932: The Killing of Arab Singer Thekra (ذكرى)

 Based on seeing that Saudi guy on TV yesterday, apparently it is not enough for those running that dictatorship all what is known about what they have done inside and outside that country but they also want to say that they may respond to words with targeted killings and assassinations. But why go far for doing that and with a story like the one shown yesterday instead of the well known and very commonly seen as the work of the Saudi government story of killing the singer Thekra/Thikra/Zekra/Zikra (ذكرى). I remember first hearing about that and find it very suspicious in 2003 even without knowing any reason for the Saudis to do that. The news of her death on one Arabic TV network stated that she was shot by her manager who then also shot herself. Later other version(s) of the news came,  like for example this one https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/11/28/tunisian-singer-shot-dead or this one https://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/autopsy-report-thikra-shot-26-times-and-survived-only-15-minutes but, aside from the week explanation and how the savagery of the crime suggests otherwise, they all depend on the same explanation of murder suicide which is to the best of my knowledge and experience from living in that part of the world is as unheard of as for a person in the western world to be a suicide bomber, if not more. It was not until well over a decade later that I knew while browsing Youtube that she sang a song criticizing the Saudi ruling family very close to her killing and how people seem confident of that being the reason she was killed.

Here is one link to that song on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXA24q9l3k 

And here is some rough translation for the first three minutes and excerpt from the rest:

Who dare say

this is not reasonable

(We) visit and cray at

the Kaaba and the tomb of the prophet

(They) told me the teardrop 

threatens the peace of the fleet

(We) visit and cray at

the Kaaba and the tomb of the prophet

(They) told me your voice 

threatens the peace of the totaled (mentally totaled 

because of drinking or drugs)

Cray in your chest (heart)

Do not bother our ruler 

Our ruler not ruler 

Protector of fleet

Dilutional not understanding

Totaled protecting oil

Our ruler not ruler 

Protector of fleet

Dilutional not understanding

Totaled protecting oil

Who dare say

our brethren, from the house

of God prevented us

Who dare say

our brethren from the 

pilgrimage to the house (of God)

prevented us.

They told us the teardrop 

threatens the peace of the fleet

Who dare say

This is not reasonable

(We) advice you

pilgrimage to the pope and the Vatican

Easier than Mecca 

and the Kaaba and more secure

(We) advice you

pilgrimage to the pope and the Vatican

Easier than mecca 

and the Kaaba and more secure

Mecca its protector is its thief

Let the rest of it in my chest(heart)

Mecca its protector is its thief

Let the rest of it in my chest(heart)

who dare say to the ruler

your chair (throne) goes away

(I do not sufficiently know what

the text at 3:10 means but sounds like

the biggest insult at personal level

so far in the song. Then, in addition to other things later, 

there is this part at 6 to 6:21):

Victory does not come to us 

from your palace nor we dream of it

And pilgrimage if through favor

from you can be left for later

Victory does not come to us 

from your palace nor we dream of it

And pilgrimage if through favor

from you can be left for later

931: New Kind Of Sinking Here?

I doubt that I am the only one noticing how the second stimulus payment status check provided by the IRS website is a joke and makes one feels like dealing with thugs. And this is also supported by how the website says that the payment can be claimed with tax return for 2020. Of course it is good to know that but how the way it is said suggests that it is not an unusual thing that you may not receive the payment even though according to the law you should be, is the troubling thing. Or is it that the problem is that in addition to the faking of presidents and attacks, we now also have faking the passing of laws?      

930: And The Saudi Privilege Continues

 I talked about this years ago and the situation still the same.  How many other countries are there giving themselves the right to military attack another country just because it favors one side over another in the power struggle in the attacked country, like the Saudi government blatantly has been doing in Yemen for years? The world got that many voices against attacking Iraq regardless of the assurance of the intention to establish a democratic system there, but this is okay?

By the way, a democratic system of one person one vote for everybody, including a reasonable constitution if needed, is the just solution for everywhere.  

929

280: Zero Calories Same As 1/3.2 The Calories?- 2

 I wonder if the other side may argue that using the product as a substitute to table sugar is itself what fits the "amount customarily consumed" regardless of what uses exist for the level of sweetness provided by that amount.  

But again the most important thing is for the FDA and other agencies not to override or disable the common law and language people use, in the information presented from the maker to the consumer, without requiring the signaling there for dependency on their rules.   

928

 279: FDA Got Nothing Better To Do?

Related to the preceding post, even if that rule was made for amounts customarily used in life and were applied correctly, still, why would we need such a rule? How can the customer be better protected here? How good is it to read nutrition information thinking that the maker is responsible for its claims, but then it turns out that the FDA allows different thing without the knowledge of the consumer? I have always wondered about food labeling rules like this one where the common law and language render them completely unnecessary. Regardless, that could still be done with much less harm and betrayal to the consumer if the FDA were to require the maker of the product to mention that such information (like, for example, here, calling the calorie amount, zero calorie, if it is less than 5 calories) is according to an FDA rule if that maker is depending on that rule, instead of communicating to the consumer through a new language known only to the FDA itself and the maker of the product. Otherwise, how can what is going on in such cases be seen but fraud supported by the government?

927

 278: Zero Calories Same As 1/3.2 The Calories?

Apparently that is what the math of Splenda sucralose packet sweeteners and/or the math of the FDA says. Take a look at the "Energy (caloric) content" section of this Wikipedia Page on Splenda. What does "amount customarily used" mean? If it is something the maker of the product sets on its own, then one can also take table sugar itself and market it in packets as zero calorie sweetener. Otherwise, in what customarily uses one packet of Splenda gives the needed sweetness? So what is going on here? How can a product be marketed as having zero calorie content when it in facts has close to one third the calories? Is this corruption at the rule making or at the lack of enforcing that rule level? Or both? 

926

 This corruption guy has now sank to the level of sending someone of those living near me to take away packages that were left for me at the porch of my home and this is not the first time he has done that.   

925

 Even though I was not looking for it and also avoid much of the news because of the outrageous level of fakeness and corruption there, yesterday I heard what makes me want to ask again how do some western countries accept for themselves to go after and prosecute support for Terrorism while they themselves sell weapons to undemocratic regimes?   

924

+290 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 9)

 

923

 

+289 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 8)

922: Being Just Versus Refusing Reality

 On one hand one may wonder how can that difference in earning by gender in soccer be justified by the quality of playing the game. On the other hand, it seems that most, if not all, well known tennis tournaments have the same winning prize money for men and women. If I were having the authority there, I would have made better justice my first priority. For example, I would not let how much it could be taken as suggesting men being better than women in that sport (even though the comparison is only top to top) make me hesitant to make that prize based on actual performance. That is because being just and fair is what I feel the calling for. Other than that, I am not the creator of the world and do not consider it may responsibility to replace reality with something else. I think that many people may not be applying sufficient attention to that line. Although, also to be just, I have always had the feeling that requirements are often unnecessarily reduced on women's versions of sport games and that takes away from women the capability of presenting themselves through the best medium possible for  comparing their performances with men's, and having only three sets for women versus five for men in tennis often occurs to me as one of those things.    

921: Commentating on Women's Soccer Here

I again want to ask, even assuming there is a reason for confusion here, how hard could it be to watch how commentating is done in any of the so many countries were soccer is popular and do like that? So why is the commentating on women's soccer here is unbearable like this? The first priority in commentating is what is going on on the field at the moment, not pushing that to the background and replacing it with other far from the field talk about the game and players.  There is a difference between hearing commentating on the game and watching the game in a public place while you hear two people having conversation related to the game behind you. This difference include even deeper analysis to what is going on on the field if it comes at the cost of lengthy abandonment or distraction from being with the actions in the field at their direct level. And even in the very few occasions, elsewhere, were a commentator allows itself to stray away a little bit from the field, that commentator may immediately interrupt itself with any increase in the significance in playing the game. Here you may even see a player near the penalty area and one step from passing the ball to where there is a scoring potential while the commentator continues its out of the field story as if the audience came in the first place to listen to the talk of that commentator and the game itself is the secondary supportive thing.             

Penalty in Soccer

 Watching how two penalty awards spoiled the most recent game in the current NWSL competition makes me argue against this law in the game again. This all or nothing foul system for violations inside the penalty area does not make sense but people are sticking to it as if they are under a contract to do so. A person who commits any intentional foul can also be excluded from the remaining of the game. After all soccer is not supposed to have any intense physical contact among the players. But that is not practiced. So why is it okay to mess the game with the current penalty law? 

Like I suggested before, the law for violations in the penalty area can require multiple goals by shooting from the penalty mark in order to count as one goal in the score of the game, and the determination for the number of kicks can be left to the referee under some general guidelines and limits. Alternatively, the current penalty law can be applied for only the five minutes, or some other short period, at the end, while for the rest of the time the law would depend on adding up errors in that area until the total level of violations there deserves the penalty kick award. The solution can also include a combination of those two suggestions. 

I of course did not miss how, before those signs we currently see near the end of a game declaring the amount of  additional time, leaving that to the determination of the referee was also treated like a law from the sky. And what about those video reviews which sometimes require even the referee to pause the game and attend to them personally? And imagine how much one in the past could have been ridiculed for suggesting going back in the game if an error was determined after reviewing the video while the game is still being played. So how long this penalty law will continue to mess soccer until it becomes accepted that it is essential to have a better law and probably even more essential than those changes just mentioned?

By the way, the talk about selection for women national soccer team reminds me to point out how, although they might have had good individual skills, the playing of the team in that last world cup, was, frankly speaking, horrible in being unharmonized and more like street soccer and unlike how women soccer clubs I am currently watching here seams to play as team . I do not know how one can avoid blaming the coach for that. The beauty of team playing was the first thing I noticed in women's soccer in that world cup but that was often missed with the US team. My favorite team to win that world cup was England's team (although not a fan of how tight some of their players were wearing their shirts).         

919

 

+288 (second amendment interpretation 215: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 7)

 Picking things from after the argument for the word "the" in "the security" in the preceding post, I do not know what made me wonder that far for something like this. The first comma preserves the abstraction of the two part clause "A well regulated Militia". Since an abstract Militia belongs to an abstract State, the test for the necessity of a well regulated Militia in the Amendment includes only what exist externally at the general environment and with the words "free" and "security" applying only externally. Clearly this test leads to the answer of no necessity for our time.

I may come back to elaborate on the core above but I did not want to postpone it for that. The same goes for the argument for the implementation versus concept for a Militia in the preceding post, which also was wrong. However, I still want to mention here that because of how the abstraction suffices by itself, it seems that the capitalization on both sides around the first comma is needed only for the same reason that was discussed before which is related to how the descriptions "well regulated" and "free" should exist as statuses not just descriptions for what is being described.

918

 

277

 Not wearing a face mask here, and if I were with the authority, I could have invaded Florida for that fake court which supposedly tried Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. The system is so corrupt that, Zimmerman, because of the strength of the corruption force backing him, appeared so far from being really concerned about what was going on to the level of probably struggling to keep a serious face.

917

 

276

 Still proudly never wore face mask and fighting that corruption.  

916

 

+287

 Related to the preceding post, I am not okay with the level of arguing with regard to the connection for the clauses around the first comma but I posted yesterday because I did not want a potential deadline to pass without making the best argument I can. Also it is not a bad idea to give the readers more time to think about what was made while I try to add what I think is still needed.

915

 +286 (second amendment interpretation 214: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 6)

914

From Blog Corruption And The Government

275: Corona, Corruption And Conspiracy - 14: Again The Response Looks Missing The Target

Even though there maybe a significant amount of questioning for how this virus was called as the cause of death for many of the situations that involved pre existing conditions, still if there is one thing that may answer the question in the preceding post it is that pre existing condition explanation. However, the response that is supposed to be because of this virus is again wasting energy and imposing restrictions on the general public to whom infection for the vast majority would most probably be like a passing flu. On the other hand if I were somebody with a related pre existing condition I may appreciate something that enables me to stay far from the probability of infection like a financial support for example but it would not make me alter even a little the precaution I take not to be infected by the outside having even everybody else wears breathing mask.

913

From Blog Corruption And The Government

274: Corona, Corruption And Conspiracy - 13: Counting In That Elephant In The Room

Up to this point my conspiracy talk here did not extend to the data itself that is related to the death count related to this virus. But now I do not see a trust in any reporting out there that is capable of stopping this question:

How could an infection related disease have that many mortality cases in countries like this while not affecting even close to that many other places where infection has much bigger opportunity to spread? Look at the statistics about other countries. If this virus kills that many here with this level of cleanliness in the public environment and interactions among people, how many it would have killed at places like where I came from and other places that are even not as good as the latter in those qualities? Isn't this a joke? Like how all the consumption here for butter and saturated fat makes sense for things like heart disease and stroke to be more common here, it should be the other way around with infections. Nothing can explain this except a game and conspiracy being played at some selected countries.