Tools To Transform Our Thinking (Part One)

Knowledge: Justified True Belief

Epistemology is a big word, don't be intimidated by the term. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the search for a theory of knowledge. There is always a theory behind how we approach these things, anytime one is questioning "how do I know what I know" they are questioning their own theory of knowledge. If one stops and thinks about it, it is a fascinating set of questions. We make knowledge claims all the time. Everybody does. It is something we do every day. We are consistently claiming to know things. How do we know them?

Epistemology is my favorite branch of philosophy because I find most people are not actively aware of their own thought processes. We are notorious for NOT being reflective of our methodology. We all need to think more self consciously about the tools we use and how we use them. If only people would stop and think about their thinking, we would solve many social problems, big and small. Family problems, fights, disagreements - you name it. Just getting people to perform a little meta-cognition now and again would make the world a happier place. 

On the flip side, I found that going too deep into epistemology can take a lot of fun out of life. Epistemology is a dangerous thing to study because the more you study it, the more you realize that you do not know a damn thing. You will find yourself questioning everything from the air you breath to the earth you stand on. Going deeply into epistemology can drive one into a very destabilizing life. If you just so happen to be the kind of person that likes to live in a comforting delusion, then epistemology is not for you. 

I do not subscribe to any one theory of knowledge, yet I actively reject several theories. I reject the theory that something can be known through faith and intuition. Neither authority nor spiritual revelation provide any reliable path to knowledge. I accept empiricism, but only in the science lab, yet recognize that things can be true without experiencing them. Reason is the best guide to have knowledge of anything in the world. There are many layers to epistemology. No matter what area you like, one thing is certain, studying it will certainly make you a smarter person. 

On another note, what about credibility? The concept that one can be trusted? Credibility does belong to the study of epistemology only to the degree that one "knows" a person's word to be good because they "perceive" the opposing party to be untruthful. The idea that John Doe is truthful because we perceive Jane Doe as being untruthful is completely absurd. How do we know we can take John's word over Jane without empirical evidence to support such claims. The problem is - we can't. 

The idea of credibility is a tough one for me because credibility tends to be right, yet when it is wrong it is disastrously wrong. When credibility fails us, in philosophy we call this a Flaw of Inductive Logic. Allow me to explain. Credibility presumes that past behavior (all based upon perception) is a good indication of future behavior. When the system fails, and John Doe's behavior does not turn out to be what we thought it would,  the whole system (theory of knowledge) must be thrown out and recycled for a new one because it probably means, that credibility never existed in the first place. 

                                                       **************************
In common discussion, a "statement of belief" is an expression of a person's faith or trust in something. When someone believes something, it only means that they accept as true a certain cognitive content. Beliefs are not all true, all true things can be beliefs. Many beliefs are false. The goal is to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. 

If something is known, then it cannot be false. This area confuses people because they do not know what it is to know something, and they do not know how to show their epistemology. For example, if a person believes a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge collapses, it  could be said that he believed the bridge was safe but his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew the bridge was safe, as it obviously was not safe. Lets say that the bridge was safe, then the man can say he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after testing it by crossing it, he knows it to be safe. 

One of the mistakes people often make is that they use belief and know interchangeably. The words are not the same thing. When we think about what we know to be true, often times, we are thinking about beliefs and not knowledge. 

Knowledge has standards, it must be tested, verified, and and subject to falsification. Beliefs are cheap. They are a dime a dozen. Anyone can have a belief like anyone can have an opinion. Beliefs have no value until they are put to the test.

--------------------- Enjoy the Video --------------------------

The Book of Mormom

The Mormons have been coming to my house lately. To be frank, I do not mind at all. They are nice boys, very polite, and kind. I was honest with them that I am an atheist, and do not take anything on faith.

After reading the first book of Mormon, I have to wonder - how is it seemingly intelligent human beings are not aware that this is completely made up? I am to believe that 2300 years ago, men built a vessel capable of transporting people from Israel across the Mediterranean, across the Atlantic, all the way to the Americas?

The voyage would have been impossible.  Faith is believing in things when common sense tells one not to. This leads me to think that common sense is so rare these days, that when it does appear it should be considered a superhuman power.

Davis Aurini is stalking me.

Davis BJ Aurini has been up to his typical weird shenanigans. Over the last year or so, time permitting, I take a look at the content Aurini puts online. Perhaps it I just have a morbid fascination with his self-victim hood, or his gynophobic rants.

Aurini simply does not understand why I disprove of his arguments. Instead of reading my blogs, and arguing the issues brought up therein, he attempts to invalidate my claims saying I must have a great big lesbian crush on him. Or perhaps I am menstruating.

Then he writes something about me driving across the country for pics of someones home? WTF is this dude talking about? I lived in Manhattan 6 years, and in Europe. I have not driven a car in YEARS!

Then he goes on to claim that I am in love with his skeevy bald butt. (actually, I find that funny) And, claims that I read his blog. In fact, I never read his blog.

Lets give BJ Aurini a lesson in technology. (Apparently, only men are supposed to know this stuff). Take a look at the images below:

This images shows us that in one day, 64 people read my blog about how BJ Aurini was caught doing something .... Well, he knows what he did.

Real Time Geolocation tracker of current blog hits. A feature available on all blogger pages.

Notice that CANADA is the only country showing in dark green.

 I embed a code into each of my blogs, which allows me to view all IP addresses, nation of origin etc. I have to corroborate the information I get from this service with the information I get from blogger.

When I click on Canada, I know when and where my blog was viewed. Then I compare it with what blogger reports, from that I know for
a fact that Aurini reads my blog A LOT. He spends a lot of time on my blog too.




Conclusion: I have Aurini's IP address. The dude is a little stalker and loves reading my blog. What really strikes me is the amount of time he keeps my blog open. I mean....WOW. I was not expecting that.


With that, I have to thank Aurini. I am very complimented. :-)

"Restoring the Virtue of Women" - Davis BJ Aurini's hatred at the world

"Men, it's not your fault that 2/3rd of divorces are brought due to frivolous claims on a woman's behalf." - Davis BJ Aurini

Dear Reader,

It is no secret that Davis BJ Aurini makes my skin crawl. He is a disgusting little dude, angry he is not surrounded by giddy, insipid women in poodle skirts and pink sweater sets. He dreams of a life where everyone is pleasant, and everything is black and white. In his video - "Restoring the Virtue of Women," Aurini makes more comments so retarded that they cannot be ignored by his dear, sweet nemesis.

He claims that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women who make frivolous claims.

Bound2 is an epic fail

Kanye West released an epic piece of shit video, Bound2, featuring himself (of course) and the very naked Kim Kardashian. As we see from the image below, the video clearly depicts these two egocentric clowns engaging in shaky motorcycle sex in the middle of a sky desert.

The Graduate - An Analysis

I just watched The Graduate (1967). After 45 years, what can we say about this movie? - plenty. My first impression of The Graduate was that it was funny. Everything about the seduction scene just made me laugh. Benjamin's response to the titillating seduction of an older woman is just - funny. All of that, "Mrs Robinson, this conversation is getting really weird," was just hilarious. I was shocked to discover how many times the The Graduate was referenced in other movies.

The Graduate has many enigmatic, long still shots of Benjamin's face, a kind of over-intellectual 1970's cinematography including were lengthy shots of Benjamin's stoic face whilst stared up at the sky in deep contemplation from the family swimming pool. The film was youth-centric, everything from the Simon and Garfunkle soundtrack, to the cinematography to the pop culture shock was all about the young people. The cinematography really encapsulated the distinct spirit of the late 1960's without getting too much into the weird 1970's intellectualism.

My Favorite Clips

I have often asked myself, what is the point of knowing a word when I cannot use that word to communicate with another person. If you ever have the answer to that question, please clue me in.

Below I include a list of some of my favorite movie clips. Before each clip, I explain why the clip makes the list.

1. Breaking Bad: This clip shows us how the protagonist becomes the antagonist.




2. Devils Advocate: Al Pacino's Speech is not the lecture of a devil, it is the lecture of a nihilist. I like the lecture because, as an atheist who believes neither in god nor the devil, agree completely with his argument.



3. Forrest Gump: If it is true that stupid is as stupid does, then Forrest is a genius because he has done a lot in his life.



5. The Color Purple: This clip is wonderful as Celie comes into her own. After years of humiliation and abuse, she finds her voice.



6. Girl Interrupted: Angelina Jolie is truly frightening. There is something frightening about a person who tells the truth.



7. Pulp Fiction: "Mmmm, this is a tasty burger". I like this scene because I think it is good acting



8. Elizabeth I - I love this scene because Cate Blanchette accurately prortrays the strength of Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth was one of the best rules England had ever known (and she kicked Spain's ass)




8. Breakfast Club: The 1985 movie is about how five students from different cliques, meet in detention where they discover how they have more in common than they may have thought. This scene is meaningful to me because we see how Bender has a horrible home life.




9. Mildred Pierce: I like this scene because Mildred (Joan Crawford) finally lifts the wool over her eyes and see's her daughter for what she is, a manipulating snake in the grass. I think Joan Crawford is a fantastic actress.

Who Foots the Bill for Fat Acceptance?

Why is it so hard to just ignore these people?

Another Trayvon-Martin-esque case sprung from the bowels of Florida once again. November 23rd 2012 Seventeen year old Jordan Davis was shot to death whilst sitting in the back of a vehicle. The shooter was 45 year old Michael Dunn. He drove a black Jetta. Below is the CNN video. If the link does not work, click here: LINK




Forward to 1:24 of the CNN video. "Police say what happened was a verbal altercation between Dunn sitting in his car and the other teens sitting in theirs." According to Dunn, one of the teens was trying to escalate the confrontation threatening to kill him.

At the 2:00 mark, Dunn explains that he said to the teens, "excuse me, but are you talking about me?" According to Dunn one of the teens said, "kill that bitch." Then the boy allegedly reached down and grabbed something. 

When confrontations happen, egos hijack common sense. People need to learn to take the high road and walk away. Speaking only for myself, I went to an awful inner city high school in Seattle. There were some gang-bangers and many bratty kids who started problems. My solution was simply to ignore them. They are morons. They are retarded people making retarded choices. As such, they do not deserve my attention or my words. 

Some would argue that Dunn should not have to move his car, the teens should have been decent human beings. The fact that the teens were acting like a bunch of hood rats is doubtless. However, this is an example of that situation where one must be the bigger person and walk away. It is not about "accepting defeat", it is about being smart. 

If a fight or argument ensued, my job was to stand up, gather my belongings and walk away. One time, a black kid (they type with his pants hanging halfway down his ass) actually came out yelling at me because I ignored him. "You ain't deaf!" As much as I wanted to say, "Ain't is not a word, please learn the English language if you want to address me." I remained silent and continued to ignore him. We never spoke to each other and that is exactly how I like it. 

The kid with his pants hanging down his ass is not the only one I ignored. There were also a group of trailer trash girls that I would also ignore. 

I had a small circle of friends: two white females, one black female, two Hispanic and a few Vietnamese girls. That was it. I had some male friends as well, they too were from different racial backgrounds. The point is, do not be so politically correct that you fail to identify the people in this world who are not any more valuable than a stinking pile of shit. Shit people start fights. Shit people actively seek out things to be upset about. Shit people are never happy. Shit people are crabs in a bucket. Shit people rarely amount to anything in this world. Identify the shit people and ignore them. 

So what is the point of all this. Some shit punks will play their radio loud. Some will verbally accost you, and many will do it particularly because you are white. I was targeted many times because I am white.  Be the bigger person and ignore it. 

Some people are not worth the air consumed to speak their name. Some people are not worth your time or your words. These are the low class people who have nothing positive to contribute to society. 

Some people deserve to be ignored until they are ready to enter civilized society. Just look at the video below. Why would you consider even speaking to these people? There are millions of people in this world far better than this. The fact that any person would even engage in this activity and not walk away from it shows their true value to society. 

Common Trial Objections

COMMON TRIAL OBJECTIONS

Logic is a wonderful thing. Logic brought me to my default position of agnostic, atheism. Logic brought me to a place of default skepticism about any proposition one asks me to accept. When we are growing up, we tend to be credulous about things people tell us: parents, authority figures, politicians, television, YouTube and the internet. Without a solid foundation in logic (philosophy) we are gullible apes. 

We cannot change the fact that we are apes, but the gullible part we can change. 

Logic has two realms. The first realm: how do we reason? Which mode of reasoning is valid and/or fallacious  For example, we know that there are flaws of inductive logic, because when a person's behavior does not match our expected outcome, we realize that our entire system of thinking must be recycled and replaced. Studying modes of thought is not easy, but it is something we must do if we are to become smarter, more rational people. 

The second realm of logic questions what we do with valid reasoning. So before we begin with the substance of this essay, which is, trial objections and the logic behind them, lets first watch Michael Shermer Bullshit Detector Kit to refresh our  understanding as to, why being a rational thinker is very important. 

I am writing about common trail objections today, because I want to better understand the logic behind them. Bye that, there is a reasoning mode behind each one of them. One person objects because the other person is asking a logically unfair question. 

John The Other is one special guy :-)

There is something deeply wrong with John the Other. This man has no confidence in himself and some serious mental issues. I think that he suffers from a low self-esteem. Take the brief comment exchange above. For months ago, I politely asked him to explain a word he used. He waits FOUR MONTHS to post a response. As you can read, he completely ignored the question.

This man likes to string together words, "gender ideological characterization", to make himself sound smart. Then, when someone like me....(a female!) politely asks him to explain what that three-word term actually means, he calls me illiterate. Having read many of my blogs in the past, he knows that not only am I literate in English but I know a few other languages as well.

The truth is, John reminds me a lot of my father. In one sense, he is a smart guy who is trying too hard to be something he isn't. He tries to be part of a group he considers the 'intellectual elite'. I do not think that the intellectuals are any more valuable than the rest of us regular folk. It is sad when I think about it.

I hope he finds something in this world he is truly good at doing, and feels comfortable enough in himself to stop pretending to belong to a group that he does not belong to.

American Hysterics

American people also have short memories and an insatiable thirst for pop culture criminal courts. Public dialog about these pop-culture criminal courts became a hodgepodge of uniformed people, speculating about things that they clearly do not understand.

Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul set out to study “whether or not objective reporting actually inhibits political participation.” Seventy students taking a course in news writing were divided into two groups. Half were given a “straight news” article about a 2008 controversy in Korea — the country’s importation of beef from the U.S. despite consumer protests that it wasn’t safe — and half were given an opinionated one.

The students who were politically knowledgeable “were immune to the agitating voice” of the opinionated article, Kim found. But nonobjective stories “exerted profound persuasive impact” on those who were not “sufficiently politically equipped to guide their judgments and actions by self-organized mature knowledge.” Those students were far more likely to attend a protest against the government importing American beef.

In addition, Kim found that the type of media that students consumed influenced their actions.

Traditional media such as newspapers and television did not significantly influence the subjects’ attitude toward the protest. It was the Internet and interpersonal communication that resulted in the subjects’ criticism of the Korean government policy to import U.S. beef. The more frequently subjects used the Internet; the more positive they were toward the protest.

If you accept that discussing political issues is an adequate measure of political engagement, then opinionated journalism was more influential for those who weren’t engaged. More-knowledgeable consumers valued fact-based reporting, whether they decided to go to the protest or not.

Who here remembers who Lizzie Borden was? Think about it before googling her name. She was the O.J. Simpson of the 19^th century. The year was 1893. Lizzie Borden was an upper-class American woman accused of murdering her father and step mother with an axe Two days after her parent’s murder, papers began reporting evidence that thirty-three-year-old Lizzie Borden might have had something to do with her parents' murders. There was no evidence against her. A jury of twelve men could not see how a young female could possibly have committed such a heinous crime. The story hit newsstands across the country. Everyone had an opinion. It was a national obsession.

National obsessions used to hit every decade or so. The media choses one case, and sensationalizes it. As our attention span has become much shorter, and our memories much shorter, national obsessions are happening every few months instead of every decade.

I think back in our caveman days, we enjoyed village gossip. Knowing what others were up to was an important part of our ability to survive in a group. We are social animals.  Occasional, sometimes I am told something I wish I never heard. There have been many moments when I wanted to be ignorant. But the lives of other people, their movements, plots, deceptions, and crimes are as meaningful in our lives as any other natural force. Obsession with sensationalized new stories simply takes our natural interest in the lives of others to a larger scale.

From the Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul study, we conclude most uninformed people are not qualified to form opinions. They uninformed are swayed by the agitated voice in reporting. In short, “rabble rabble (pitch fork) rabble rabble rabble.” For example, one guy on Facebook posted a comment stating that the only objective of the Trayvon Martin case was to prove that a seventeen year old black boy has the right to buy something at the store without being shot and killed.

This case is not about skittles, ice tea or the marijuana in Trayvons system. This case is not about whether or not Zimmerman was right/wrong for following the boy. Last I checked, following someone is not illegal.  (The following does not fit the definition of stalking)

The case is about this: was George Zimmerman defending himself, yes or no. That is it.

Paranoid people speculate that Zimmerman inflicted his own head wounds and broke his own nose. People who make speculations are in no position to provide legal opinions about any proposition.

Public dialog has become a hodgepodge of uniformed people, guessing about things that they clearly do not understand. Seriously, how many of these people have even taken a measly paralegal class at a community college, let alone opened up a copy of a legal dictionary?

Does it matter Zimmerman was following Martin? – No! The behavior was within his rights, and does not qualify as stalking. Following someone is not a criminal offense. It is not even a misdemeanor. It is creepy, and it certainly offended Martin. I would be offended too. But it is not a crime, as such, it is not relevant in the deliberation room.

Trayvoon Martin does not have just cause attacking Zimmerman just because he was following him. I have been followed by men plenty of times. (I am a woman and have a lot more to fear). I have never attacked anyone following me. Men have even followed me off the freeway. Did I attack them? No - I didn't. 

What I find amazing is that people with no legal training get so emotionally offended and caught up in a case spoon fed to them by the media. 

One person wrote, “well, the dispatcher said do not follow him.” That is true. The dispatcher did say that. However, I know of no law that says we have to listen to a dispatcher. Still – no law was broken. Being upset that you are being followed is not cause to attacking someone. As I said before, I am female and I have been followed many, many, many times by men. Never once did I attack someone following me. I am surprised people are unable to see this clear logic. 

My prediction about the George Zimmerman case is that the jury will find reasonable doubt. The injuries he sustained indicate a physical altercation. He will be found not guilty, and we will probably see some riots. Eventually, it will all blow over and everyone will forget about it.

In no time at all, Nancy Grace will be on TV all pissed off that some white woman is missing, and the Martin case will be a distant memory. 

Avvo: the place to go for Fake legal advice

Do you know what Avvo is? If you do not know what it is, carefully read the following weblink:

    http://www.avvo.com/free-legal-advice

Avvo is supposed to be a place where we get 'free legal advice'. Most of the attorneys who use the forum are unable to perform that basic function - provide free legal advice.  Avvo is a place for pretend legal advice, this is particularly true when pro se litigants post questions seeking legal advice. A vast majority of lawyers on Avvo are not doing what the site claims they are supposed to do, they only thing they are really doing is advertising their lawyer services.  Their function is to provide pretend legal advice. 

In the last year I have been posting a variety of legal questions. I can honestly say that the number of lawyers who actually posted informative comments are less than ten percent (10%). In many instances, if you reply to their comment, simply explaining that they completely neglected to answer the question posed, they respond with some sarcastic remark. 

Not only are they providing 'fake' legal advice, but they are rude to suffering people at the same time. 

I am all for using social networks to advertise. That is not what these people are doing. Avvo claims to offer actual free legal advice, when in truth, most of the lawyers posting comments are not there to help anyone but themselves.  

Avvo is the guilty agent. They should not be promoting this website with 'free legal advice' when 9 out of 10 lawyers are not doing that. It is completely dishonest. 

---------------------------

In the last year, I had the distinct pleasure of posting many questions. Each time I post a question, I cross my fingers, say a little prayer to that non-existent god and say, "hmm, I wonder if anyone will actually ANSWER the question this time." 

I have the distinct impression that avoo-advertising lawyers believe they belong to a coveted club. Obtaining legal knowledge from them is as easy as solving the riddle of the Sphinx. In fact, most pro se litigants will have better luck pulling out one of their own permanent teeth with a rusty pair of pliers than getting an actual legal question answered. 


The best analogy that I can give for this scenario comes from the cartoon, The Incredibles. Remember when that little old lady on a fixed income tried to make an insurance claim, and Mr. Incredible gave her "secret" inside advice? When I post questions on Avvo, I am hoping that I might find a Mr. Incredible who will answer the question - and not the horrible Gilbert Godfrey manager that tries to keep knowledge secret.

Belief in the Unfalsifiable

I           INTRODUCTION

What would you think if I told you there is an ugly, self-sustaining, omnipotent invisible force that explains everything. It frames every argument, structures language, and every element of human experience. It is like the air we breath, most of the time we do not think about it or know it is there. It has an amazing ability to control the brains of women and men, framing every belief, value and cultural norm human beings experience since the dawn of time. It's barnacles are entirely invisible. You cannot touch it, feel it, taste it, or even smell it. It has no shape, color, form, or mass. As scientists, forget about trying to use the scientific method to study it because it cannot be studied.  Imagine something so powerful, omnipotent and invisible that it is able to inundate every single collective achievement made by humanity since the day we jumped down from the African trees and started walking on two feet.

This impressive thing explains everything. However, as it cannot be quantified or studied in any empirical manner, one must construct auxiliary hypothesis answering questions that cannot be answered in a research facility. When we start to question it, when we ask "how can this one thing explain everything?" they become angry, defensive, and create safe, exclusive groups. Behind the walls of these exclusive groups, believers congratulate each other on their intelligence, wisdom, and berate those who are just too blind to 'get it.'

People believe in my invisible, all powerful thing because they selectively notice information that is consistent with its existence, and ignore whilst undervaluing/ignoring information that is not consistent with its existence. Within their exclusive groups, they pander anecdotal stories proving the omnipotent invisible force is real. They feel victimized when anyone questions the existence of the invisible thing. Most of you probably think that I am talking about God.  But you know what. I am not writing about god at all, I am writing the social theory of patriarchy.

This article will examine Patriarchy as a theory that is beyond falsifiability. I will make no value judgement for or against patriarchy as a legitimate social system. I will consider the fact that it is real and not real, has power over human behavior and little power over human behavior. As a person who values fairness, I will treat patriarchy with as much fairness as I can muster. For now, my personal beliefs about patriarchy are irrelevant, and will be discussed in the End Notes, after the conclusion of this blog. 

This is not acceptable

When I uploaded my video today, I noticed on the right hand side of my upload there were some odd YouTube recommendations. The one that made me laugh was this one:

Wat to and not to do wen somebody has a birth defect



The video was made by one Lisa Conner.

Lets take a look at the title of this video again, I want to make sure you all took a good, long look.

I made a promise to be a nicer person, but.... AHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHH

Dear Lisa, let me help you for a moment. 

Every time you write a video title or provide a Facebook status update, you are providing something for the world to see.  I am prompted to write this blog because I cannot believe how much unintelligible garbage, including your use of the monosyllabic grunts - "wat" and "wen" are put on on public display. This is not an abbreviated word for a twitter update, there is more than enough space in a YouTube Title Box to properly spell out the title of your video. 

Next, lets work on the grammar, it is not necessary to write "to and not to". It is repetitive. Proper spelling is an indication of both education and intelligence. There is a correlation between people who are stupid and people who cannot spell. I am not calling you stupid, but if you are young and misguided then you simply will not understand the importance of putting the right foot forward.  

American English is standard. There is no such thing as "white English", "Asian English" or "black English". It is okay to have an accent, but it is NOT okay to misspell elementary words or write like you have never passed a second grade spelling test.  

Have standards: if you want to command respect in this world then you must respect your audience as well. Speak properly, employ good grammar and for the love of Zeus - if you cannot spell it then DO NOT write it. 

Noble Death or Darwin Award?

Tim Samaras, Paul Samaras and Carl Young were storm chasers employed by The Weather Channel. News were all killed while chasing tornadoes near El Reno Oklahoma. With the news of their deaths infiltrating social media, many people around the world are sharing their grief. At first, I thought they were a bunch of adrenaline junkie morons who, for the pursuit of photographs, got themselves killed. I was wrong.  I had to throw away about eighty percent of what I wrote, and start anew.  I used to think that these people were just stupid for putting their lives in danger. Not anymore. 

Katia and Maurice Krafft

In 1991, French volcanologists  Katia and Maurice Krafft were killed while filming eruptions at Mount Unzen. They died when a pyroclastic flow suddenly swept onto their ridge. They were killed instantly. Their provided some of the most amazing footage and photographs to the National Geographic.

Dian Fossey was a respected Zoologist living and studying gorillas in the mountain forests of Rwanda  She was found dead. There was a successful Hollywood movie made about her life, Gorillas in the Mist.

Ocbober 2003, Tim Treadwell was eaten alive by an Alaskan Grisly bear. The audio portion of his death was recorded by his video camera. He had lived among the bears for nearly a decade. A documentary film Grizzly Man came out a few years following his death.


Over the last few days I have been thinking about whether or not these people deserve the Darwin Award. At first I thought - yes, then I changed my mind. Then I wrestled with the question, what does  it mean to die a noble death? Is death for the pursuit of science noble? 

Dian Fossey's death was a tragedy. She was a respected zoologist studying the ecology and behavior of our fellow primates.  Katia and Maurice Krafft also made great contributions to science. These people brought the world some of the first and most amazing photographs of primates and volcanoes.

Tim was a an odd man, but if he did not live with the bears he would have lived as a shadow of himself. I value authenticity in myself, and would be nothing short of a hypocrite if I did not value Tim's authenticity. Granted, I still think that life is more important, and should never be risked, but if he feels differently so be it. If we have the right to choose how we live, where we live, what we will eat then surely we have the right to chose how we will end our lives. 

I am genuinely sad for the storm chasers. I cannot imaging the pain Ms. Samaras must be enduring at this moment, having lost her husband and her son. Yet, I know these unnecessary deaths will inspire us to ask more philosophical questions about how to live authentically and what it means to die a noble death. 

Abdullah Mohammed Daoud

Saudi Sheik, Abdullah M. Daoud, claimes twenty six percent of Saudi children between the ages of 6 and 10 were victims of child abuse. Shocking number, isn't it? He proposed a fatwa that babies and children should be veiled right out of the hospital. I know - lunacy, right?

First, let's try to figure out where did he get that numbers. Saudi Arabia does not report incidences of rape, molestation and other acts of violence to the UN, let alone to their own people. Islamic countries like to pretend their crime rates are very low, and Islam gets credit for those low crime rates. So the statistics are coming from where?

I have heard Saudi's also claim that most American women do not even know who the father of their babies are. Where do they get that fact from? Oh...that's right... the same place Daoud got his facts. These people think that the entire world is stupid, and completely unaware that the make up their own "statistics" according to whatever propaganda they are pushing at the moment. 

I do not doubt that children are molested and abused in Saudi Arabia. However, I think that their rates of child abuse is relatively on par with the rest of planet earth. 

"Sheikh Mohammad al-Jzlana, a former Saudi judge and Islamic cleric told Al-Arabiya that such a fatwa could only come from a pervert. He added that people like Abdullah Daoud were denigrating to Islam and Shariah and made Muslims look bad. He also said that he felt sad he saw families walking around with a veiled baby, describing that as injustice to children." -worldcrunch.com

I have to ask myself, is his fatwa really denigrating to Islam? Islam has done a very good job of denigrating itself. Islam does not need Daoud's help looking ridiculous. 

His entire fatwa is based upon the idea that if a baby is in a veil, some pervert will not be tempted to molest it. Daoud clearly has no real understanding how the mind of a pedophile works. A pedophile will usually have access to a child regardless if the child is in a veil or not. A pedophile is usually a trusted family friend or relative. The baby-burka will do nothing to protect the child. 

The entire idea that a veil prevents rape in the first place is beyond my understanding. Women should be free to wear what ever they want to wear, drink what ever they want to drink, pass out where ever they want to pass out without having to worry about a man forcing himself on her. These people think that men are primitive beasts that cannot help themselves when they see someone they want to penetrate, be it a woman or an infant. If I was a man - I would be insulted. 

The answer to this problem is not with focusing on the victim, covering the victim, or blaming the victim. The answer to this lives in focusing the entire conversation on the perpetrator. 

For more reading, check out Les Cinq Fatwa Plus Idiots 

The Real Naomi

I usually do not like to write about myself. Once upon a time I wrote diaries, but found that people cannot help but snoop. I have never met a single person in my life, who know I had a diary, and did not violate my privacy. Diaries are not for me anymore.

I use this blog to exercise my first amendment rights.  I write philosophy, I write drama, and often times, there is no censor between my brain and the pen. I say what I really think, and, I like to say the things I know other people are thinking but too kind to say themselves.

So, for a change, lets talk about me. In an interview on 60 minutes, Angelina Jolie said something that resonates with me. She was talking about how she had too many close calls in her life, took things too far and really should not be here. I think she was a heroin addict at one point in her life. I do not relate to drug addiction, with one exception. I cook with wine, and sometimes, I even add it to the food. (Ta Da!) In all seriousness, I do not relate to addiction but I do relate to her feelings about pushing things too far.

I identify with Angelina - To my detriment, I stayed at the freak show just a little too long.

Congratulations Mississippi - you are moving up in the world

Congratulations Mississippi! According to recent US studies, you have moved up to the Second fattest state in the Union.

The Michael Lindsay Brief

On the twenty-seventh day of July, 2018 Mike Lindsey was at his home of Pearl, Rankin County Mississippi. 

According to the police report made by officer Hugh Johnson, David Knapp, a 261 pound male, 32 years old came to Michael's home armed with beer bottles. Knapp was Michael's neighbor, accompanied by his girlfriend Shannon Few and another neighbor's son, Steven Booth.He banged on the Defendants door, calling him, shouting "I am going to kick the mother fucker's ass" to. He called Mike Lindsey to come outside. 

Michael came outside. From this point on, I do not know what the facts are. I do not know what happened, who struck who first, what was said or what the fight was about. What I do know is that David Knapp broke one of the bottles over the Michaels head, and started stabbing him in the face with the broken bottle. 

After Knapp gravely assaulted Lindsay, Lindsay begged someone to call 911. His roomate Reggie Tisdale refused to call 911, according to a witness, because he did not want anyone to go to jail. 

The Defendant Lindsay went into his home to retrieve a phone to call 911. Bleeding, and unable to find his phone, he knew that he had to get medical attention.

Lindsay grabbed a kitchen knife, and went back outside. Lindsay thought Knapp attacked his roommate as well. He was injured pretty badly at this point, so I do not know how clear Lindsay's thinking was at the time. The fight started anew. Again, I do not know who assaulted who first this time around. Lindsay stabbed Knapp one single time in the side. Knapp did not survive his injuries, he died soon after. 

Knapp was much younger, larger and stronger than Lindsay. The altercation happened outside, and still on Lindsay's property which means, pursuant M.C.A. § 97-3-15.  Lindsay had the right to stand his ground. Lindsay had no duty to retreat. 

I learned of this case from Bill Windsor's Documentary Film, Lawless America. I was told, that these images of Lindsay stabbed, beaten and bloody were taken by the police. 

The Prosecution hid these images. They were not released, the jury never saw them, and Lindsay was convicted of manslaughter. He is now serving a twenty year prison sentence. 

The State's position is that Lindsay should have stayed in his home. He should not have come back onto the patio to fight the assailant. Self defense means that a person should use just enough force, and no more than necessary, to protect themselves from a life threatening situation. The laws on self defense vary from one state to another. You are allowed to use reasonable physical force to protect yourself from imminent physical injury.  You can only use that physical force to stop the threat of harm. 

From the legal perspective, when Lindsay was in the house, he was not in imminent danger anymore. Some states, like Mississippi, have Castle laws. These laws don't require you to retreat if you're in your home and an intruder threatens serious bodily injury or death. You're allowed to use deadly force to "protect your castle."

Lindsay's property (house, patio,front yard, driveway) are all his Castle. It follows, that he should not have been expected to retreat. (an argument never presented to the jury) Moreover, he had reasonable fear that Knapp would harm his roommate. 

What we know about Knapp is that he was a big man, a convicted felon and already assaulted Lindsay. One stab wound in the side, is not enough to tell me that Lindsay desired Knapp's death. He wanted to disable Knapp, preventing Knapp, who was still on his property, from causing further harm to himself or his roommate. 

Michael Lindsay Bottle Attack

What bothers me about this case is that the jury did not see Lindsay's photographs, and did not consider the doctrine that Lindsay had the right to stand his ground. Personally - I would have stayed in the house. But, when your roommate and lifelong friend is in the altercation as well, I might have reacted the same way Lindsay did. I am a very non-violent person, but when loved ones are involved it does change things. 

Lets juxtapose this case with a similar one from Oklahoma. In 2009, pharmacist Jerome Ersland was working at the store he owned, Reliable Pharmacy when a few teenagers came in to rob him. Ersland pulled out a gun and shot the 16 year old Antwun Parker in the head.

Ersland left the store looking for the other kids. He could not find them, so he returned to the store. Parker was laying on the floor. Jerome Ersland went behind the counter, grabbed another gun, and shot Parker a few more times.

Jerome Ersland thought that he would get a manslaughter charge. The jury did not see it that way, they convicted him of murder.

I have never had a teenager hold a gun to my head, but I can only imagine how frightening it must be. This leads me to wonder whether fear motivates people to take things too far. Lindsay left the 'safety' of his house, stabbing his attacker because he was afraid. Ersland's body was raging with adrenaline after several kids try to rob him. It is easy to understand.

I found the following YT video discussing the case. I have to admit, I completely agree with her argument on this Ersland case.