Your little princess is my little _____

If you so inclined for some questionable images then tshirthell.com may be a place you looking for (Yah I went to college that's where you find out about those things). It is the place "where all bad shirts go". Now you may be wondering "Why does this matter?"

It's the first thing that comes to mind after watching 7 year old girls going hard on single ladies and they are in 1 grade. Some might think this is "cute", because when little kids do adult things it's cute. Like when you son, whom is all of 2 years old, tries to say fire truck and can only say "fire fuck". Yah it's cuted. But what should we make of children acting like overly sexual adults?

I have no doubt that the little girls in this video have no concept of the sexual overtones in the dance. They learned it, performed it, and thought they pulled it off to the best of their ability, but they most likely never wondered "should they have done it?" That job should have fallen to the parents and dancer instructors who taught them this dance.

Yes, children doing adult things is cute. After all little Billy and Jane are just trying to grow up and be like mommy and daddy... There is a point, however, when cuteness becomes a problem. There are other things that are cute for children that are just not acceptable for adults. Pillow hair on children is cute. Pillow hair on adults makes you think they are unkept and possibly crazy. Having chocolate cat smeared all over your face is a right of passage for 1 year olds, but for the adult it's and embarrassment.

Just as their are things that are no longer cute when you are an adult there are things that should be shameful for children to do that adults can. If a women dances provocatively she is either trying to entice a mate or arouse their current mate. A seven year old has no business contemplating a mate so they should not be dancing for one.

Let me back up a moment. I missed something. There is another reason for a women to dance. Men pay many to these women for the moments of arousal. They pay for the titillation that it provides them. The men fantasize about what they can do with those dancers. Like wise there are adults who watch these little girls and think the same.

Men, if you don't want "your little princes" to be some man's "little whore" then don't allow them to be trained in the ways of whoredome

Defying Gravity: Space odysy or sin fest?

I like Sci-Fi. No I could probably go so far as to say I love sci-fi. Not the channel, though I do watch it, but the genre. That said I'm always skeptical when it comes to new "sci-fi" shows. I liked the Stargate Series, yes many were very campy and you can find no end of junk science in the show but it was fun. The remake of Battlestar Galactica had brought some hope to me. It was a serious show that was more drama then sci-fi. Battlestar appealed to more of the masses then most other sci-fi shows. It had a good store (at least in the start). You always had an interesting tension with the new human cylons and the people of Caprica. However after the 2nd season things went all crazy. Besides the sudden all women are strong and the men became wussies, the story just kind of well got blah.

So when I say the first preview of Defying Gravity I thought "why it's Desperate house wives in space". It's a simple who's banging who in space instead of on the block. I started watching it on Hulu.com and have to say my feelings are still mixed. Defying Gravity is not what I thought it was at all. It's rather serious and very much a human introspective with all it's good and bad. I'd be remiss if I sade there wasn't some more adult content. The Nadia's habit of "marking" and being a "friends with benefits" to Donner is not hidden in the show. The show is not exactly a moral paragon of virtue. That said there is a moral tug to all the players. Maddux Donner, played by Ron Livingston, is the narrator and lead protaginist of the show. He plays the part well. Conflicted with the lose of the women he loved on Mars he constantly battles with his past while wanting to continue the future. His tryst with Nadia is most probably due to her like of strong yet vulnerable men and his need to try and forget Mars. It fails of course as this always does, but then Zoe comes into the picture and things change but he still battles with past.

Zoe Barnes is the little girl who wanted to go to space. She gets her wish at great cost, one such cost is the pregnancy she terminates with a little pill. However like Donner her past haunts her. She cannot shake the guilt and she continually hears the cry of a baby in the ship. I'm not sure I like the way this story line is going with Zoe however it seems to stay in tension. Jen Crane and Ajay Sharma both have different takes on her terminating her pregnancy. Jen has the secular view of it by way of "you cannot go to space pregnant". Ajay brings in the Hindu idea that the child's spirt will be reincarnated in a new body and they will both be happy. However this is typical of people who seek to be helpful but really don't know the impact of losing a child. I'll be curious to see how they play this story line out.

The last episode (Season 1 Ep 7: "Fear") opened many future questions for almost everyone. Given the hallucination they saw you see glimpses of their past that affect their present. Personally I would like to see them all redeemed as they grow, but the question is more a matter of who not when will that happen. It's pretty clear that Defying Gravity is following the "Past haunting your future till you deal with it" mystic. Now it just a matter to see how it plays out.

The Dragon Tank: If Obama would only fund one of these I might be behind him.

I might be able to get behind Obama if he would fund the Dragon Tank. But he is probably going to axe it. Stupid.

Always nice to know that Congress is doing their best to FSCK us all.

On June 26, 2009 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454 . aka American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219-212. Now for those of you doing the math that is a very slim margin. 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted Yes, and 44 Democrat and 168 Republicans voted no. There were 3 abstain votes (2 Rep, 1 Dem).

Now we get to see if the Senate has some moment of sanity and hopefully says no. If not we then we are looking at higher taxes and commodity prices at best and businesses vacating the country at worst. Either case I see jobs declining as wealth generation is shot to hell.

Personally I like alternative fuels and energy production. I'd love nothing more than to have my home 100% solar/wind energy. But the cost is prohibitive. At this point those things are luxuries. The free market method would be to allow all energy methods to compete and the best one wins. But look at what our government does. It gives monopoly rights to the power companies so you don't get competition for rates. Solar is more effective in different locations and has great potential but we also have the battery issue to deal with. Last I checked our battery technology hasn't really changed all that much. So in order to store energy for New York to keep glowing overnight, you need some massive energy storage capabilities to go along with your pretty little solar panel, wind generator, or wave generator.

I think one day we will be there and the market, if left to work, will make it happen. Either alternative energy will reach the maturity point that it can out compete oil and gas, or we start using up all the oil and gas to the point that it cost to much for it to compete with wind/solar. Either way the market is the better measure to make it happen. Not government dictates that will cost lively hoods and lower quality of life.

King of Pop has died. Still cannot determin if that is a shame.

I don't say this to be cruel as I really like Michael Jackson's music but the man changed over time to something that was just bizarre. This change was probably for many reason, some of them may have been due to MJ's life growing up and his need to always remain a child combined with the natural tenancies of male hormones. In short he wanted to have a life of play but had sexual desires.

I never bought into the paedophile angle for MJ. He really wanted somebody to play with and adults just did not play with toys any more. How do you fault someone for that? Then again the whole wanting to have slumber parties thing was screwy. Not because a child wouldn't want that but because MJ was in some respects a man-child which always left room for people to doubt what was happing. Sure it may have been nothing but for many people perception is reality.

MJ was a great musician and lyricist. As an artist I would agree he was without equal. I have meet few people in my life that haven't liked some of his music. Combine his musical talent for a man who was a genuin show men and you have one dynamic package of talent. In some respects I almost wonder if MJ had borderline aspergers syndrome? He was increadibly brilliant yet failed so many social norms. I wouldn't be suprised if he was as it would explain much of his actions and talent.

Michael Jackson was a great talent, humanitan, and generally nice (yet strange) person. I pray for his family and hope that there was nothing shady about his death. I hope MJ's Christian root took hold and I get a chance to meet the man in heaven some day. As for now I think I'm going to have to play some MJ greatest hits...

"...hes sort of god" says Evan Thomas

On 2009.06.05, Evan Thomas just gushed all over Obama.

Newsweeks Evan Thomas: Obama Is Sort of god.

Now Evan's could be on some drugs or medication, or he could be a raving fascist/socialist. If you really want to be scared though then check out http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/ and see what others have posted/displayed.

There are many people who says similar things about Obama and frankly he is looking more and more like an "anti-christ".

Digital socialism? Wired did you know what "Socialism" is?

Kevin Kelly of Wired Magazine postulates that "The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online".

To be fair I think much of this is really a lack of understanding or purposeful changing of meaning:

I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there's rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one. [emphasis mine]

So what is traditional Socialism and Communism? Merriam-Webster's defines it thusly:

Socialism:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production
and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3:
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism
and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and
pay according to work done

Communism:
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property
b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a:
a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and
Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics
b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d: communist systems collectively

Now lets look at some differences. First "no private property". Even on the Internet today there is private property. The problem is there seems to be a disconnect on understanding what "property" really is. This weights heavily into copyright debt and in this case how idea's make their way to others hands.  Second "single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production". This definition is pulled from the "communism" pie but as you see in socialism definition it is not solely in the communism camp. This fails because much/most/if not all of the Internet is abhorrent to central control. ICANN is probably the only true one stop authority and it can still be  done away with when looking at LAN or private networks.

Kevin Kelly correctly points out that many "communities" of people are formed on the Internet daily. Many are built of people willing to share with each other. OSS does this but Kevin misses the understanding of "property" and judging by his writing he would think that "ideas" are property.  A major debate on copyright essentially deals with the ownership of "ideas". The Internet being a digital medium given to the exchange of idea more than the exchange of "things" is pretty idea driven. It does not relay on me getting my grain to market or the transport of physical goods. Some would say that the "Internet" has no property and thus it's content has no property rights. Now enter "copyright".

Copyright is a government enforced method of establishing ownership to something that is not so easily labeled property. It was some guys way of having a power other than one's self enforce ownership. Personally I have a hard time with seeing idea's as property. The moment a word leaves my lips others can use it, but apparently if the right sequence of words leave my lips in a rhythmic way it is now a song and thus can be copyrighted.  The pieces of information themselves are not copyrighted or otherwise we would all have a humdinger of a time conversing with each other after someone claimed ownership of the word "the". However if I string "the" in a series of other words I might have a way a breaking the CSS encryption on DVDs.

In the case of the Internet people come together in "communities" but they do this voluntarily. This is not like socialism or communism where communities are formed at the behest of government to fulfill the needs that the government sees. If anything the Internet is more like free market capitalism due to the freedom to take you resources (time and money) some place else if you don't like what you see. Same goes with OSS.

Open Source Software (OSS) gives vast amount of choice with what you select and what you do once you select something. That is more free market capitalism than socialism as socialism would would not give a choice. If you don't believe me then look at countries like Cuba that has a very limited choice of who can have a car. OSS is all about choice.

I think Kevin is in the situation confusing economic philosophies with community. "Community" can have divers economies with in it. Most communities have a "black market" along side the regular market. Add in the local barter market and the regular national market and you could have three or more economic markets that theoretically could all operate under different economic philosophies.

Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective
worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected
to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels,
we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we
have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is
getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer
production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a
bounty of free goods.

Kevin shows his lack of knowledge given that socialism didn't offer much choice. The collective farms were forced where as collective communities on the Internet are all about choice. "Choice" is a major differences between a free market and socialism. The basic of any economic theory is the allocation of resources. Socialism thought the best and "fair" way of allocating resources was to have central planing take care of it. The free market thought the collection individual was best at determining the value and the best to maintain freedom. Socialism would say there is only need for one model of car and one brand of bread made by one group of farmers. The free market says those who can produce the cheapest and survive competition is the best to provide because they can do it the most efficiently.

If anything the Internet is the ultimate free market. Sure people give information for free but remember economics deals with "property" not ideas. The "market place of ideas" has monetary value by capitalizing on the use of the idea or by government force to give monopoly to an idea. If I build a better lawn mower but cannot produce it as good as another is then my "idea" is not as good as I think. In a free market I would have the ability to either seek a way to efficiently have my lawn mower produced and thus generate wealth with real property. In socialism/communism, there is only one lawn mower to be shared and produced. If you want a different one then you have to consult the powers that be to see if they think it is better. If they think it isn't better then your idea doesn't go on.

So I ask you, which do you think the Internet is more like? A free market were people have the freedom to form communities as they please, or like socialism where community is forced and planned by a central organization?