The 'Reasonable' Dude.

"The Reasonable Man" is a highly important term of art in English Law (and American I imagine). It is the objective standard by which we are all judged in law.

• In criminal law, a defendant usually has to come way below the standards of the reasonable dude.
• To be guilty of manslaughter by negligence you have show an appalling level of care, skill etc. (A doctor - Adomako - was not guilty despite disconnecting an oxygen tube in an operation, something no other doc would've done in his shoes).
• To be guilty of dangerous driving you have to drive "Far below standard of REASONABLE driver".

So it appears that in negligence our REASONABLE DUDE is a mark for a variety of levels of standard, not just simply what he might do, but something far worse than he might do.

Q: How can this horribly imprecise (supposedly objective) standard get worse?
A: When the law begins to attribute the defendant's characteristics to the 'reasonable' man.

Example:

1. Provocation as a defence can reduce murder to manslaughter.
2. There are two tests to pass:
a. Subjective - Defendant is so subject to passion as to lose control of his mind.
b. Objective - That the provocation was enough to cause a REASONABLE DUDE to lose his self control and to act as D did.
3. Fine, right?
4. No.
5. Because the law attributes to the reasonable dude 'any special characteristics that affect the degree of control a jury could reasonably expect from D and which it would be unjust not to take into account.' E.G: ANYTHING.

Analysis:

This means that the jury, when wondering if the reasonable man would've acted in provocation as the accused did, can give the accused:

• A raging temper.
• A psychopathic disorder.
• PMT.

Further, as the academic John E. Stannard describes the defence thusly: “perhaps unfortunate, as it requires a jury to make the surely unwarranted assumption that reasonable men sometimes kill when provoked.”

Indeed, Michael Allen points out that a jury, when considering whether the reasonable man with D’s characteristics may have done what D did, may well consider his actions, as being the actions of such a person with his characteristics, as evidence of what would happen. As Allen concludes, “How utterly bizarre!”

I have myself written a provocation defence which I believe is just. I shall post it later, would be overkill to provide it now, you've had quite enough for one session!

So, "The Reasonable Dude" is basically a pretty shoddy attempt by the law to deceive the public into believing that its subjective judgments are actually objective...

Class Action Madness...

About a month ago I vaguely recall reading an article about how Sony had hilariously made up a film critic. Somehow or other, two of their executives (now fired) thought it would be a good idea to quote this imaginary guy on their film posters. Funnily enough he was always extremely complimentary towards the films. Eventually Newsweek decided to track this critic down to find out if he ever said anything bad. The harder they looked the less they found. They realised he'd been made up. A great scoop for Newsweek.

But then...

Two Californian film goers decided to sue Sony as representatives of a class action... for the price of their film tickets! Quite incredibly they actually succeeded in their action and were awarded damages in the sum of the amount their tickets had cost. This result astounds me for three reasons:

1) Causality: To prove your case you must prove that the wrong doing 'caused' your loss. In this case I'm absolutely amazed that the judge was persuaded that 'they would not have gone to see the film they saw unless they had seen that film poster, read that comment by "the critic", and decided on the basis of his comment alone to go see the film.' Surely they could not prove this?

2) Damage: To win the case you must prove that the wrong doing caused loss. You must therefore prove that you did not get what you paid for. In other words the film must have actually been so bad that it does not justify your money having been spent. It's all very well saying 'I wouldn't have watched the film but for the critic', but you must also say '...and I didn't get one tiny bit of pleasure out of it at all.' Surely they could not prove this?

3) Policy: To enforce this class action would (and has) result(ed) in stupifying circumstances. Now, any film goer can hand in their tickets to the film (if they still have them!) and claim their money back.

This third point leads me to the heart of why I think class actions are absolutely absurd: all these film goers who can now reclaim the price of their ticket from Sony do not have to prove that they suffered damage or that the comment caused their paying to see the film. This makes a mockery of the whole justice system.

In England we have representative actions to establish points of law, but not to decide absolute liability for everyone in the class.

Perhaps I've got American law wrong slightly (feel free to correct), but these class actions appear madness.

For more entertaining commentry on the arguably aneutrally evil class actions see "King of Torts" by Grisham!

Consecrated

Patiently now I find myself torn apart. My final submission, resignation. The trees and plants around me fade away into something quite indefinable. Were you to be here you would shortly be consumed too, for soon nothing shall be real, at least not in the way we think. Slowly I close my eyes, unsure whether I might ever be able to open them again. I consider that I might now be experiencing my final thoughts. It seems that now, as I might finally be consumed by the nothing I have dreaded so long, now I hold on to even thought. I use it to record, if only briefly, and if only to you, that which has led me to this exigency.

I must start with the moment that at once was both the beginning and end of my life. Her name was Isibé al. It was in fact her name that first took me. She gave it me in seraphic crystal whisper under a sparkling fountain on a clear luminescent day. I had been reading quietly in the park, relishing the refreshing cool nature of the day. I should have appeared inexistent to her, perhaps I should have seemed null and void. For I was. Until that moment I had been nothing, blank. Her voice flickered and shimmered, as did the wayward drops from the fountain in the sun. Slowly, seriatim, her aspiration filled me as if tapping me. As an artesian well draws up water from strata previously unreachable so did her voice find a part of me untouched.

From that single and emphatic breath of time grew our love. As Isibé al had seen me, so she had seen inside me. Drawn out into the creature she had nurtured I became her second half, her completion. We were tenacious, inseparable.

I can see now that she cast a spell over me that lucific day. I say this to you in all honesty, in the most literal sense. I say this because she was herself a magical creation. Sorcery, witchcraft, mysticism and most importantly spiritualism ebbed from her every movement and her touch commanded the aggregate of seamless reality. This however was her limit, and though this may seem unlike any limit you may understand, so it appeared to her. She passed her time in everduring pursuit of a higher plane, the paragon state of being.

We passed some few notable months together in a state of love that was both profound and divine. Despite this she wrangled with a never ending fealty to something more. Finally, events culminated in a denouement. One very early morning, in the twilight of dawn, I arose to a bed bereft of spirit. Shortly I elicited her figure, tenebrous against a sallow sky, outside at the end of her garden. She stood flailing her arms outwards at all the living planet and screaming an unearthly incantation. Spellbound, I saw her but could do nothing. I was paralyzed, palsied. I felt a sharp sense of disquietude wash over me. I was compelled to stop her but could not.

I grasped the allusion of her theistic praxis. She had consumed months rendering her mores intelligible to me. For years she had been carefully acquainting herself with all that she could disinter concerning a particular antediluvian cult. She had been private in this pursuit, and until myself, had revealed it to nobody. She had been devising means by which to draw power from an alternate reality that you and I have no conception of. She explained to me that this realm was in truth pure energy, a delicate and complete potency. Recently she had spoken more often of this power, she had come to require it to live. Now I finally understood that she meant to become part of it. This morning I would lose her.

Even as I stood, ubiquitous yet inefficacious, so did she fly from me. In a density of light fused with passion her soul, aseity, fled from this world that we know so little. She had stripped herself of her own life. This much is simple truth. But what had she become? I assure you that this, the end for most, was not her final bow. I gazed up at the heavens and saw in the sky a new order, colour and form hitherto hidden, for she was now a part of it.

That mid night, as I lay in perfect flawless quiescence, spoilt only by the subtle Grey Eminence of melancholic adversity, she came. As a wisp she seeped in; her cool essence touched out with boreal jolt. As I beheld her so did she sway above me, pendent in the ether, and ne’er was there a countenance so wrought with the lineament of anguish. Anxious timidity may have held in caducity the will of the ordinary man, yet wanton affectation drew me toward her. I rose in concomitance with her spectral incarnation and advanced behind the tractive spirit to the window. Gazing out at the sky I beheld a most magnificent vision, or was it one of animosity and abomination? At first I looked only to the heavens, yet shortly I realised that this world, once considered my sojourn, had become in totality this fresh yet frightening derivation. Could it be that deep within this terrifyingly beautiful fabric, there screamed the souls of the angels? Then, as surely as the sight had struck my eyes, so did it fade away, almost becoming that background into which it subsided. Had I imagined it?

“Save me,” came the whisper caudate in the frosty air, swirling in my shallow visible breath. She had withdrawn...

Holiday...

I left to go on holiday last week. I'm in Venice. I totally forgot to mention I was leaving... Sorry to all those who thought I'd abandoned the cause. I hope I haven't lost too many faithful readers. I'm busy studying the Renaissance attitude to neutrality.

I'll be back and reposting from next week on Monday...

Ash.

God.

"Jules looked up. At that exact moment a bolt of lightening flashed down from the sky striking him in the centre of the forehead. Stunned for a second he considered what had just happened. Why wasn’t he dead? Within moments knowledge came to him. This was not just your average run of the mill knowledge. This was the real thing. This was knowledge. He knew everything. He knew the exact circumference of your little toe at its thinnist point. He knew advanced calculous. He knew every word of Shakespeare off by heart. He knew the exact truth of all history. He knew God. In fact, he knew God’s name. God was called Bob. Bob had been sleeping for a couple of thousand years and his alarm clock had failed to wake him.

Jules looked around. Gathering up some rocks and some other natural materials he set to work. One hour, fourty-two minutes and three point four five nine seconds later he had built a trans-dimensional gate. He stepped in and emerged in another plane of existance. In this new plane he was surrounded by pink. Everything was pink. God/Bob liked pink. Jules floated through the pink void until he came across Bob snoring in bed. This bed consisted of a big fluffy pink cloud floating around. Jules gave Bob a shove and woke him.

God awoke. Turning over on the cloud he noticed Jules.

“Shit, what’s the time? And who are you?”

“Aren’t you omnipotent?” Replied Jules.

“Well,” replied Bob, “I was. I mean, once I knew everything, and I still know everything I knew then but anything new that comes along I don’t know.”

"Right, I see.” He didn’t. “So, shouldn’t you get to work, you know, curing plagues and leading people to promised lands?”

“No, think I’ll just go back to bed. You seem pretty bright, why don’t you give it a try?” God went back to bed.

Jules returned to Earth through the portal he’d dragged round with him. Back on Earth he mixed himself a potion and, drinking it, gave himself eternal life. He spent the next couple of years curing plagues, ending starvation and forcing everybody to worship him, the new messiah. Then he got bored. He quickly built himself a planetary transporter and went to a rather pleasant planet on the other side of the universe. This planet was primitive, containing only beautiful green foliage punctuated occasionally with bright colours. Here he rested quietly for a couple of thousand years. Then one day he was interrupted from his tranquility by a visitor. The visitor said her name was Miriam. She told him that as God he should really go and help out his race of humans. Jules pointed out that she’d got the wrong guy and showed her to the alternative pink dimension to meet Bob.

An hour later Miriam returned. It seemed Bob had decided that Jules was the new God. Jules was not impressed. Then it occurred to him to offer the position to Miriam. He did and she accepted. Jules cooked God/Miriam a sumptous meal and sent her packing. "

Aristotle.

There's a great deal for me to say about Aristotle. He is really the founding father of the analysis of objective/subjective morality. His book (or rather, collection of books), Ethics, is well worth a read for anyone. Of course, I realise it's ridiculously hard going for anyone who isn't studying it for some kind of post graduate diploma in Philosophy, but it is readable enough. Anyway, enough boring lit crit, on to the meat of this post. Three parts:

1. A Mini note on the man himself.
2. Aristotle's preliminary definition of 'good'.
3. Aristotle's brief analysis of man's approach to attaining 'good'.

I shall try to make each section interesting to even the lay person, with some light hearted analysis, but feel free to read whichever part interests you most... Or just go ahead and surf on to the next site because you're too lazy to take on some meaningful... Oh, you've gone.

1. The Man Himself.

First: boring facts... Born c.385 BC. His father was physician to the king. Went to Plato's academy at 17 (described Plato as 'a man whom it is not lawful even for the bad to praise'.) Tutored Alexander the Great.

Second: that which makes the Great Philosopher a mortal man... When Plato died his academy was taken over by a man named Speusippus. He and Aristotle went to live under protection of another man named Hermeias. Hermeias was a remarkable character who had risen from the lowest ranks of society to be a true leader of men. Further, he aspired after the Platonian ideals of a 'good' ruler.

That such a man could achieve so much shows that the Ancient World at the time had similar class opinions as, in my opinion, they have today - a man can rise through the classes, but only with the aid of brilliance. That such a man became the closest friend of Aristotle shows the philosopher to be a man of neutral judgment, capable of thinking without prejudice.

The two indeed became the greatest of friends and Hermeias became a great ruler. Unfortunately the Persians then kicked the crap out of everybody and put Hermeias to death, after he had refused to betray his friends even under the worst forms of torture. A truly good man? (Another triumph of power over 'goodness'). The effect on Aristotle was extraordinary. In his passionate grief he wrote a poem for his friend in which he said his friend had proved that "goodness was worth dying for." Noble sentiments indeed, and thoroughly declaratory for a philosopher, which is why I tell this story, and why I like it. It shows Aristotle to be a real man with emotions, able to consider reality in the same way as the rest of us, without rationalising it all away. This makes his rationalisations all the more emphatic, in my submission.

[He then shagged Hermeias' sister (and you thought he was a big homo with only Hermeias in mind didn't you? Yeah... Those Greeks were fond of a bit of Ass-Jockeying.) They got married and in the end were buried together - another nice touch of humanity in the man.]

2. What is 'Good'?

Aristotle attempts to define Good. He begins by saying that since every activity (artistic or scientific, deliberate action or pursuit) has for its object the attainment of some 'good'. We may therefore assent to the view that 'the good' is 'that at which all things aim'. A nice clear start no? Personally I think he's already made a whopping assumption, but who am I to question the guy?

A little later (after an analysis which suggests that by virtue of there being a variety of 'forms' of 'good', that there is no 'absolute good' - Wham, there goes God and objective morality) he concludes that 'Happiness' is 'the good', because all men in the last resort aim at it (following his starting definition. He follows this up with an apparent self-fulfilling-prophecy type statement:

"It is happiness for two reasons: (1) happiness is everything it needs to be, (2) it has everything it needs to have."

Seems a decent answer eh? For me the emphasis is on the indefinite article.

3. Man's approach to 'the Good':

I like this bit because, rarely for a philosopher, Aristotle shows personal character in his writing. He begins with the premise that a man's way of life will betray his genuine views on the nature of happiness [the 'good' - see above]. He then considers various groups of men:

"For persons of low tastes (always in the majority)[! Heh.] it is pleasure."

By pleasure, one can assume he means the experience of having pleasing, but transient external sensations. An example being sex, which is transient and externally sensually pleasing! This as opposed to happiness born of long lasting internal satisfaction; an example being academic success, and not sex (not animal lustful sex with a stranger anyway - loving tender sex with a partner could perhaps be said to yield long-lasting internal satisfaction...) Either way, to me, pleasure sounds a lot like happiness - I suppose that makes me a person of low taste, and therefore one of the majority!

"The utter vulgarity of the herd of men comes in their preference for the sort of existence a cow leads."

I'm sorry, but I just love that. What a legend this Aristotle dude was, and how spot on! He then discusses whether a man seeking honour is any the better. His analysis is interesting:

"Yet honour is surely too superficial a thing to be the good we are seeking. Honour depends more on those who confer than on those he receive, and we cannot but feel that the good is something personal and almost inseparable from the possessor. Again, why do men seek honour? Surely in order to confirm the honourable opinion they have formed of themselves."

Note that he does not end this last sentence with interrogative punctuation, despite beginning it 'Surely...' And how true... As a friend of mine once said:

"Every time a man does something truly great, and does not inform anyone of his achievement, he gains a little in gravitas."

Mr James...

...is clearly not neutral.

Just look at his postings. There is a link to his blog on the right hand side - The World of Why.

What does he discuss? Violence, stalking and infidelity, and that's only the top three cartoons at the moment!

If you ask me, Mr James is most certainly Evil.

Just look at the guy: clearly attaining a position of height so as to best determine his plans of world domination. Watch out people, this aneutral man could destroy society...

The Huge Irrelevance of a Blog.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Ford Prefect comes across a machine of terror along his journeys, I forget what it was called. (This is in the book, perhaps not the film - I haven't seen that yet.) This machine shows you just how small and utterly insignificant you really are by allowing you to see and feel the true epic size of the galaxy and then to see and feel your own size in comparison. Its usual effect is to send people insane, but Zaphod Beeblebrox(?) is just fine because he's the president of the galaxy and is therefore actually quite important (at least in his own head.)

I tell you this because the experience described there is rather analagous to that of having a blog. Your blog sits there all on its own in a universe of websites. For example, if you type in the word 'neutral' into Google it yields 24,400,000 sites, and one gets the impression with such a round number that they may just have drawn the line there leaving some out. To get to this site you pretty much have to enter complete "phrases". The bottom line is, it's damned irrelevant.

Folloowing the analogy, this could send me insane.

However, consider this: if we apply mathematics to the problem we can proceed as follows:

The relevance of my blog amongst my friends = n (where n represents some [hopefully positive] value)
The relevance of my blog amonst my friends' friends = 1/n.
The relevance of my blog amongst my friends' firends' friends = 1/(n^2)
Following this pattern we arrive at the term [Limit from z=1 to infinity](1/(n^z)).

This, as anyone surely knows, yields a solution of zero (unless n<1 in which case it gives infinity!). Thus far there has been an assumption herein that zero is the [a? could infinity also be a neutral 'number'?] neutral number. This site therefore appears to tend towards neutrality! WoooHooo!

However, has recent commenting activity disturbed this limit function, yielding a tainted site?

Greek Myths.

The Greek Gods are interesting. No, really. Besides the fact that they got up to all kinds of adventures, they were also regarded in a fundamentally different way to modern Gods:

1) The Greek Gods were almost all fallible (with the possible exception of Athene [although, of course, she was a woman.]). They were all subject to emotions such as jealousy and rage, nowadays regarded as base. In this way they represented a divinity with which the common man could identify. This characteristic shows them to be more morally neutral than todays modern Gods who are generally seen as morally perfect. Interesting that the Greek God seen as most virtuous is Athene, (who was the only goddess never to have sex [be raped]). This suggests that the Greeks saw 'Wisdom' as morally desirable.

2) They were an interconnected family, born of higher, older and elementary forces. In this regard they are not the end of the line. In fact, Zeus himself had to fight against the Titans, including his father (Chronos) and then his contemporary Gods, just to stay in control. This demonstrates the neutrality of the Greek Gods in two ways:

a) They are originally descended from a line of Darkness, Chaos, Night, Day, Heaven and Hell. (Unless you believe it started with Eurynome, the triple headed goddess). Either way, the Greek Gods came out of a neutral nothingness. I find this a more scientifically accessible belief than more modern faiths myself.

b) The fact that various divine forces fight amongst themselves for leadership shows that none of them is necessarily 'right'. The battles represent the balancing acts between the various inclinations of man. The result is free will: the ultimate expression of neutrality.

3) People obeyed the Greek Gods not because they were intrinsically morally correct, but because they could kick the living shit out of you, literally. If Zeus got pissed off with you, for bragging about shagging Aphrodite (see below) then he'd smack you one with a lightening bolt! For the ancient Greeks, power was divine, not 'goodness'.

I'm pretty sure I could come up with more ways in which the Greek Gods are neutral, but you and I both would get bored, so instead I provide one further observation and then I shall mention one myth which is particularly hilarious:

Observation: The Greeks were not the only ones to believe in neutral divinity. Many did, notably the Druids, who always believed that the power attainable from nature was neutral and could be bent to man's will so long as he followed the rules.

Story about Aphrodite:
Zeus really wanted to shag Aphrodite (he wanted to shag everyone in fact, but especially Aphrodite, despite the fact that she was his adopted daughter [she was actually the product of Mother Earth and Uranus]). Anyway, he never managed to get into her pants so he decided to humiliate her by making her fall for a mortal! This was Anchises. Anyway, Aphrodite went and shagged Anchises whilst in disguise under a red cloak (hot eh?). The deed done, Aphrodite revealed herself to Anchises who was horrified (!) because he thought he'd be killed for such heresy. She assured him it'd be okay. Anyway, here's the good part:
A few days later Anchises was down the pub getting lashed with his mates. One of them asked: "Would you not rather sleep with the daughter of so-and-so than with Aphrodite herself?"
"No." Replied Anchises. "Having slept with both, I find the question inept."
What a class answer eh?
Zeus didn't think so. He chucked a thunderbolt at the dude and crippled him for life.
[As an interesting side note, Aphrodite then gave birth to Aeneas (survivor of Troy.)]

A Good Sentence?

Here's one to consider:

One of my clients was recently sentenced for a racially aggravated assault on three members of the London Underground staff, causing two bloody noses and a bit of bleeding. He also damaged one of their jackets. At the same time he was sentenced for failing to attend the court on four separate occasions. Each time he thought he had a good medical reason not to attend, and was at large for only one day. This was his sentence:

9 Months in prison for the assaults + criminal damage (jacket).
11 Months in prison for the failures to attend court.

Here's my opinion: The assaults sentence is arguably lenient. The failure to attend sentence is massively excessive. I'm therefore appealing it to the Royal Courts of Justice. Should be fun eh?

I'd be interested to hear anyone else's opinions, post away!

"Do I look like I'm neutral?"

I recently walked past some beached-whale-with-breasts in Victoria station. This 'mammal' bore a straining and visibly ripping T-Shirt with the slogan:

"Do I look like I'm interested?"

To this moment I wish I could've relived that moment with a big black marker pen so I could cross out the last two letters and replace them with "ing". Of course, the answer to the question would've been 'yes', in a car crash sort of way.

Not that I can necessarily talk. This is what I'm wearing:

Sun Powered Women?

The other day I had a taxi driver taking me to court. We got stuck in a massive traffic jam and he began to be distracted by all the out and about ladies. In fairness they did have nice bodies on display but their faces were, it had to be said, fairly minging.

"I swear mate," he said, "these women must be sun powered!"
"Mmmmm."
"No, bear with me mate, think about it right, you never see this many fit women about in Winter do you?"
"Well..." I started.
"No, exactly mate, and that's what I'm on about! I mean, look about you mate, have you ever seen so many beauties?"

I looked out the window and saw some girl wearing the shortest imaginable shorts. She did have a sleek and sexy pair of legs, but the shorts, and her strappy top were both bright pink, and she was pushing a pram with gold sparkly stuff stuck all over it. Chavtastic. As for her face, christ, I've seen more beautiful slugs.

"Er... Actually..." I began, aiming to give a neutral and subtle euphemism.
"Nah mate, I agree, it's amazing innit? Summer mate, season of the sun powered women!"

How foolish can a Council be?

I've recently been doing a lot of work for M----- Council legal services. It's pretty hilarious stuff actually, I mostly have to sort out their incompetence with a carefully patient and neutral expression. Here is a great example:

A month ago some guy wrote to the finance division saying "I'm Mr Smith, director of 'Civil Engineering Ltd'. We recently completed the project in H--- on the road system there. As per the contract we would now appreciate the money you owe us. Please find an invoice attached."













(Disclaimer: None of these people are me. None of them work for M---- either. I'm ashamed really, to be assoiciated with these guys would be the highest honour.)

The invoice requested £66,000, and gave bank details for payment.

Somebody in the finance department duly instructed M---- Council's bank to pay out 66k to this guy's account. This person in finance hadn't bothered to check whether or not 'Mr Smith' or his company really had done anything at all. He hadn't. How sweet is that? What a smart dude! Still, he got caught in the end and hauled before the courts. The next part is the best part:

Who says crime doesn't pay? He got sentenced to 160 hours community service! He never had to pay back the money as he'd already spent it.

66k for 160 hours work! I'm in the wrong job...

Dashboard Confessional.

In the spirit of randomness I'd like to mention the greatest band of all time:

Dashboard Confessional

In my opinion (which is of course not neutral), they (he) surpass other bands on account of their (his) lyrical thoughtfulness. I also love bands that lace their male vocals with female echos.

Three quotes therefore:

"this is easy as lovers go, so don't complicate it by hesitating"

"Jamie, believe me, I won't let you down Cause you are the best lawyer in town"

"I've hidden a note,it's pressed between pages that you've marked to find your way back.
It says, 'Does he ever get the girl?'
But what if the pages stay pressed, the chapters unfinished, the storied too dull to unfold?
Does he ever get the girl?"

"I never said, 'Don't go!'
Don't go."

Okay, four! But the last two were both from "This Ruined Puzzle". Before that (upwards), "Jamie" and "As Lovers Go".

The one about the note is especially thought provoking I think. I once made a CD for a girl. I put this song on it. I mae a sleeve with a full track listing on it, then I made a cover to slide behind the sleeve. In between the cover and the sleeve I put a note saying "Does he ever get the girl?"

When I gave her the CD I spent the next few days in agonies wondering if she'd seen the note yet. Then I realised:

1. It was stupidly well hidden. Who'd remove all the bits of paper from the case and find this thing?
2. She probably didn't give a shit about my CD, and hadn't even listened to it.
3. She probably didn't bother to listen to or think about the lyrics of the songs (she was a philistine, albeit a hot philistine...) and so the note would have meant nothing.
4. If she did find the note at all and it did mean anything at all, then it probably meant I was a pyscho to stay the hell away from.

Still, it was at least pretty romantic of me don't you think?

Atlantis Rising.

Anyone remotely interested in mythology has to, at some stage, come to the subject of Atlantis. There's indubitably a Dan Brown monster in there somewhere. Whilst searching the web for the wealth of knowledge on the subject there is (the best being some of the ebooks at The Gutenberg Project) I came across a magazine called Atlantis Rising.

It reminded me of those classic seventies sci-fi yearly collections - you know, the ones with the hilarious adverts for, hang on while I get one and look, here we are, oh god these are good, I'll give a couple of examples:

"New Aluminium Buttsnuffer, extinguishes cigarettes with no smoke, burned fingers, odors. Fits and Ash Tray. Prevents fires, saves furniture. Beautiful, mysterious, humorous. Guaranteed. 3 for $1."

"Microwaves - Do they affect plant growth, buildings, fences[!!!!] or people? Anxious to hear from researchers? ..."

"SPELLBIND FRIENDS... Create excitement with amazing new Hi-Fi album, 'FILE #733, UFO'. Critics Agree: 'Most dramatic evidence for FLYING SAUCERS ever presented.' 'First person interviews tell terrifying tales.' £3.97.

And my personal favourite:

"English speaking Swedish/German girls seek penfriends/husbands[!!!]. Photoalbum $5.00; prospectus free! - COSMOCLUB 'SILVERTHISTLE'"

Actually these were from a sixties book - 'Fantasy and Science Fiction, March 1967.' Who'd have thought eh? Those flower people...

Anyway, that was a rather longer (but deserved) diversion than planned. Actually it works out quite well since I can now do a comparison to the even more hilariously gullible audiences of today... Here are some modern advertisments from Atlantis Rising:

"The Rose Grail Elixir from Ascension Rose Alchemy: What is it?
Created from pure water holding only the memories of a crystalline perfection existing at the dawn of creation; it is lovingly held in a Grail vessel combined with petals from organically grown roses; Light-encoded with the Mother Matrix of all Creation.
Together they are spun to a high frequency state that is multi-dimensional and multi-harmonic, surpassing in frequency and effectiveness any monatomic element.... Some have reported: Seeing beings of light; seeing sacred geometrical shapes; seeing their DNA unravel and recombine; sensing the Christ presence within; a closer connection to nature; inner peace; prophetic dreams and visions; increased psychic ability; seeing auras etc... One bottle, only $33!"

Awesome stuff ain't it? It must be some kind of goddamn hallucinagen! Read more absolute hilarity Here.

"Time Machines! For catalogue send $1.00 to..."

I kid you not.

"Awaken to the Comforting Truth... From Galactic Messanger and Channel Michael Allen. For more than 50 years Michael has channeled from Galactica the truth of who we are, answering the many mysteries surrounding the disappearance of the advanced civilizations, the building of the pyramids, crop circle formations and the reason for the negative (satanic) energy in the collective consciousness of this planet. Awaken to the truth in the Everlasting Gospel, only $5 with suggested donation $15!"

You've got to love it huh? Maybe I should have a word with this guy about the supposed negative energy in our planet... That doesn't sound very neutral...

[Artwork from Here...]

Being a Barrister.

I wasn’t expecting to give away something so critical as my occupation this early but it seems Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos have other plans for me...

I am a barrister.

Disclaimer: (of course) This is not me. Sadly. I can only dream...

For all you American readers, a ‘barrister’ is a lawyer who operates at the sharp end - in court. I think perhaps you call it ‘litigator’.
I work half in crime and half in civil law.

Part of working in crime is that it raises so many fantastic real life stories and dilemmas, which may transfer onto this blog in due time, though don’t worry, that won’t be a main subject. For today I’ll just have a quick look at a question often posed to me and one relevant to A Neutral World:

“If you think someone is guilty of a crime how can you represent them?”

It’s one all us criminal lawyers hear constantly, especially at lame parties where everyone tries to raise intellectual conversation and can only come up with clichéd and obvious half critical attempts at gaining the moral higher ground.

Anyway, here are a couple of obvious answers:

1) You never can be sure that someone is guilty (unless they actually tell you, in which case you can only represent them on a guilty plea). There are countless historical examples of cases where all (including the defendant’s lawyers) have considered the person guilty. Only later has further evidence come to light to prove their innocence. The moral of the story is the second answer:

2) As a lawyer, you are not the judge and jury! It simply isn’t up to you to judge your client. If it’s so obvious that the guy is guilty then that will be clear to the jury. I hate to use the phrase, but: innocent til proven guilty.

As it happens, I think there is a truly wonderful neutrality in the job of being a barrister. To be good, you have to be completely emotionally detached. It is a pure art of intellectual persuasion.

Of course, some might consider persuasion to be a moderately evil practice… More of that another time perhaps.

Cats.

I understand that no blog in the world is complete without an entry relating to cats... or kittens. So I figure I'd best get it the hell out of the way so I can move on. For all those who picked up this site from the keyword "Kitten", here you are:



Yes, it is indeed a fake kitten.

Two questions spring to mind:

1) Is a kitten in any way neutral? If not, then what the fuck is it doing on this website?
2) Is a fake kitten more or less neutral than a real kitten?

1)
As regards question one, lets assume we are talking about 'neutral' on a scale of morality from 'good' to 'evil' (an assumption I make generally on this site unless I say otherwise - as to how said morality is defined, watch this space.)

a. Kittens are cute (allegedly); ergo they are good.
b. Kittens kill small creatures; ergo they are evil.

Does cuteness overcome killing? Who'd have thought a discussion of kittens could unveil such a deep and important philosophical question? I'll leave this one to the floor...

Let's just say, it's at least arguable that a kitten could equate to a state of neutrality, and that's why the fuck it's on this site.

2)
a. Fake kittens are cute (well this one's as cute as any real kitten isn't it?); ergo they are good.
b. Fake kittens do not kill small animals (unless they are accidently swallowed); ergo they are not evil.

It appears that Fake kittens may stray into the dangerous region of something 'good'. Dammit, why the hell did I put a FAKE kitten on my site? Where's the delete button?

A Neutral Name

Have you ever tried to come up with a neutral name? It's harder than you think!

First you can try the usual baby name finders, like this one. However, they all think that 'neutral' means 'gender neutral'. How shallow eh? The first suggestion I found from them (using Google to jump straight in) was "Veridian" which, while being somewhat of a cool name, is not necessarily neutral. It is defined as "A neutral name. From the Latin "Veridis" meaning "Green"." As to whether green is a neutral colour, that's a topic for another day, I'll get to it later.

Next, assuming one has not found a truly neutral name, which one man hadn't, that leaves us with the Mighty Thesaurus. This throws up a few possibilities:

"Mr. Cool Vanilla"

...For example... Or:

"Mr. Achromatic Vague"

...For another.

However, do these really sound like names to you? Well, yeah, the top one sounds pretty sweet to me too, but come on, you gotta be sensible!

This brings us to the somewhat tenuous last resort of using synonyms of words which 'neutral' happens, itself, to be a synonym of. But hey the result is pretty sweet, it has a certain harmony of neutrality in it, but the second name does have an interesting alternative meaning:

"The entire sequence of ecological communities successively occupying an area from the initial stage to the climax"

And isn't that interesting? No, seriously? That's natural selection baby.

But am I selected or really neutral?

The beginning...

My First ever blog posting. To preserve an impression of neutrality I shall comment no further, save to say that bold emphasis of neutrality is an accentuation of nothing.

That is to say: one might multiply zero by a million; one would still have zero.