Jaycee Lee Dugard Case Could Get Complicated Fast

This week's very bizarre story of Jaycee Lee Dugard has captured everyone's attention. Ms. Dugard was kidnapped 18 years ago when she was just 11 years old by Phillip Garrido ( a convicted violent sex offender) and his wife. Over the course of the 18 year imprisonment, Garrido appears to have fathered at least two children with Dugard. He was arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping.

But what if Ms. Dugard is experiencing Stockholm Syndrome? This seems likely since she's now a 29 year old woman who has not made any apparent attempts to flee (time will tell on that).

The oldest child is 15, which would have made her 13-15 years old at the time of birth. Clearly that would have been, at the very least, statutory rape. Her other child is 11 which would put her age at roughly 18, so rape would be the only charge available there.

The question now is, what are the statute of limitations on kidnapping, statutory rape (assuming Dugard claims it was consensual due to Stockholm Syndrome) and rape (assuming Dugard realizes she was kidnapped and held against her will) in California?

I'm betting that many of those have run out.

Amazon.com Shows BB Application Developers How It's Done

Now this is how you make an application for the Blackberry. Amazon.com released its own Blackberry application back in March or April. You can search, buy, track and even take pictures of items and Amazon will tell you if they sell it or a similar product. Pretty cool. All the other app developers should take a look at this and figure out how this was done.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/anywhere/sms/bbapp

Just Great: Meth Addicts Are Also Alchemists

As if it weren't bad enough that they were also psycho-killers, methheads are apparently more resourceful than the rest of us. They've figured out how to make meth with soda bottles, a tiny bit of Sudafed and who knows what else (perhaps a crow's claw?).

AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

So you can see the set up here. We're going to have to ban soda.

The Epidemic of Vitamin D Deficiency

Much has been written about Vitamin D recently. I am frequent reader of the Mercola website and remember reading about it years ago but basically ignored it as I was taking Centrum multivitamins (400 IU of vitamin D) and assumed I was covered. Years later, I moved to the Costco brand of multi-vitamins and was beginning to wonder if I was meeting the minimums being discussed by Vitamin experts. Some were throwing out numbers like 2,000-5,000 IUs a day. So I began taking 1,000 IUs in addition to the multi (1,400 per day). This went on for about 3 months and then I bought a new batch of Costco's vitamins and found they upped the D to 1,000 in their vitamins. This mean that I was taking 2,000 IU a day.

That went on for about 1-2 months. Just last week I got my Vitamin D levels checked with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D test. My levels, I assumed might be sky high, but one thing was sure...they wouldn't be low.

The recommended range was from 30-80 ng/ml. I came in at 42 (less than 30 is a deficiency). My levels were actually on the low side, after months of taking ~1,500 - 2,000 IUs a day.

What I'm wondering is, how on earth can most people, who spend their days under fluorescent lamps and don't take vitamins.....getting any at all?

The Vitamin D Council website has an interesting article on Autism and Vitamin D. It draws parallels between the sudden widespread deficiency and the sudden rise in Autism (maybe breast cancer too?). It's important to remember that Coppertone first introduced UVA/UVB blocking sunscreen only 24 years ago in 1985.

Godwin's Law In action

Looks like Goodwin's law applies outside of Internet newsgroups and message boards. In the last few days, anti-health care protesters have been compared to Nazis and Tim McVeigh.

Will The Economic Crisis Descend Into Violence?

It sure seems like it might. As the economy gets worse, politics it seems, is getting to be a rough business. American politicians have rarely had to deal with this sort of belligerent constituent rage, and it has appeared on the public stage suddenly and in a widespread fashion.

Nancy Pelosi and others blame these spectacles on conservative special interest groups. And to some extent, she's right. But it appears that all they are doing is tapping into a well of anger and distrust many Americans are obviously feeling.

I don't think the general public nor the politicians have caught onto how deep into an economic crisis we are. And in times of national struggle, such as we find ourselves, everyone must be on their best behavior to avoid widespread civil unrest. We can hardly afford that sort of thing now.

The Death Of (Online) News

Rupert Murdoch announced that all of his News Corp business will being charging for content. Let me be the first to say goodbye to News Corp.

The Financial Times is also floating the same ballon that within the next 12 months "news agencies" (Read: The Financial Times) will begin charging for content as well. At least the FT had a 120 + year run at it. I, personally, am looking forward to watching the prestige and power quickly and quietly drifting away from any news organization who walks this path.

What does all this talk of charging really mean? I think means that news agencies are realizing that the internet bubble of 2000 actually ended. It also means that the current financial crisis is bringing their empires to an abrupt end....and we've just caught a glimpse of the hand they're holding. If they're losing too much money, why not just shut the site down and avoid the embarrassing fade to insignificance? I have a theory....

First, lets take a look at the brief history of news:

1. First there was gossip/rumor
2. Then there was government controlled 'news'
3. Then the free press got in on the game to help form public opinion and foment revolutions...somewhere around the time of the American Revolution (with their pamphlets and all....)
4. Then people started charging pennies for pamphlets to cover their printing costs
5. Weekly/daily newspapers started popping up in populated localities, usually charging enough to cover the business costs
6. Advertising was introduced as a way to "make money" in these newspapers
   
7. Radio came along with no way to charge so the profit/expenses were all covered by advertising (and payola).
   
8. TV came along with the same problem, so the news was given for free (just like radio). It was done at a loss that was made up for by advertising on the 'entertainment' side of the business. This was done because the networks realized the news gave them leverage to use against the government. As a result, TV networks (and to a lesser extent, a few newspapers) gained power as the unelected mouthpiece of a nation, forming public opinion as they wished.
   
9. This bloody internet thing came along (to upset everything) and the established media saw it only as a way to extend their TV/newspaper reach.
10. Magazines and Newspapers get into the game thinking they can charge the same price for their electronic product as their paper product (and it costs almost nothing to distribute). It fails miserably (with few exceptions).
    
11. Everybody is happy with the results until the Great Depression of 2008-?
12. All the established news organizations realize they're going bankrupt because advertisers can't afford to pay the fees anymore. Desperation sets in.
13. People like Murdock float the idea that they'll begin charging everyone for what they used to get for free.

Sounds like a great plan in the midst of a massive global economic depress..err..recession. Day-dreaming of the good the old days won't help the bottom line of News Corp or any of the other faded, fat, greedy news media. If Murdock goes through with his promise, News Corp will quickly be reduced to insignificance.

I predict however that they will quickly change their mind, much like an airline trying to raise airfares by itself, when their page hits drop 99% [On a side note, I can't wait to see the look on a Fox reporter's face when President Obama answers one of the (last) Fox News questions by starting with "You can tell you 15 readers - it is 15 right? or did you guys get a new subscriber in the last week ?- that the reason..."]

But it won't happen, because charging won't happen. Because after all, what mass media is about is power. The power to sway opinion. And it's a power people like Murdock are willing to pay for, even if they have the audacity to try charging you for it.

Rupert and Friends would be smart to remember the Encyclopedia Britannica. Once a proud source of knowledge, for over 200 years, now relegated to a dark, seldom visited corner of the internet/library.

That all happened after this site showed up just 8 years ago: Wikipedia - Much maligned, but still triumphant.

Just wait until you see what the plan is for your kingdom. The free ride might be over, but that doesn't mean people will pay to ride. They might just go back to walking.