft pops up some crap about “Windows Genuine Advantage” when you boot your computer - at least, I’ve seen it happen a lot the last couple of weeks, and as far as I can recall, it’s when you boot. It has some high-sounding bullshit about preventing piracy, when what it really is, is a way for Micro$oft to scam data off of your computer and do god knows what with it. If you “accept” it, you’re agreeing to whatever the hell it is they’re doing with it. This one’s bad enough, but then there’s the second one.

Second, I just got a new computer - a Toshiba notebook, big screen, big keyboard (yes, it has a real ten-key pad, which is why I picked it). In the process of setting it up, I decided not to give it a ‘net connection right away, just to see what it would do (or not do). For one thing, although it did notice that it didn’t have net connex, it still wanted to go tell Micro$oft and Toshiba about itself and complained when it couldn’t. Not surprising - stupid, yes, but it’s exactly what I expected would happen. Now, despite not havving net connex, the Norton 360 that came with it partnered up with Micro$oft to warn me that my “computer is at risk” because the software isn’t fully installed (apparently Norton thinks that computer viruses fly around in the air randomly, just waiting for the unwary), and worse, Norton 360 popped up a window occupying fully half the screen real estate, with a dire warning about spyware, viruses, et cetera that it would protect my computer from, but first… “Click Next to Turn It On”… Naaah, not right now, don’t wanna, not gonna. Go away. Ummm… Go Away! God dammit, GO THE HELL AWAY!!!! Turns out, not only is there not a cancel button, this handy little piece of software has the little red “X” in the upper right corner grayed out, and doesn’t pay any attention to it. Won’t quit. Okay, the hell with it: ALT-F4. Guess what? Got that short-circuited, too. Hahaha! You think VIRUSES are bad? Wait ’til you see what NORTON can do to you! Actually, I eventually got it killed by giving the three-finger salute (CTRL-ALT-DEL) and doing the “exit” button to the task named NORTON. It didn’t respond at first, but finally departed.

Gotcha! You vill youse our soft vares, und you vill LIKE zem! Bend ofer for your in check shun uff SEKKURITY, Herr CitiZen. Zare, now, you are feeling SAFE, Ja?

Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push

“Forget the battlefield radios, the combat PDAs or even infantry hand signals.
When the soldiers of the future want to communicate, they’ll read each
other’s minds.

At least, that’s the hope of researchers at the Pentagon’s mad-science division Darpa. The agency’s budget for the next fiscal year includes $4 million to start up a program called Silent Talk. The goal is to “allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech  hrough analysis of neural signals.” That’s on top of the $4 million the Army handed out last year to the University of California to investigate the potential for computer-mediated telepathy.”

The sick monsters have always wanted to take the humanity out of the equation, from the lethal drones over Iraq and Asia to battlefield robots. They’ve pumped pilots with go and stop pills. They’re already employing electronic crowd control technologies at their slightest whim. This is our mad rush into pure fascism, an attempt for total control over human beings and everything on earth.

“The military has been funding a handful of mind-tapping technology recently, and already have monkeys capable of telepathic limb control. Telepathy may also have advantages beyond covert battlefield chatter. Last year, the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report suggesting that neuroscience might also be useful to “make the enemy obey our commands.”

Well, that’s a relief, innit? We wouldn’t have to do this is they didn’t hate our freedom…

To see what he’s got, start here.

Or here.

As near as I can tell, he was charged with criminal activities for not filing/paying (both? or which one?) his duly-owed income taxes. It’s been a while since I looked at it, but it certainly appeared when I did that he had dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s… and he convinced a jury. His materials include court transcripts including all motions and the trial itself. He is, of course, putting out the information in an attempt to let other people know how he did it and what his legal points were. He goes so far as to list all the things you have to bear in mind if you decide to follow his path, not the least of which are the facts that it’s going to cost you a substantial amount of money, and that there is every possibility that you will get royally fucked, as the king’s men figure out how to bend you over in front of the jury without the jurors being aware (or caring).

I think (although I’ll have to go back and check) that his basic defense is lack of INTENT to defraud (or whatever term it is) the government. He set the stage with preliminary motions to make certain that his defense was not going to be denied a hearing before the jury (this is their favorite bendover tactic: simply not letting you tell the jury what the facts are because [insert current bullshit excuse]). The primary point was that there appears to be no law which specifically makes anyone’s wages, salaries, fees, et cetera, “income”.

This has been argued quite often, and it has been successful in some cases and not in others. To take this position, it seems to be the case that you have to collect evidence - ADMISSIBLE evidence - that you have repeatedly contacted IRS to ask for citation of the laws which make the money you receive for your labors taxable.

The fact is (as of this writing) that there is nothing in the laws, regulations, codes, etc which either makes your receipts “income”, or in fact even defines “income” at all. There are numerous references to “taxable income”, “gross income” and so on, but none specifically defining “income”. There are references to “sources” of income, but not to income itself.

Absent such definition, the common man (keep in mind that this is going to include almost certainly the jurors) must rely on his own understanding. The fact is, we have been propagandized for many. many years to believe specifically that our wages are “income”, and as a result, it may be difficult to persuade all of the members of the jury of the fact that there is no such law, no such definition, and that - in effect - they have been voluntarily butt-fucking themselves all the years they’ve been paying taxes. Fortunately, you don’t have to persuade all of them, only at least one who will adamantly refuse to convict you and will further be able to sway the rest of them to return a verdict of acquittal.

Now, anyone knows that when you do some work, and someone gives you some money, that all you’re doing is trading your time for that money.

It’s not a heck of a lot different from trading your car for a truck. You now have a truck, but you don’t have a car. It’s an even swap. Is there any “income” resulting? No. You got something, but you gave up something of equal value.

In everyday terms, “income” is a net gain. In any trade, barter, or other straight-across swap, neither you nor the other person has any gain - you both give up something and get something in return.

Here is what I call the “Basic Equation of Taxation”, the BET. You are going to hear this, see it, and remember it.

You will remember it every single time you hear the word BASIC.

You will remember it every single time you hear the word EQUATION.

You will remember it every single time you hear the word TAX.

You will remember it every single time you hear the word BET.

First, think of - not yourself, but a simple BUSINESS, because you are in business, you’re at least selling your time in exchange for money. And it’s a little easier to follow as we start up.

Let’s pick a business that everyone has at least some experience with, one that is selling exactly what you’re selling when you work for someone in return for pay: your time. Let’s talk about an auto repair shop.

Now, what happens when you go to an auto repair shop? Well, he (let’s call the person “he” - most mechanics are male. Not all, not all, I agree. Heck, one of my daughters-in-law worked as a mechanic… and we can’t foprget that movie “My Cousin Vinny” about the kid from Brooklyn who gets arrested for murder in Alabama, and has his cousin who just got his lawyer license to come and defend him, and the cousin’s fiancee saves the day with her auto mechanic knowledge… now, where was I? oh, right -) he fixes your car for you, and you pay him. Let’s say that you pay him $100, okay? Now. Is that $100 “income”? Yes? No? Hmmmm… well, it turns out that it is NOT. It’s “receipts”. He has to deduct “costs” from that, right - he might’ve boutght some parts, or paid someone else to do part of the work, so he doesn’t get to keep the whole $100. So here’s the first part of the BET:
RECEIPTS
- COSTS
—————
= REVENUE

So there it is. This is “income”, right?

Not so fast. He has to pay for his shop - rent, lights, water, garbage pickup, insurance, tools… lots and lots of stuff. If he doesn’t pay for that stuff, he doesn’t have a business. These are called “expenses”. SO here’s the second part of the BET:
REVENUE
- EXPENSES
———————-

= GROSS INCOME (a favorite financial person called it..? or no GROSS?)

So there it is. This is “income”, right?

No. It’s “GROSS” income. There’s more to it.

GROSS INCOME
- DEDUCTIONS
———————-

= TAXABLE INCOME

So… is this it? Finally?

Sort of. It’s “TAXABLE” income, anyway.

Here’s the whole thing, the BET, the Basic Equation of Taxation:

TAXABLE INCOME = RECEIPTS - COSTS - EXPENSES - DEDUCTIONS

Now, how does this relate to you and me?

Just this: the government wants you to believe that everything you get paid by someone else is “INCOME” and is therefore fully taxable, subject only to certain deductions. They want you to believe this, even though it isn’t true. It isn’t true because they aren’t taking into account your costs and expenses! Either that, or they’re implying that your time, the time you sell to your employer or your customers, clients, patients or whatever you call them, is worth nothing and that you have neither costs nor expenses. In order to make that true, the government would have to specifically - and legally - define that wages (fees, or whatever you call the money you receive in return for your time) are in fact “income”… which I believe we have just shown they are NOT.

Now, since the government does not define “income”, there cannot be any requirement for you or I to file an “income tax return” based exclusively on your wages, salaries, fees, et cetera.

The essence of the lawyer’s argument is (or was) that after going through the same exercise we have just done, and coming to the same essential conclusions, he spent considerable time and effort to get the IRS to point to any such laws or definitions, and as mentioned previously, did so in a manner carefully documented in the form of admissable evidence. The result was that no such law or definition was forthcoming, and no reasonable person can conclude that there would be any reason for such a result except that there is no such law or definition.

I believe that the contacts made with IRS took the general form of “I want to obey the law, just as any good citizen does. For example, in my home town, there is a law that requires property owners to keep their property free of overgrowth, as a result of which, I regularly either mow or clear it myself or pay someone to do it. That law is, as they say “on the books” and it can be found and cited by title, chapter, paragraph and so on. But with regard to the income tax laws, I have searched diligently and have so far been unable to find any place in the thousands of pages and hundreds of thousands of words where there is anything that defines  my wages, fees, et cetera to be income. If in fact there is any such, I would greatly appreciate your informing me of its specific location so that I can follow the law properly.”

So far, I have never seen a single case in which IRS (or anyone else) has been able to point out such laws. What they almost always do is point to some section (I’ll bet someone will comment on this and tell us exactly which one) which makes some statement(s) which refer to wages etc. as a SOURCE of income (along with some other things that are also SOURCES of income)… and I don’t think that any reasonable person can deny that is so - certainly, money you receive for whatever reason is generally a SOURCE of income, but it is not income… there are costs and expenses to be taken out, and deductions to be taken out before there is actual income.  And that’s the whole point. Your time is not without value, so when you trade it for money, the money is not totally  income… it’s a receipt.

… oh, there’s another point made by some, which is that the requirement for filing a form 1040 appears to be as a supporting document to filing a Form 2555 (this has to do with the law requiring OMB Document # such-and-such to be filed, and that specific document is the Form 2555). That form has to do with foreign income, and since remarkably few of us have any such, there doesn’t seem to be any requirement at all for the filing of Form 1040. I have not investigated this, but it’s something that should be looked into.

There’s an additional point made, that what makes your wages taxable is that you and your employer have filed the “real” return, in the forms of the W-4 and W-2 “forms” in which you have both agreed that your wages are income and reported the amounts thereof. The lawyer whose web site reports his victory in court was “self-employed” (as in fact all of us really are, unless we agree otherwise) and did not withhold or report income… although he did repeatedly request citation of laws making his receipts equal to “income”.

I know (okay, I don’t “know”, but I “hear”, or “read”) that there are people who can summon up images at will of faces, places, things… but I am not one of them. In fact, I rarely “see” faces, places, or things at all - at least, not clearly and obviously. I admint that I sometimes have an impression of someone’s face, but if I try to see it clearly, it disappears.

Those who know me well - or even at all, for that matter - are likely aware that I have a good memory. Okay, I’m trying to be humble (not a strong suit for me) - I have a fantastic memory. I didn’t work at it, it just happened. Some people are strong, or beautiful, or athletic without even trying - they just grow that way. Me and the memory, that’s how it happened… it just… happened. I don’t work at it, I don’t exercise it… it’s just there. The question is, if I don’t “see” the things I remember, then what exactly IS the “mechanism” of that memory?

I don’t know how it works. I just sort of instantly “know” - or recall, or remember - things when the need arises. I don’t consciously “search” for them, they’re just… well… THERE, suddenly. Sometimes it’s nearly instantaneous and sometimes it takes a while. Sometimes it never shows up at all, but that’s pretty rare.

So… if I don’t see images, how do I know when a face is familiar or unfamiliar? If asked to describe someone, how can I do it without access to an image? “Redhead, about 5′4″, freckles, glasses - the rimless kind, laughs a lot, has a doctorate from Columbia in Anthropology, worked as an RN in the Navy before she went to Columbia, used to be married to a professional photographer who got fired after his famous picture of the Loch Ness monster in the fog turned out to be his own penis, floating in a steaming hot bathtub…” Where does all that come from? I can’t “see” her - not consciously, anyway, so… where do those descriptions come from?

I think of this in terms of a lack of ability - or desire - to face a problem of any sort.

Unemployed? Uninsured? Broke? Homeless?

This subheadline / subject poses four apparent problems and asks that question.

I say to you right here, right now, that those problems arise specifically because of a disconnect between what is real and what is imaginary, between what is universally true and what is true only in the context of a specific - and completely artificial - situation.

The reality is that the problems themselves are only “real”, are only “true”, and only exist within the context of the society in which the person perceiving the problems believes himself to be embedded.

Look: whether or not you are a member of the society - or the part of the society - in which those problems are “real” is completely a matter of your own belief.

Let’s start with the first “problem” on the list, “unemployed”.

What does this MEAN? I think most of us would say “it means you don’t have a job”, and that’s more or less right. Almost no one will take the time to think through what “unemployed” means and what “job” means, they will simply take it for granted that it means the same thing to everyone and we don’t need to get all academic about it. I disagree. I think we most definitely do need to get all academic about it, because doing that will put us on the way toward dealing with the problem in an intelligent and useful way.

So - “unemployed” means what? Well, it means not “employed”. No question about “not”, but then what does “employed” mean? I may or may not have a link to it here, but if I don’t, please feel free to go look it up in the dictionary of your choice. You THINK it means “having a job”, don’t you? Most people will respond that way as an immediate definition. And that’s the way the word is almost always used… did you get the pun? Let me explain: what the word “employed” REALLY means, the literal definition, is “used”.

Now do you get it? The word, “unemployed” means “not being used”.

Your “employer” is a person who is “using” you.

Is not being used necessarily a bad thing? I think it is not.

You can probably see part of where I’m going with this. I’m going to take the other problems, and define what they REALLY are - as opposed to what you’ve been trained (programmed, propagandized) to believe - and what you can do about it… so you can come up with a rational answer to the question… “What’cha Gonna DO?”

Part II coming soon…