Mind-Mapping: politics

Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

18.9.18

Dave Chappelle - Comedy

Dave Chappelle is perhaps one of the most influential comedians in history, not simply influencing his own generation by crossing multiple sections and subsections of the public, though his material is far from tame or otherwise "middle of the road". Which is one of the key metrics by which to judge how influential someone is, how "extra-ordinary" they are in the world of art and entertainment: longevity. Dave has recently been speaking volumes on the state of the culture --more from a philosophical standpoint than a racial one (in the large), as has previously been his proclivity. Speaking out about the state of Hip Hop and the state of the Union, in ways which --at least from my perspective, however limited-- is unprecedented, rarely is there such depth and foresight seen from a comedian who is also a commercial success. Normally, those comedians who are considered the "comedians comedian" are those not well known to the public at large. Those such as Hicks and Stanhope are more, shall we say: acquired tastes, to use the clique'. Chappelle, however, whether in reference to his short running show on Comedy Central, or his stellar and very artistic comeback years later, is neither conventional nor obscure. Audiences waiting on his every appearance and his shows selling out prior to bill being wholly presented. Yet, like Corey Holcomb and others that get far less commercial billing, Dave "keeps it real", right or wrong --even in the face of economic adversity. Where he has been able to use art to transcend race and stereotypes or otherwise leverage these social structures to his benefit.

I would deduce this to come, at least partly, from his stage presence. Which speaks highly of his more formal education and is not entirely disconnected from his insane work ethic and the general rigor he places into his craft. All things we can see others who are a success, particularly in the world of entertainment as of late, have gone to great lengths to tell everyone. Dave is continually tearing down all the initial cultural perceptions which the majority of the general public have built-up around stand-up. Certainly in his last Netflix specials, Chappelle was as unconventional as has been seen. Short perhaps of Louis C.K.'s earlier efforts in self-production and self-promotion. Perhaps still, Dave is following this new trend or composite-comedy, where those such as Rogan (and his ilk) along with many others have used a combination of podcasting, Stand-up and speaking opportunities to have a far more entrenched presence in the lives of their audience. Though this seems to be the trend --however directed by each individual and the "channels" they subscribe to, Dave has certainly become a master of these changes quickly. It then also bears mentioning that Chappelle is filling these social and cult roles while simultaneously speaking about highly complex topics on the very edges of sociocultural understanding --and in some way extracting humor! As my ideas on these topics are far more shaky than at least the appearance given to Mr. Chappelle's, I will leave the interpretations on accuracy of his ideas up to the listener --but from an artistic standpoint, and in the consideration of the historical standard, Chappelle is a master of the mic.

Having certainly comeback to the forefront in strides, Dave has more projects going now than I can personally keep up with. As various as they are secretive. Though in this effort he is certainly navigating the cultural waters, shifting beneath the feet of us all. Perhaps mostly in the realm of politics both social and federal, but comedy and the obligatory topics within comedy have certainly been under heavy criticism for some time now --primarily in league with other social movements and the upheaval currently being experienced by way of Trump and his chosen minions. While this is no one "fault" --and to whatever degree that is not the way we should be looking at things, for whatever sentiment is worth-- there are certainly dynamic changes which, culturally, are especially effecting comedy in way of what material is acceptable. A treacherous time to re-enter the game, if there ever was one. Though Chappelle has done quite a bit and authored quite a body of work since his return. There is admittedly some irony in his charging what he does and being "openly" in the elite class (in terms of wealth) and yet being so tremendously popular with both the capitalists and the socialists among the population. In a very Carlin like way: Dave is using the very things which divide us to unite us, along with progress the conversation in a way which was not immediately obvious.

Chappelle did a summer comedy tour with Jon Stewart (previously of the Daily Show w/...). Which was running through from mid June through the end of the month. If you were not able to catch any of the shows, you will have another chance to catch Chappelle and guest, tomorrow (9-18-2018) with Lauryn Hill & Dave Chappelle at the Hollywood Bowl, in Los Angeles California. Tickets run from $80 - $1,200, depending on seating. Though my budget does not currently allow for such extravagances, I am sure it will be a great time, particularly for those with garden seats. Not getting paid to drop that in here at the end, but genuinely shocked that there are even still seats available --as I am seeing some fairly high availability as of the writing.

As I am tenuously making a top ten comedians list, a task which is much more difficult than I originally considered, so much so that I may be extending that number to something far more grand; but, in digging through sets: Chappelle's certainly standout. Through watching Dave's progression you start to feel as though you know him more, you can see his progression in a more "raw" sense --more so than most of the comedian's I tend toward. He is far less the "Black Comedian" and more the artist, who is surgically playing off peoples presuppositions, ego and cultural-bias --perhaps now more so now than before or at least in more intimate settings. But from where-ever the organic substance of his material originates and regardless of how his culture has influenced his opinions and his philosophical leanings, his material is remarkably intriguing --comically of course-- but what I think is special, what may make him the best comedian who has ever lived is his gift for innovation. Even his peers remark at this proclivity for creating and the rhetorical and proverbial depth of cultural insight present in his work, the MFDoom of comedy, if you will. While these elements are seemingly lost on most audiences (as with Doom), lets hope, for the sake of humanity, that people really do learn more when they laugh --if so, we are in good hands.

Related:

Chappelle Upcoming Dates:

Older Interview from 2017:

Source: https://youtu.be/Q0XLCWv8RkE

15.4.18

Political problems in the U.S.

:::: WTF Sunday Night ::::

You know what is particularly fucked here is the way guns and Trump have basically taken over the political landscape. Though there are several outlets talking about other things, the primary statements one hears are either nonsensical ramblings from Trump's supporters desperately trying to justify his foolery, or irrational claims and unsubstantiated moral pronouncements hell bent on being more ethical or morally extreme with each given iteration by the folks on the Left. This folks is no way to run a political discourse. Beyond the fact that it is nonproductive it has the additional negative value of being fucking irritating. Not any one person but the larger whole and the way their cacophony of stupidity reverberates and injects such a significant amount of noise into social media as to render it even more time consuming to navigate than it once was. Given this could just generally be there is more and more bullshit cluttering the landscape in general, which is also true, but the just constant haranguing on nonsense, most of which is the same as yesterday and is getting ever more useless as time progresses.

And keep in mind people, I have basically taken myself out of the game. That's right folks, the kid is no dummy, not gonna catch me wasting 12 hours a day in a state of near arrhythmic screaming at my screen. No way. I put in four at the most. Cut down from nearly twice that as many months ago. You know Ryan leaving may have been the best part of my week. It is the first time I felt like we had a general humanitarian victory with him walking out the door. That was up until I realized how much he would be making on talks and appearances in future. Well fuck. And I thought we were getting somewhere. Chances are, in fact, in his free time, he may just decide that we need to hear from him more or will otherwise join the caravel in the form of the coming presidential elections. Let us hope he thinks better of it.

With any hope this next years election field will be small and stuttering with one Liberal, Atheist, Lebanese, former Navy Seal, Transgender, Pacific Cartographer, Oceanographic ethnographer with a propensity for abstract conventions of language decides to run as a spoiler or some such. As bar something so intensely satisfying to the soul, I will likely find someway of configuring a Rasberry Pi to aid me in the creation of a device capable of aiding me in implosion of a highly precise area which will provide me with the perfect opportunity to stream my own definition of a social justice metaphor prior to my ultimate but swift demise. Thanks to Facebook and the governments general disregard for both privacy and constituents monies, I will able to bring this event to you live, in HD!

Going into the new week you would think that I could give you some impression that things will be good, I mean: deliver some motivational shit that would convey a more positive message, like: "sure, some of the planet is on fire...people and animals are dying at a terrific rate...the nation is run by a large buffoon dressed in an Orange man suit with the scruples of a slightly retarded baboon, but McDonald's is serving breakfast all day...so we won that one...yeah, it may kill us but it is cheap, so we have that". Not so sure that is exactly what people are looking to hear right now, but you get my point.

The fact that the president is regularly having shouting matches with other world leaders likely puts any thinking people off. From the start surely he seems a bit crass, but when you put him in perspective with the majority of other psychopaths in the world wielding medieval like control on a present population and say you compare Trump to Caligula, you can see he has a way to go. He has yet to start selling the Senator's wives, though that will surely be an interesting chapter in this little book of history.

Overall we should be fairly content that he is not showing up to press conferences in his underwear, wearing a purposefully open bathrobe, exposing a strategically stuffed Speedo. But kid yourself not folks, that shit is coming, very soon he will start breaking down. Just a few days ago I had to watch Trump as an uncomfortable mess, constantly murmuring something about Muller being big and mean. No, really, this "grown ass man" who just happens to be the president really sat on television with his arms crossed, berating a well known, accomplished, competent and decorated attorney with phrases as complex, cutting and personally-transformative as: a "...Disgraceful ...witch hunt"..."it's a disgrace"..."an attack...". I am not sure he knows many words. I mean sure, we all have our favorites, but he seems like he has a favorite 10 out of 20, or there about. Are we still talking about Hillary, really dude, I think he is going to start bringing up Obama's birth certificate again soon, better that than WWIII I guess.

::::

The Weed game.

Women are owning the Marijuana Market:

The recent and interesting phenomena that has transpired here in the West (both globally and nationally) has been majority female owned Cannabis businesses. As has come to so often be the case in an historical sense: women will likely once again be the savor of humanity. There is a dramatic trend in females owning, operating and doing the majority of manufacturing and packaging for the legal cannabis trade. I feel this is due, at least in large part, to the substantial amount of men previously running the illegal trade, where a significant percentage of those are now restricted from taking part in the legal version of the trade due primarily to previous legal infractions. As most if not all of the states involved have significant laws regarding such peoples as the industry has become more officially regulated and curtailed by reams of arguably useless and constitutionally questionable bureaucracy. While the vast amount of Bud tender's and labor's are generally still comprised of mixed company, the majority of ownership and the "preferred tenders" are primarily female when it comes to gender.

This could very well be an observation born out of bias(though there is a large grouping of textual support), proximity and a lack of other highly technical forms of data, as this is being based primarily on personal observations and (normally stoned) perusal of industry literature; though, it must be said --as the industry is still fairly small, the amount of women in comparison to other such fields is fairly staggering. This could indeed be a significant inroad for female CEO's and other technically proficient women to develop a great deal of wealth particularly considering the few amount of actual seats available at the proverbial table.

Not that anything I am saying or wishing for has not been done previously and said far better. What I think it is important we do is lift up other benighted communities in similar ways. There are surely organic type initiatives like this happening in other sectors as well (see bellow) though if something then becomes a "best practice" things that are just done, then I would imagine the opposition, fiscal restrictions and legislative support would be adjusted to fit the ever evolving situation far more quickly.

Though this is certainly also a case of law being (again) far behind the cultural shifts along with the technology. And to a certain extent this must be wholly troubling to the powers that be that have, for so long, made it their mission to be against pot. Though one by one we are seeing a shift in the dynamic --no doubt due to mounting financial and social pressure from long atrophied infrastructure, policy and legislation.

As one of the article's bellow mentions, "activism loves women". The very vibe women give off will likely help the cause, particularly with conservatives. While there is a likelihood that this would not be equated also to Black and Latino women this is just a reminder of how far we have to go, if some of us would have expected to be there by now.

From an economic perspective this may be a good opportunity for a great number of workers to start a career in a "low stress" field. By definition, "Weed Shops" are a fairly low stress, low impact environment. There are few rules other then those imposed by law, but one of them is certainly directly connected to keeping the stress, noise and complaints down to a minimum. And although there is always the well placed drama or complex story that takes headlines, far-and-away, recreational marijuana establishments are by far the most relaxing place you will likely visit throughout the day.

Though the fact that a cannabis business and any other business, lounge or combined intoxicants are normally a heavily restricted area, there are several in legal states which have found interesting ways to combine multiple amenities, creating a type of tourist attraction (which for some reason the state is bound on restricting). There seems to be particular legal concern over people smoking together, when such is done outside a private residence. Right, the last thing we want is substantial groups of people getting along, how tragic.

At-any-rate, with the right amount of community and political support in place, this market will hopefully grow and provide many women with the opportunity to break into and essentially create a large and likely sizable section of the world economy. And I really do not see that as overstating the point, as fond as I am for sarcasm and other such pleasures. The high levels of conscientiousness and social agreeableness of women, along with the "natural teacher" aspects of many women's personalities will likely make them far more successful against the more aggressive and obtuse men they will be competing with. Overall I think we can also look for this to be evident of a substantial change in business altogether --if there is a significant amount of companies being nice, communicating and putting customers first; along with making growing profits and developing highly organized and dynamic systems, the likelihood for substantial and sustained competition between the modern and more antiquated businesses seem nearly certain. Though I have been critical of some female executives in the past, the majority of women business leaders I know or have looked into have done far better than their male counter parts, nationally and internationally. Unfortunately this is not true in each and every country, there are a significant amount that are still living in something which could most rightly be considered the dark ages, in comparison to the modern West.

For all the problems and political turmoil alive and well in the West, there is a significant amount to be both thankful for and programs, projects, cities, people and business leaders to heap praise upon --legislation initiatives to get excited for and populations to support in their ever progressing fight for equality and social equity. For all the faults of the West, it must be admitted that there has been a significant reduction in overall deaths, from war, famine or otherwise; there has been a burgeoning of social justice crusades that have made exponential progress over their decades old counterparts --while there has still be a significant amount of the population suffering; whether from poverty or the prison industrial complex, guns or drugs, or whether it be some other eventuality perpetuated by the substantial differential in wealth in the country --in any of the numerous ways that manifests-- by-and-large there are far less horrors and violations of rights than in previous generations; with any hope: ending of the drug war will be an addition to the continuum.

Related Articles

- "Weed Could be first... industry NOT dominated by men."-- (March 2015). newsweek.com/2015/08/28/women-weed-how-legal-marijuana-could-be-first-billion-dollar-industry-not-364249.html

- "Reasons Why Weed and Women Go Together" -- (October 2016) --potent.media/reasons-why-weed-and-women-go-together

- "Women in Weed..." -- (March 2018). Westword.com/marijuana/women-in-weed-documentary-shows-how-women-can-thrive-in-legal-industry-10057196

25.2.18

Update - 2018.25.02 - Fucking Trump, Really...and other things that likely will not interest you.

Still really cannot bring myself to believe that Trump is president, it is nearly like living in an actual T.V. show. Prior to him suggesting that teachers should have guns, it sounded like a good idea or at least one that was plausible...now I believe I have changed my position and become wiser.

This is really Trumps function in American politics, he is here to show us all the things we are doing wrong that we may have thought correct are indeed totally wrong and further confirm insufficient, all the ideas that some or all of us either questioned or rejected at some point in the past or otherwise those which we just always had a bad feeling about to begin with.

The "Alt-right", yep bad. Jeff Sessions in a position of power, demonstratively bad idea. Alex Jones, full of shit --clearly. Pence's dealing with public policy and doing "damage control", horrible idea. Breitbart...confirmed, racist and unstable.

This can go for supporters as well, if you had that relative that you thought was dumb, but you were never quite sure, well...if they are a Trump supporter, you can now put a big check in that fucking box. Feel free to move on from these conundrums, and allow Trump to at least save you some time, if he thinks it's good, you can be reasonably sure it is not. Just choose the opposite. Think of it as him just eliminating some of the choices and simplifying the argument --there is surely a Campbell's soup analogy here.

So really, what we have to do here is look on the bright side, be the Bob Ross of our proverbial life-painting, "make those trees happy trees" --there may be a psychopathic, misogynist with an IQ that contains a decimal point, but he can none-the-less be of some utilitarian use, help us in confirming the more nuanced and rhetorical questions of our social structure, so that others may learn from our mistakes and so we may yet live to try again.

----

16.8.15

Moving to Windows 10, Politics, and Other Things

Some things that have been on my mind and in the news this week. As well as some thoughts that are just generally related to my measly little life

Windows 10 Update:

Windows 10 will no doubt be a blight on the cultural landscape, as is the custom. To do otherwise would be a far to strenuous a task for the drones Microsoft employs.

The initial security concerns should have, and were for the most part, were expected by the community. If you have a 'professional' -- which is a whole other conversation -- setting up your machine, don't be overly concerned -- you make the choice -- they make it work -- that is what you are paying for. If you are setting up your machine; be especially concerned.(ie. lot's of reading required.)

Technology changes. Expect this. Though Windows 10 won't be a huge change in the end, it doesn't add anything that I would say is significant other than Xbox and PC integration. (one source, though there are many: Search Much?)

So should you upgrade? I guess, if you want. If you don't, Windows 7 will be supported for a while yet. Probably far longer than it should be in fact.

Why is anyone talking about Donald Trump?

Getting beyond the hair, and just the general silliness of someone so transparently privileged being president: there is his lack of any sense of consideration for cultural, geographic or social differences, either in his comical attempts at speaking and certainly not when he is dreaming up policy. Also, his obvious lack of any depth of knowledge in any particular area of study, Including, but certainly not limited to, business. His complete lack of ability to utilize anything even closely resembling forethought when speaking in public or private, should --alone-- disqualify him from being president, in the mind of rational beings.

Just because you know a bunch of lawyers, does not then mean you are making correct decision based on their advice; a deliberate and unabashed use of false authority to gain some level of political agency. Anyone that has ever been faced with making legal decisions can tell you just how contrived and obtuse lawyers 'advice' can be. Similarly: just because poor people work for you, does not then mean you understand the level and depth of their despair surrounding or have any insight on providing relief from their privation.

Trump should be the new Hitler of conversations. Meaning: once someone mentions him in conversation it is a clear sign that nothing positive can further be extracted from its continuation.

Oracle doesn't want your help. Well yeah.

First it is important to say that this isn't a person that is saying that they don't want help. Not that I agree with her in the least -- though, in an attempt at full disclosure, I am not a fan of corporate cultures. She is saying that she doesn't want bad help. This should be an expected response from programmers in general. It should be understood that she is talking about the license agreement, because that is the sort of thing you have to do as opposed to calling people stupid and useless, which to be fair, she does a bit of as well. As per the community, she is supposed to be stating policy instead of calling people useless, which most of them are.

As we have all come to know, in the tech industry, many times a bug is just the software highlighting someones stupidity.

So she is saying some things that people may not like, but frankly, I am sure they get sent on a lot of wild goose chases, as well as the occasional real security hole. Perhaps it may have been a smarter move, both technically and politically for her to focus her time on finding a solution to the problem on there end. Where perhaps she could have employed a group of interns or created a lower-paid/entry-level position to monitor such traffic; filtering the noise.

Though she choose the more aggressive approach, and it is hard not to stare and wonder if, at least in part, the response from the tech-public isn't more rooted in her being a woman, then it is in her being wrong.

Often women get labeled as a bitch, just for stating a case. Which essentially means that they are not being as approachable as is expected. Which is clearly an admission that they should act in a way appropriate to their sex, which is clearly sexist.

It seems inappropriate not to mention that the people that often say such things just happen to be women.

I say this because it has been an awful harsh response when you consider how Apple, as a company and a culture, thinks about and acts toward their users and those that choose alternate directions. Especially when it comes to reverse engineering, or in any way changing/adding-to/debugging their software.

This is also an argument that could be made about Nvidia, or Adobe as well. I guess you can hold whatever opinions you want, as long as you do it in the right way, and your not a woman?

Cutting the cord, kinda.

Since I am moving, I am changing cable companies. In doing this, I am cutting the proverbial cord. Well kinda, but not really. The TV that I do watch is all available through direct or third party services online, but this doesn't mean that I don't pay for it. I pay for cable to get access to it, although I don't watch it live.

I pay for the basic subscription, plus the internet access. What I don't do is hook the TV up to the cable or box, other than using an antenna to get weather and emergency updates when needed.

The media center, basically a Linux box with some extra packages, is hooked up to the TV so that we can watch the handful of shows that we like and record those that we want to watch at some point(Usually well after the season and/or show itself has long ago ended.). We get movies through a bunch of services. Total, we probably have an expenditure of $65.00+/-$20.00 or so, per month for this, most of which $39.00 is the cost of the internet connection. The rest is Amazon $38.00 per year, and HBO, $10.00 per month and the occasional movie rental($2-$7 or so.). This is still rather expensive, based solely on my opinion, but I think it is the best that you can do and still get most of the live entertainment and TV shows that one would like from time to time.

This works well for us, basically because we spend the majority of our time reading or doing something else that is more hands on (gaming, chess, model_building, etc) - so really the amount of time, and therefor need, is far less than some have grown accustomed to. The only reason that I have TV services at all is because I like to be able to get access to a few shows, online, from the publisher or watch the occasional event(Olympics, football, rugby, bbc specials, and such.). This it is fairly cheap and the least restrictive way of doing things, I've found.

Especially since we are already paying the cost for the internet. I don't have any real need for most live TV programming, especially since I don't take part in cable news but in only the most rare of circumstances.

This has not been a smooth transition for the cable companies, mostly because they are losing shit tons of money. Which, if you anything like me, the mere though of such a thing, just made you crack a smile.

I think they are starting to realize that they can't stop the bleeding, no matter what they do. Ultimately, the only step now, that should make sense to them from a profits and margins, is to slow the transition. While they are trying to find new revenue streams and refine the current ones, they can make you pay a little more here and their to buffer their portfolios. This won't be something that will scale well. In fact, it is already starting to break down, since a lot of people, like me, are just starting to say that we just don't need it.

They are reaching for relevancy right now. A relevancy that is beginning to be all the more hard to find. Not that this has not always been the case. The suits are not particularly good at spotting something that will be popular with anyone other than their corny friends, who are almost by definition, not very popular -- even with those that like them.

The door has been propped open for the amateur directors, DJ's, broadcasters, podcasters, artists, and makers. Many have started stepping through it.

Not to that we should forget about the professionals that have started their own, personal multimedia empires. Like Adam Corolla, Dr. Drew, Joe Rogan, Marc Marion, Joey Diaz, and Ari Shaffir, just to name a few.

These changes will likely have drastic effects on the spread of not only wealth, but also greatly affect the direction of the conversation in world. We are in a time where a lot of people that didn't, and some that arguably shouldn't, have the ability to challenge the general consensus, and speak freely on the issues where their passions reside, now have that ability. Almost at a level that is unchecked.

So I would say that what entertainment that you choose, and the methods in which you choose to consume it, are equally important.

26.1.15

Law Reform: Why are we continuing to do the wrong thing?

For some reason it seems near impossible to get politicians to work in the interest of the people. Each time we go through an election cycle, we get told what we want to hear, and then as soon as all the confetti has been cleaned off he floor, it is right back to business as usual.

This is not to say that this is an easy job, at each turn, there are many things to consider. Though I think it is fairly clear that our money and their time is not going to the places that we think it should go. This is also a precarious position to take, since the mob mentality often ends up being misplaced.

So let us not assume that we should take the Group Think and run with it, but rather we should be looking for the true and factually based solutions to the problems we face. For the most part every one seems to agree on the basics, but we have gone far off the reservation with the sheer amount and complexity of the law.

One of the most troubling things I have witnessed is the way private company policy is treated as law. Combined with the blatant way that politicians do what is good for the few that own large companies and do little to help keep the playing field even for the workers. Please don't confuse my compassion for the workers with a plea for unions, since they rarely place interest of the workers at the center of their interest either. My argument is simply that the overall good of the people should come before the profitability of the company in all circumstances.

Take for instance the laws surrounding a parking space. If you pay for a space, you are in the act of renting a space from the city. Now without going in the direction of allowing all out gatherings or other stretches of the imagination in the space, I think it is fair to argue that if you are using the space for it's intended purpose, parking a car, then that should be the limit of the control the municipality should have over your actions within that space. Again, within reason. This, however, is not the case.

There are any number of things you could be ticked for while in the space depending on what city or town you have rented in. From smoking to license plate offenses. Similar to the laws regarding what you can do in your car. My feeling is, if you have rented the space, anything you do in that space that is not infringing on the rights of another to peacefully enjoy their space, is not a crime or violation, and shouldn't be made such.

Say for instance that I am not wearing my seat belt. Should I really be ticketed for this? This is equipment on my car, that effects no one other persons safety. Yet, there is a penalty if I choose not to follow this rule. Penalizing me for my own behavior that effects only me, is simply a tax -- and an especially prejudicial one at that. This is not a public safety issue (which is what the state sites when it makes such laws), like say not having headlights. So this is not an area that should be legislated or one that should be able to be enforced by the court, since it is not violating the rights of another.

Now I am sure that I will hear the argument about texting and driving as and argument against my point. Shouldn't the government be able to make laws that prevent me from acting negligent? I would say that you are exactly right. There are things that one could do that could end in others being injured. Though that is a very slippery slope. Next you could say that drinking coffee while driving can cause and accident -- as the German's have. Should I be able to be ticked for this as well? This really makes you question the thought process of a drive through window. I would say that someone eating a meal is far less able to react to an emergency situation at high speed on the highway, then someone that is reassuring their wife that they are indeed stuck in traffic.

The fact that something bad could happen, shouldn't determine whether or not you have the right to do something. Though there is a possibility for me to be neglectful in this capacity, it should not be assumed that such a thing would occur. And I definitely shouldn't be fined or otherwise sanctioned for such an assumption.

Now the situation completely changes if I cause an accident while watching Youtube videos while doing 90mph on the highway. Since I would be, in such a case, negligent -- as most reasonable people, and likely a jury, is sure to determine. There are plenty of methods of evidence collection for such crimes. That is not to say that it is not a tragedy for such an event to occur in the first place, but simply to say that we already have laws for such an occurrences. There is no need to add complexity.

The fact that you have to wear a seat belt, in the same world wear you can buy a motorcycle and launch yourself through the air at twice the speed allowed on most highways, should cause all to question the system we are living in.

This is not taking a stance alined with chaos or anarchy, simply one that regards personal responsibility as the barrier against crime; not simply the law. The law should be reasonable and logical; following a natural progression.

For instance, if I can use my radio in my car, then I can use my cell phone(or other such device) in my car; or both should be deemed illegal or against best practices. Since the argument that something is a general distraction from your duties as a driver can be made, reasonably, in both circumstances.

The fact should remain that if I am doing something that a reasonable person would consider negligent, and I cause injury or property damage to another, then I should be held liable as such -- but not before an offense has been committed. That is a clear violation of personal freedom. The responsibility to know of, accept, reject, or mitigate the risk of an activity should be solely the responsibility of the individual. Looking at things this way, we are able to adjust far more easily to technological and social progressions.

It is not as if the prosecution of thought crime -- whether by public opinion, through corporate policy, and/or by way of judicial decision -- has been a rare occurrence or a recent invention in the United States. This should not stand to mean that it should continue unaddressed.

Private companies, groups, and organizations have been allowed to influence politics and public policy for far too long. Especially in regards to religious and various other political groups, while untaxed as a group, they continue to affect personal rights. This is not uniquely an American problem, but a world wide epidemic. You can point to any society in history, and see how it's government functions directly opposed to and constantly fights against the will of the people; rarely in a crusade to help a disadvantaged group. If this occurs, it is usually an externality.

From slavery to the bank bailouts, rarely are the items the government are focused on something that is going to be good for the people as a whole. The governments actions often, if unintentionally, subvert the needs of the population. Change that is good for the people is accomplished, more-often-then-not, by forcing the government to change by dragging it along -- usually loosing some additional freedoms along the way. Progress would be immensely faster if the government was a body that could anticipate the needs of the people, while protecting their rights against infringement, even if that were to mean allowing some to subvert system (which is already happening anyway, mainly for the rich.). This is a natural occurrence in any system, and usually leads to the best results; ie. the internet. The time rights are most needed is when they are in direct opposition to the majority opinion.

It is critical to fairness in any social system, that logical connections be made, and held against bigoted opposition. Which unarguably the most crucial part of personal liberty. So is every system designed to be fair? No. Inherently, there are going to be things that favor one group or another slightly. The amount of disparage that is clearly evident in our laws ans policies is the what I am arguing. Naturally there is a financial focus, though that is designed into the system. Evidenced by congress voting themselves pay raises at a higher rate than those of the average worker. There is inevitably going to be times that a situation is just unfortunate regardless of how good our intentions or how well we plan for every inevitability. There is no chance that we will react without flaw in every situation, though that isn't an excuse to go completely in the opposite direction.

To say that a lawyer is someone that has to go to school for 12+ years in order to gain proficiency in one or two areas of practice, but then to force the rest of the untrained population to know such a complex system, is unconscionable.

It is not possible for one to know all of the particulars of each of the laws in each of the towns, cities, and states they plan to live, do business, or travel. Proof of this? Lawyers need to take a bar in each state in most cases, even though they understand the overall mechanisms that govern the workings of the law, and they are relatively similar, most attorneys that I have spoken with would suggest that you speak to an attorney in the specific state in question.

Along with all of the federal laws that may be applicable depending on the situation you will have recent decisions and definition of terms to contend with. Do not forget, also, that the law is ever evolving, so much so that lawyers must subscribe to an expensive service just to keep up with the recent changes. How accessible is the patent system to the small business man, who's ideas it was designed to protect?

So would you then assume then, that it is reasonable that the average person be held to account for all these variables? Is it reasonable to expect each citizen to consult a lawyer for each decision they make in their daily life? If so, we better start talking much more seriously about significantly increasing the minimum wage.

________________

11.10.14

Putting Research Into Practice

For some reason no matter how much research we seem to have in an area; people still don't seem to believe what the research says. From climate change to LED technology and other renewable resources; the scientists seem to be ever questioned. Though when they are in personal crisis they seem very quick to rely on what the scientist says.

I find it odd that from the same people I hear two completely different political voices, depending on the situation. When it comes to money, meaning ones personal supply, many Democrats seem to be a republican -- though when the group or businesses money is in play, they are far more liberal. You can see this same phenomenon when it comes to the republicans and medical treatment. When it seems like it is a project for the group they seem to be less trusting of the science -- though when they or a family member is ill, they are all for science, and put all their trust in it.

The really interesting part is that this is not a point of contention each and every time these topics come up, only when one is personally involved -- you can really see this when you have an argument with one or the other on such topics and relate them to personal experience. Though most would rather gnaw off their own leg then to admit that they would like to force someone to make a decision that they themselves wouldn't make. The really entertaining bit comes when you give them a set of circumstances, reducing to the ridiculous, that insist they go against their original argument; now sit back and watch the fundamentalist come unglued. I am not really on either side here, just recognizing the hypocrisy.

Unfortunately the problem the problem extends even further when we talk about speech and business. The churches don't want their speech or behavior to be criticized while still insisting, based solely on their existence alone if nothing else, on criticizing everyone else. And again with business processes -- Republicans and Libertarians alike are always one's to want less if any regulation on businesses, right until you try to put a 'marijuana store' next to a church or school -- then it must be regulated. Though if you don't want a drilling company to be depositing nuclear materials in your local waste disposal facility, well that is just some hippy bullshit. Similar to how the people that work at the school act and the expectation they have of the children attending the school, night and day(I think it is also fair to say that this applies to university as well).

To say that one is supposed to have free speech and then we as a society try to control that speech when we find it to be uncomfortable is just as bad, if not worse than, denying the right to free speech all together. We saw this in the Anthony Cumia debacle and others. I don't see anyone from either side coming to the defense of those that are attacked for simply saying something. Though it seems we do, in both main groups, protect people for their egregious actions; curious.