XX (a film treatment)

Title: XX
(pronounced “double x” but never officially written that way)

Created by: Channing Humphries

We find ourselves in the future with a female President. Many positions formerly held by men alone are now held by females. We follow the President or other established character home to find a wife and daughter. The viewer slowly realizes that there are only female characters.

2014 Observations:

All babies start out in female form.

Obviously people exhibit varying amounts of traditionally male (tm) traits and traditionally female (tf) traits, regardless of their gender.

The Olympics have a test for % maleness for the women athletes; over a certain amount they cannot compete as women.*

We find in our future that (tm) / (tf) couples occur more than other combinations. These are now considered the “norm.” (tm) females start to exhibit more male-like traits and (tf) females exhibit more female-like traits. The new norm starts to look a lot like the old norm as time passes.

Flashbacks will be shown to establish how we got here:

• A drug was developed (by men) to manage PMS symptoms, especially emotional ones that could hinder decision-making in women of power and women on the battlefield.
• A European country where cloning research is legal for humans makes significant progress toward cloning humans.
• At the end of WW3 99% of countries are joined in a world government using new organizations and existing ones with greater power. The male population is greatly decimated.
• Being male is decided to be a sickness that is endangering the survival of the human race as nuclear weapons were used in WW3 killing millions and making large cities uninhabitable. The small population of males are interred in camps and die out naturally. Or perhaps are eliminated. (Issue is posed of countries that do not comply, also of children and unborn.)
• Cloning advancement has perfected a way to “fertilize” (trigger the state in the egg that completes fertilization without using sperm and normally prevents another sperm from entering the egg) an egg while inserting chromosomes from another person. Cloning itself is outlawed but using chromosomes from two women is the new reproduction. Two women can only produce XX sex chromosomes, meaning only female children will be born. This is the desired result anyway. Some women will chose to be single parents and need donors.

There absolutely must be a scene of a magnified egg receiving injection of chromosomes with Xs visible and application to change state.

Optional scene: Show the muscle-bound soldiers shaving their bodies.

The finale finds us with the first “male” child born. This evolution would require the passing of a great amount of time. Then comes the dilemma of what to do now with this child and the expectation that this will be a recurring event. This is ultimately left unanswered but questions are raised.

The time passage and flashbacks required to tell the story might make it more suitable as a television series, e.g. one-year series.

© 2014 Channing Humphries. also registered with ProtectRite

Ignore the child/unborn issue until the end for full effect.  Most viewers won't consider it until it is presented.  Also highlight the absurd.

Observation (2015):

• The world won't be ready for this film for 20 years, but in a world with Caitlyn Jenner...

*I don't know if they used the male percentage tests past 2000,2002. 

• In 2004 they started allowing transgender females (male genetics) compete as females after genital reassignment surgery and 2 years hormone therapy. 
• 2016 they are going to allow pre-operative transgender females (male anatomy) to compete as females (the gender they identify as).

"You Didn't Build It" but They Came

President Obama recently made a bold statement to those who have businesses, "You didn't build it.  Somebody else made that happen."

He didn't state that a lot of people working for you made actual products, nor that a product you designed had exceeding demand and consumers bought so much that your business thrived.  These would seem to be the logical arguments attempting to support the bold statement.

Instead, he argued that the government built roads and bridges that made it possible for the business to be built.  One problem with that logic is that taxpayer dollars paid for those projects so using the same logic we find that the government DID NOT build the roads and bridges; someone else made that happen, i.e. the taxpayers, corporate and individual.

Many businesses fail, though I do not have the statistics they can be searched on the internet and found in multiple places I'm sure.  Many are based on a product that has no demand. Many misuse income and cannot sustain the business.  There are several other reasons that businesses fail.  But they should all succeed under the President's logic that the government made them happen with roads and bridges.

So Mr. President, roads and bridges do not make business happen and neither does the government.  Besides that, taxpayers made the roads and bridges happen.  Furthermore the government stands in the way of business with regulations.  Many huge corporations existing today could not be started with today's regulations in place.

Laptop Update

Well it doesn't seem to be something burned up, but the malfunction could be from that. I've seen it behave badly when closing while on. It had stopped 'sleeping' (or which ever one that is) right away. I've had it plugged in and the battery not be charging for no apparent reason.

So, what seems to be the problem is that the "genius" manufacturer requires the battery to have some power in order to be ON even when plugged in. You can see how that could be a problem if it doesn't always charge when plugged in.

The battery drained to 0% and powered off the computer even though it was plugged in. The strangest was one time it cycled off and on. Apparently the battery got a enough charged to boot up but not enough to stay on. I don't know what caused it to keep turning back on. Maybe it thought it was in a reboot, which isn't possible from a hard power off. Luckily unplugging solved this.

I don't know yet if the cooling fan platform is dispersing enough heat away from the laptop to prevent overheating, though I've been using it with that for long enough that I believe it has helped tremendously.

You obviously can't use a computer if it could just turn off at any time for no apparent reason. If I can feel good enough that the battery is the only reason, I can make sure to check periodically the percentage charge. I should run on battery often for battery life and performance, and prevent the new problem. The screen goes darker (maybe there's a setting to change that) and it doesn't last long at ALL.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad2

I think I have to go to Safari and log in to set tags for blog posts. Why not just do it all in Safari then.

Organization Nightmare

My normal organization leaves a lot to be desired, but try living in under 100sf with a storage unit.

My laptop (currently my main computer) seems to be toast. "Luckily" I burned a few DVDs with all needed files off of it except most recent few days.

Laptops always overheat and burn up some component(s). At least that's my experience. The fact that I have a refurb boxed and ready to take its place, though smaller, might be an org plus.

I'm glad I have this iPad so I can blog which I barely do, check email which is rarely important, and check news and twitter which sometimes is just stressful.

I have a cable to copy files from the HD if it's standard (should be). The cable is packed away in additional newly packed boxes as I have a more imminent hope of moving.

I was also looking for a lyric sheet and it must be out of its place in a notebook, packed, instead of file boxes I have cumbersome-ly available and have searched. Any CDs the file might be on are of course now packed and it isn't on available drives. Mind you I have another laptop HD (from a previously deceased laptop) to check if I had the cable.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad2

New Members of Congress (either house)

In 2010 a small number of congressmen and senators were "Freshmen" in that it was their first term serving in their respective houses of congress.


Mostly, these were elected on the basis of fiscal responsibility (conservatism) whichever party they belonged to.


It has been argued they have too much influence, as well as that they cannot get much done because they are a small minority.  Mind you it has been argued in extremest of these by the same people.


The numbers game in congress needs to stop.  The numbers that matter are the constituents who voted members in office, who are supposed to be represented.


It is long past time to get rid of the career politicians in Washington (DC) who make millions on side deals, stock tips whether "insider trading" or not, and flat out unchecked corruption. These fight for their personal power, what spotlight they can bring to themselves and to their state if it helps for to that end.


Those who say that the Freshmen numbers are too small and their ideals are too rigid need to be swept out so that those with moral fiber and honor can work together to get done what is easily agreed upon and negotiate the rest.  What we have now is all-or-nothing thinking where many (mostly Democrat party senators at the moment) are content to let nothing be done, have they passed the required budget since Obama was elected?  Any budget?  That is part of the LEGAL definition of their job description after all.  The Senate majority leader will not even put things up for a vote to show that the party has any standing on anything.


Perhaps it is best that the turnover is not too abrupt so that there is time to regroup around the representation the founders intended.  But not so slowly that the incoming Freshmen are doomed to concede the old ways and continue in them.


So here's hoping for a LOT more Freshmen in congress come November's election, and more retirements and more honor to actually represent the constituency.


The republic has gone awry.  It is time to correct course.

Oil, Gasoline, and Alternative-Energy Automobiles

The automobile industry has been around for 100+ years.  Car makers enjoy profits in the Billions while oil companies enjoy profits in the tens of Billions.


Any time gasoline prices rise more than gradually, there's an interest in alternative fuel sometimes starting with diesel.  Since the first Earth Day in 1970, if not before, renewable energy or at least more environmentally friendly energy sources have been contemplated.


The car industry would be largely unaffected by building cars to run on a different source of energy.  Mass-production would lead to their costing about the same as cars cost now and the business would be more-or-less unscathed. 


This is in sharp contrast to the change in the oil, refining, and gasoline industries.  Consider if ALL cars eventually use energy other than gasoline.  Even if diesel cars still exist, and planes, trains and even semi trucks still use gasoline, the profit margins for oil companies would be drastically cut.


So why would oil companies put a good faith effort into development of alternative energy fueled automobiles?  You must come to the conclusion that they would not.  In fact they have bought out countless patents from small companies for millions of dollars to keep that from happening.


Yet the oil companies still take tax cuts they will admit they do not need and do research into something they want to make sure never happens.


The current US president claimed while campaigning and reiterated every State of the Union address that he would stop the oil company tax cuts (or subsidies, subsidizing research into the abyss).  It never even came up as actionable until there was a Congressional Hearing (i.e. puppet show) about the tax cuts and questioning the oil moguls.  Moguls admit they do not need them and one said they would gladly give them up if the government would open up more land/ocean for oil drilling.  


The government is by no means held to an ultimatum, yet the tax cuts remain and more drilling still is not expanding (see my previous post for thoughts on how that would lower "cost" of gasoline).


The oil companies would pass on higher taxes to the consumer to pay for their "research" while keeping their profits the same.


CLEARLY, research into alternative fuel for cars needs to be done by someone outside of the oil industry.


Additionally I know for a fact that gasoline engines run on the gas fume mini explosions and waste a lot of the gasoline in doing so.  There could already be much more fuel efficient engines that use less gasoline, and there have been in years past.  It is not in everyone's interest to do so.

Capital Gains Truths

Among all of the other loopholes and vast deductions, capital gains (typically income from investments) are taxed at a lower rate than occupational income.

Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. Some try to dispute that, but they take an average general secretary salary instead of an Executive Assistant salary. I hear Obama is in the same situation with his secretary (or in the past has been).  Any m/billionaire who wishes to pay more tax can simply cut a check, stop taking deductions and using loopholes, and stop settling out of court to pay a lower amount than what is legally owed.

The mythical distinction: capital gains are from invested income already taxed (true) giving gains that have already been taxed (not on the earner, but the corporation has been taxed).

Problem is that trying to make this distinction as an argument against capgains' being taxed the same as occupational income is that corporations are taxed completely (barring loopholes and cost of business deductions, etc).  So this argument would have to concede that all occupational income should be taxed at the capgains rate, as it has already been taxed when earned by the corporation.

The person who cannot afford investment on a large scale and has a low-rate savings account or CD gets taxed on all interest income the same as occupational income.  Deductions and credits might allow all or some of this tax to be returned.

The rate cut for capgains investing is an "incentive" to keep the wealthy investing so that the economy keeps going.  Some argue that rich investors would all stop investing and go into bonds.  This all-or-nothing view is as ludicrous as it is simple-minded.  The capgains are so great on the investments with high yield (especially in the artificial futures such as oil) that the wealthy would do well to keep investing and pay a little more tax.  The rate of loss deduction might be raised to alleviate some trepidation (barring complete overhaul to better tax code). The wealthy obviously would not go to bonds because the return does not account for inflation and they would be lucky to just break even.

All tax cut "incentives" are really subsidies, even if the gross money was 100% the taxpayer's money originally. Call it what you will, "investments," etc.  The savvy investor is far greater than the government could ever hope to be at choosing what to invest in, barring inside gain on losers and short calls, etc.

That brings us to the next post which will be about gas (petrol) and alternative energy.