covid-19 crisis

I can't believe how Google couldn't find this blog when I searched it, but Bing could.

Bing found it at blogspot.com. I remember it got changed to blogger, but it's kind of weird that google apparently had no recollection of this.

Anyway...we are about to witness a time when the American people are left to fend for themselves. Sure, the government is trying everything to give us money. But if they have that money to give us...why were so many of us struggling to live all this time?

There is a specific group of people that are essential to keeping us all comfortable. Those people also happen to be the lowest paid people in our society.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I, for one, am willing to fight for this.

I spent a lot of time talking about anarchy, laws, etc with the guys down at the supply house.

It made me energized a bit. I mentioned how we let the "rich" take over our lives. I mentioned how hard it is to do anything about it when you have a family to worry about.

Jose, the manager, and numbnuts all agreed. I feel bad that I can't remember the manager's name at the moment.

The main thing is that I've stayed away from this topic for a lot of years because it was depressing me so much to talk about it. But there was something there. I saw a little spark in what I was saying. Maybe just maybe losing a baby was a blessing in disguise.

But I have to make it so.

It seems that my girl wants to stick through everything with me. She is almost everything I was looking for.

Marriage equality

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that we'll eventually be pushing for three-way marriages, or four-way, or more. I almost want to say, why not? But then when I thought about it, we're talking about the reason people get married. To have their marriage recognized by the government means that they are connected together legally and can enjoy government benefits (services or money) on each other's behalf.

The other part of marriage is for a church to recognize the union. This isn't always necessary to some people, but it's important to others. If somebody wanted to get married and had no interest in the blessing of the church, they don't have to worry about this.  For people that are gay or want a polygamous relationship wouldn't be turning to many churches anyway. And furthermore, churches aren't government sanctioned so you could make up any crazy church you want and have that church bless your union.

If the struggle for legal polygamous marriage hits a road block, there is a work-around. You can just form a corporation. Have you and your fiancés or fiancées go into a legal agreement where you own a certain percentage of the corporation. (By the way, I wanted to point out that the plural of those words alerted the spell-check) It can be an equal share, or if one had more money than others, or whatever they wanted the arrangement to be they could choose uneven shares. It would work the same way a pre-nuptial does.

That way you get to enjoy the loopholes of corporation. You can get tax cuts by claiming certain expenses through the corporation. For example, your house/apartment/condo/etc can be company-owned employee housing. I don't want to get into how it would all work right now, my point is you could just form a corporation. You could even call it "We're married LLC" and get a website while you're at it.

Now if you're following me, and I hope you are, if you could do that for a polygamous "marriage," why couldn't you do it with a monogamous marriage?

A silly oxymoron

• 
  

  thought freedom being free is what this country was founded on. It's our RIGHT to be free.

25 minutes ago ·

It's EVERYBODY'S right to be free.

24 minutes ago ·

Guess who makes us NOT free...

24 minutes ago ·

The rich people paying the poor people to shoot the other rich people's poor people.
24 minutes ago ·

It's not the people in the government that I'm talking about. It's the government itself. There are great leaders in this world and I recognize that. It's just that it shouldn't be a law that any leader is the end all be all leader. Take this down to a triangle of leader and assistant leader and I still hold the same opinion.

Then you can extrapolate it and realize that there should be no ONE leader. But currently, society is looking for that one leader with whatever assistant leaders will tow the line.

Rosa Godwin

There's a term on the internet known as Godwin. It says that all internet forum arguments will devolve until somebody uses Hitler or Nazis to make their point.

I think Rosa Parks will be the new Godwin. Whenever anybody argues about a persons political actions, Rosa Parks name will be brought up.

I used it today to defend Tim Thomas for not going to the White House with the rest of his Stanley Cup winning teammates. I've used it before on this very blog.

She's my go-to when I need to talk about somebody who did something against the norm for the greater good.

This blog sucks, I just wanted to put this idea in here as maybe a jumping off point.

God made me this way

First off, I don't really believe in god.  If there is a god I'm sure he has better things to do than worry about what I'm doing.  Like solving world hunger, war, racism, etc.

But let me just humor the religious people for a minute.  What I'm about to post will be something that I may copy and paste later without the disclaimers I just gave to you.

No matter what kind of heathen you think I am, just remember...God made me this way.  God created a human being and then he created many others. God made me and surrounded me with other human beings.  God created  men who would do awful and terrible things before, during and after my birth.  God gave me eyes to see these things or accounts of these things.

God created every single situation that ever has existed and can do so forever despite whatever laws are created to combat those actions.  God can make grown men fancy little girls and their naked bodies.  God can make a man rape, kill and steal from an entire race of people.  God can create a man that will forever rule Hell and tempt anybody to do anything considered evil.

God is perfect.  Everything he has ever done is perfect and cannot be refuted.  God created Satan and made him the entity that he is.  God created Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush.  God created Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and even O.J. Simpson.

Don't judge me because God made me like this.

Assimilation as time goes on

This entry was a comment that was too long to leave under the original entry from Feb 13, 2006 "racism...equality" [the link broke]

Please read that entry first if you haven't done so already. If you have read it, you may want to read it again.

Since I wrote that entry, there has been an election. In November of 2006, the American public overwhelmingly overhauled the government by voting in many Democrats to replace the Republican incumbents.
Although that entry was not focused on the politics of elected offices, I started the entry explaining that Massachusetts had a Republican governor in a state that is mostly Democratic. In this election a black Democratic governor was elected in Massachusetts (only the second black governor elected ever in the country, first in Massachusetts) to replace Mormon Republican incumbent Mitt Romney.
I only recently learned that Romney was a Mormon, which surprised me. But that's beside the point. I am proud that Massachusetts has seemingly shaken a certain portion of its racist roots by electing a black leader.
Also to note is the death of Red Auerbach, legend of the Boston Celtics. Although I was not blind to much of his legacy I did not realize that he was the first coach in the NBA to start five black players. Some critics have accused the Celtics of being racist because of the glory years when Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and sometimes Danny Ainge were part of the core starting players. Red Auerbach was the general manager that brought those players to the team.
Red did not see color. He did not start 5 black players to be a pioneer or to be politically correct. He saw 5 great players that he wanted on the court at the same time. Same holds true for Larry Bird. He didn't choose Larry Bird because he wanted a white superstar, he chose Bird because he recognized the incredible talent Bird possessed.
Maybe I was a little too hard on Massachusetts in the original entry, but I will leave youwith this. I was much like Red growing up. Living on an Air Force Base much of my life I cannot begin to tell you how many of my friends were black. I remember two or three for sure because they were my best buddies in high school. It wasn't until I moved to Massachusetts that I noticed the rift between black and whites. Not all of them, but it was noticeable. The way white people react to blacks has been deeply rooted in the black population, and that is something that even I can't seem to transcend.
Yes, I am friendly with a few people that are black, but now when I see blacks out and about I have to wonder what they probably assume about me. If they assume that I am much like most of the other native whites here, then how am I to feel comfortable? They don't know me, and I don't know them. All I can hope is that they will view and judge me by their interaction with ME, and not with anyone else.

Whose interest is favored here?

     As an electrician I am subject to the whims of a town electrical inspector.  Inspectors come in all shapes and sizes with lots of different attitudes.  Some operate their own electrical contracting businesses and others are professional inspectors whose sole job is to oversee the electrical work in the particular town or city in which they work.  It is possible to develop a relationship with a particular inspector that may reign good or bad.  All of these things contribute to unfair advantages within the industry.

     There are many different attributes in your average inspector.  Some of them are fans of the "pencil-whip" philosophy.  These inspectors tend to arrive at a home unwilling to make anyone's life any more difficult than it need be.  This can go so far as making sure you have a cup of coffee ready to secure his signature on the building permit.  Others will take a general look around and determine the chances that you did a proper job based on the neatness of your work.  It's very rare you will find an inspector who can point out everything that you did wrong but most guys have a few key infractions that they look for.  Through their daily inspections they will isolate a mistake that is made often, or that would be the result of a recently changed code.  Thus he may find that you did not install the proper number of smoke detectors but not notice that you cut your wires too short.  One more example of how many things can be missed is after you have installed every receptacle and light fixture the inspector will not be able to tell whether you made secure wire connections.  This is only the beginning of the joke I call the National Electrical Code and it's enforcement.

     Depending on the size of the town, the wire inspector can be employed full-time with a salary or paid by the inspection.  The former is most likely to be found in larger towns and cities. A town with 50,000 people or more will most likely have enough money to pay an inspector full-time.  This can help or hinder you depending on some of the points I laid out in the previous paragraph.  Some of them will be more lenient  because they won't get paid more money for failing an electrician and extracting an additional inspection fee.  Others will take their job more seriously because it is their bread and butter.  They have less incentive to rush through your inspection and will also feel pride in generating money for the building department which can help give their friends at work a raise. 

     On the other side you find smaller towns who employ an inspector as needed.  He will get a flat rate for each inspection he does with rates fluxuating depending on the size of the work being performed.  Usually these inspectors operate their own electrical business.  When doing work in the town they inspect for, the neighboring town will send over an inspector to avoid a conflict in interest.  Also, if the inspector happens to find someone who has not pulled a permit in the town, he is not allowed to assume the work.  That leaves one glaring conflict of interest that goes unchecked.

     A certain inspector/electrician was called upon to do work on two different occasions by two different contractors in the same town for which the electrician is the inspector.  After waiting for this electrician to show up at the jobsite to do the work, both of these contractors turned to my old boss, who also blew them off.  Then they called me.  At this point I obviously will need to pull a permit because the inspector knows about the work and it is a small town.  The first job I started, and my plan was to pull the permit the next day on my way back to the job to finish it up.  The inspector got very upset, claimed I was trying to do the work without a permit and demanded a double fee for not pulling the permit beforehand.  What I did is a very common practice in this field.  In fact when you pull a permit the inspector almost always asks if you are ready for inspection.    His claim was ridiculous and I responded by telling him that I wasn't an idiot.  I wouldn't be stupid enough to think I could get away without pulling a permit after hearing that the town inspector was supposed to have done the work.  He failed me for one minor infraction that normally he would have just said, "I'll sign off on this, just make sure you (insert task here)."  Eventually I was able to get this situation solved, but I haven't heard from that contractor since and it wasn't even my mistakes that led to this situation.

     The second job was a similar situation.  The contractor couldn't find an electrician so he had to call this inspector to do the work.  The inspector told him he would start Wednesday but didn't show up.  The contractor again tried my old boss, who blew him off yet again and finally his helper reminded him about me and he got a hold of me.  This time I pulled the permit before I did the work, and started working.  The following week the inspector pulled into the contractors driveway (they both live in this same town) and nonchalantly pretended he was ready to start the job.  The contractor told him that he waited long enough for him and that he had me doing the job.  I'm sure you see what is developing here.  When the inspector came to inspect my work he asked if the lights I had were rated to have insulation touching the light.  This was on a porch where there was to be no insulation.  Furthermore it is a summer home with no use during the winter.  He told me that someday someone could come in and blow in insulation in the future.  I said, "That's true in EVERY case, why would it even be legal to sell these lights if that was a problem?"  He tried to blow it off, he even buttered me up by saying, "I like your work Jay, (blah blah blah)."  It was obvious that he was upset that yet again I was doing work that he was supposed to do...and for a better price. 

     Two instances where I was penalized (it also cost me money) by an inspector with a grudge against me through no fault of my own.  He had every opportunity to do both of these jobs and he simply took too long.  Like I was saying, you can develop a relationship with an inspector and before I even did these jobs I had a relationship with him.  My old boss used to work for this guy until my old boss got his own license.  And now somebody two rungs down was doing these jobs faster and better than his guys could have.  In the beginning he was always good to me, most of my inspections with him were mostly mini-lessons that helped me learn and chit chat sessions where we talked about other electricians and other things going on in town.  I don't see that continuing. 

     Now that I am in competition with him he holds a lot of power over me.  He can always find one little thing that I did wrong and make me correct it (which costs money most of the time) and in the previous case, he can even decide that he wants things done a certain way just to make it difficult on me.  I can get away with avoiding him sometimes, but he tends to drive up and down the streets of his town looking for any kind of construction going on.  Furthermore he knows enough people to spread rumors about my work.  My only recourse would be to call the state board, but that creates two new problems.  Unless I had enough to get him completely removed from his authority, I would never have an easy inspection in his town.  Secondly, in the eyes of other inspectors who need to protect the pseudo-integrity of their positions they will also look to discredit me before I can report them.   

     This is the kind of lack of equality that I speak of so often.  I have no problem with the fact that this inspector has more money than me; he has worked harder and longer to develop a business.  But where he can use his authority to hinder my growth, just because his insecurities are rising, that's where I have a problem.

Original Material

     So I realize that it has been almost 7 months since I wrote anything original.  February 13th of the year 2006 is the last time I wrote about my views.  Since then I have added entries that were almost entirely "copied and pasted" from other websites.  So speaking of such blatant piracy I will share a short story.

     I have been using a website called YouTube that you may be familiar with.  It is a site dedicated to allowing your average users the chance to have their own videos hosted on the internet.  The registration is free, and once your account is open you may begin to upload videos from your computer.  The terms and conditions clearly state that you are not allowed to upload copyrighted material without permission from the owner. 

     The great thing about this website is that you can search through their extensive library.  When you upload your videos you are given a chance to choose whether the video is public or private.  If your video is worth beans, you will select public.  If it's your grandmother's 9th wedding reception you may want to click private for your own sake.  In searching through these videos it became very clear that there are extensive copyright infringements.  Many people will submit the copyrighted videos as a way to easily share them with friends online.  I have done this same thing.

     The curious thing to me is that I tried to upload a video I received via e-mail that was a public service announcement.  It featured a group of people smoking cigarettes on a balcony just outside a non-smoking office.  I won't spoil the ending for you, you can always search YouTube for "smoking balcony" and see it for yourself.  I wanted to upload it so that I could use the HTML code to post the video on some friends' websites.  Unfortunately after it loaded, the screen displayed that the video status was: "Rejected (terms of use violation)"

     So obviously they caught my little scheme to upload this copyrighted material.  Yet, when I made the search I mentioned above, a funny thing was revealed.  It had been uploaded bynot one, not two but seven users to be viewed by the public.  That was just the first page.  So whatever could this mean?

     As usual, the laws in this and every other free country are mostly a joke.  Sure they exist and sometimes they are even enforced.  But the arbitrary ways that people are arrested and forced to face the consequences truly bothers me.  If the rule is, "Do what you can get away with," why bother having laws at all?  Which category do you fit in?
Somebody can get away with anything some of the time
Anybody can get away with anything some of the time
Anybody can get away with something all of the time
et cetera, et cetera...

http://www.youtube.com

It only gets worse

http://autos.aol.com/article/_a/star-wars-speed-trap/20060126172809990001 

 

To me, it started with a governor on your car's engine.  This is a device that will stop the flow of gas to your engine if your speed exceeds a certain limit.  That limit is usually around 95 mph.  Once your car has slowed to the appropriate speed, the gas flow resumes.  I know that we don't have a whole lot of need to go over 100 mph for any reason, but hey...you never know.  I'd like to be in charge of my own life, thank you.   Next thing you know you are forced to comply to the whims of the government.  Just TRY to tell me you never speed...if you are telling the truth, you are a very small minority.

 

 

 

 

 

Star Wars Speed Trap

GPS being used to catch speeders

By ERIC PETERS

Like tearing off that sticker on mattresses that warns us not to "under penalty of law," most of us don't pay much attention to speed limits. Five to 10 over is the rule, not the exception -- as any survey of average traffic speeds will confirm. We vote with our right foot every time we get behind the wheel, countermanding the diktats of the local bureaucrats who erect limits that are frequently well below what large majorities (better than 85 percent, if you want an actual figure based on traffic surveys) consider reasonable rates of travel.

But what if driving faster than the posted limit became an impossibility?

For years, this has been “The Dream” of safety-badger types, who equate any deviance from often arbitrarily-set posted speed limits with mowing down small children in a gigantic SUV with really loud mufflers, one hand on the wheel, the other clutching a half-empty fifth of Jack Daniels. They pushed for mechanical governors (which never flew) and even managed, briefly, to get a law passed that required all new cars to be fitted with speedometers that read no faster than 85 mph.

Now, however, the technology exists for a great leap forward -- or backward, depending on your point of view.

The Canadians are testing out a system that combines onboard Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology with a digital speed limit map. It works very much like the in-car GPS navigation systems which have become so common on late model cars -- but with a twist. Instead of helping you find a destination, the system, prevents you from driving any faster than the posted speed limit of the road you happen to be on.

As in a conventional GPS-equipped car or truck, the system knows which road you're on, as well as the direction you're traveling. This information is continuously updating as you move. But in addition to this, the system also acquires information about the posted speed limit on each road, as you drive. Once your vehicle reaches that limit, the car's computer makes it increasingly difficult to go any faster.

Ten vehicles equipped with this technology are currently being tested in the Ottowa area; if the trail is "successful," a wider series of tests is planned. And it's a sure bet the entire thing will eventually be the object of a very strong-armed push aimed at making it mandatory equipment in every new car. "We are trying to assess the operational acceptance issues," says Peter Burns of Transport Canada's road safety directorate.

But is all of this really necessary -- or even a good idea?

For one thing, if current speed limits are so sensible, why do so many of us disobey them routinely? Are large majorities of us simply indifferent to our own safety and that of others -- even though we seem capable of behaving responsibly in other aspects of our lives?

Or are speed limits often set unrealistically low?

And if they are, wouldn't it make more sense to adjust them so that they reflect a more reasonable consensus -- based upon how we actually drive -- rather than constantly pushing for new ways to compel compliance with limits that most of us clearly think are too low?

Bear in mind that for 20-plus years, we were relentlessly nagged by the self-styled "safety lobby" (and its profiteers in the insurance industry) that to exceed the sainted 55 mph limit was "dangerous speeding" that put ourselves and others at risk. Yet when Congress finally repealed the 55 mph limit in '95 -- and most states raised their highway limits to 65, 70, even 75 mph in some cases -- highway fatality rates did not increase as predicted. In fact, just two years after the majority of states increased their maximum highway speed limits, the total national highway fatality rate reached an all-time record low of 1.64 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

This proved that driving 65 or 70-something mph on a highway was not "unsafe." The big difference post-'95 was that you no longer had to worry about getting a ticket for doing it.

The same issue exists on many secondary roads, where under-posted limits are routinely ignored by most drivers -- but vigorously enforced by radar traps. Like the tickets issued to people under the double nickel, the use of radar to nab motorists exceeding these under-posted limits is justified on the basis of "safety" -- even though most of us know that driving five or 10 mph faster doesn't in and of itself constitute unsafe driving any more than doing 65 or 70-something mph did under the old 55 mph NMSL.

And sometimes, it's necessary to accelerate rapidly in order to avoid an accident -- even if it means momentarily exceeding the posted limit.

But Canada's little experiment could bring a screeching halt to all that -- literally. Dumbed-down limits -- and dumbed-down driving -- would become much more than the law of the land.

They would become an inescapable way of life.

Some might welcome a world in which driving faster than whatever the speed limit happens to be is impossibility. But it might be more common-sensical to post realistic speed limits -- and deal with the handful of drivers who won't or can't drive reasonably -- than to treat every driver on the road like the irresponsible one.

 

By the way... the speed limit is 80 on most of New Mexico's intersate highways outside the city and towns.

Full speed ahead...we can sleep when we're dead.

 

2006-01-26 17:28:34

Sometimes I have to wonder

So I'm looking at my computer screen, and AOL puts up a story about getting out of speeding tickets...or at least avoiding them.  I'm all for that, but what is curious to me is that AOL is basically telling people how to get away with breaking the law.  I don't mind breaking the law, but I didn't think that AOL could actually make it so obvious.  Are we finally at the point where it doesn't matter about this stupid trivial shit (I.E. traffic citations) or is it that the authorities might not notice this kind of report?  Here is the report as of today April 28, 2006...if this link doesn't work, it is because they have pulled it off the internet.

 

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/dont-get-caught/20060421145909990001

 

 

If that is the case, then here you go:

 

Death and taxes may be inevitable, but getting a traffic ticket isn't -- even if you don't always obey the speed limit. Here are some tips to keep you running under the radar:

 

Don't speed excessively: If you do, your car will stand out -- and getting noticed is just one step away from getting caught. Excessive speed is also just that -- excessive. It's one thing to drive 70-something with the flow of traffic -- quite another to be running 20 mph faster than the other cars around you. Most cops consider the first a "technical foul" at worst. They might write you up -- but they also know (even if they won't say it out loud) that you're not necessarily doing anything genuinely unsafe. But expect no mercy if you're blowing past other cars at 90-plus.

 

Run with the pack: There is safety in numbers (just ask a herd of wildebeests facing down a pack of hungry lions). By finding a couple of cars doing about the same speed and sticking with them, you automatically increase the odds in your favor by a multiple of however many cars happen to be around you. If you hit a radar trap, the cop can only single out one car. It might be you, of course. But your chances of being the one he goes after are much lower than they would be if you were bulleting along on your lonesome.

 

Find a "blocker" car: In the classic movie, 'Smokey and the Bandit' it was Burt Reynolds' job to sidetrack lurking cops with his fast-moving Trans-Am, so that his partner's semi full of bootleg beer could blast on through unnoticed. You can use the same principle on long highway trips. There's almost always another car moving at a good clip. What you want to do is ease in behind that car -- and follow him as long as you can. If there are cops lurking ahead, the blocker car will hit them first. Leave at least five or six car lengths between you, if possible (this will keep the other driver from noticing you're back there, or at the very least, reduce the chances he'll start busting moves to get away from you).

 

Don't be a 'Frogger': Cars that weave and make constant lane changes are the cars that tend to get noticed -- both by cops and truckers with CB radios (who will sometimes put in a friendly call to Johnny Law on your behalf, if you're acting like a moron). Good driving is smooth driving. Anticipate the need to make a lane change and only do so when necessary to maintain your pace. Constant jockeying for position (and related misbehaviors such as tailgating) increase your chances of both a ticket -- and an accident.

 

Maintain "situational awareness": Fighter pilots use this term to describe their practice of constantly scanning the area around them -- in order to anticipate and react to changing conditions as quickly as possible. The principle is just as important on four wheels -- whether you're trying to avoid a ticket or just trying to avoid a wreck. Clues that a cop might be up ahead include traffic suddenly slowing down for no apparent reason, or bunching up and refusing to pass a nondescript-looking white sedan. Take the time to notice those little cutouts by the side of the road where cops tend to sit running radar. If you get good at it, you'll be able to slow gradually as you come upon them without having to stab your brakes -- and just ease on by without raising any hackles.

 

Know the enemy: Despite the lucky fact that most police departments in this country overwhelmingly use a few very specific (and easy to spot) types of cars for traffic enforcement, many drivers haven't taken the time to burn the profile of these vehicles into memory. Always be wary when a plain-looking Chevy Impala or Ford Crown Victoria rolls in behind you -- or if you see one up ahead. Approach slowly until you get close enough to make the ID. If it's a cop, you'll probably be able to see the blue lights on the rear speaker shelf -- or the telltale spotlight on the driver's side door. Other clues include numerous antennae -- and the presence of a single guy with a buzz cut behind the wheel.

 

Choose your weapon: You can get away with a lot more in a quiet-looking sedan or wagon (or even a minivan, for that matter) than you ever will in something flashy. Not only are you less likely to be noticed or picked out in the first place (critical to avoiding tickets). But if you end up being pulled over anyhow, the chances of either talking your way out of it or getting the cop to knock the charge down are also much more in your favor. It's easy to play the flustered Family Guy who simply wasn't paying attention to his speed today -- in a station wagon. That's not going to fly in a Corvette. It's just the way the world works. But you can use it to your advantage.

 

2006-04-21 14:59:49

 

 

Sometimes I don't have to be the one to say these things

ANARCHY IS DEMOCRACY The political arena leaves one no alternatives, one must be either a dunce or a rogue.--Emma Goldman

If you believe everything you read, see, and hear, you'd think we're in the freest, most democratic world that has ever been. In some senses, this is true: compared to the cultures of the past, people today are freer than their forebears.

However, this has been the result not of the wisdom of rulers and governments, but from the tireless work of everyday people like you and me who fought to establish previously unrecognized rights. Civil society (which today is eroding worldwide in the face of capitalist corporate wealth and power) is the end product of the efforts of people who've come before, sacrificing time and in many cases, lives, to make the world a more livable place.

It is in this respect that anarchists again stand out as the only group of people who honestly believe in democracy. Again, we hear a lot about democracy, freedom, liberty, and justice out of the mouths of political leaders, but they have no understanding of what these things mean--they are merely appropriating the positive associations you have with these images for their own personal gain.

Anarchists favor direct action. That is, everyday people getting involved in directly improving their situation in their respective communities. We don't favor people pinning their hopes on representatives to manage things for them.

That's bourgeois "democracy" in action, in fact. Sedate, apathetic masses blindly ratifying decisions already made FOR them by all-knowing leaders. Only fools would consider this democracy, and accept it as a justifiable and desirable system.

Anarchists believe in direct democracy, in people not waiting for leaders to decide for them what to support or not support, but in people doing things themselves.

The reasoning behind this belief is thus: WE know what's best for us, in our given communities; and WE don't need someone else telling us what to do--moreover, we don't want that!!

That's democracy, REAL democracy: popular self-rule based on the active and informed consent of the governed. Only in anarchy is this even possible. See, anarchists alone believe that no one should be trusted with power, and thatpositions of power shoud consequently not be institutionalized, but made situational, and rotated about, so a ruling elite doesn't spring up.

We alone favor active, responsible people taking care of themselves instead of relying on government or business to bail us out, and thereby forfeit our independence and autonomy. Wherever capitalism and statism appear, liberty, equality, freedom, and democracy go right out the window.

Today in the bourgeois "democracies" we see this in action. The people are "free" to do whatever is permitted them by the government. In other words, you can do whatever THEY say you can do, which is no freedom at all, nor democracy, either.

Here's how these villains get away with it: they adopt Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract", a spurious and self-serving piece of political mythology if ever there was one. This selfsame "contract" says that we all agree to give up some of our liberty and freedom for the "security" provided by the state. And the fine print is this: our silence in this matter is taken as our consent!!

Now think for a minute: government exists to protect property; that's its sole purpose. Those with much property have much freedom in propertarian society; those with less have less freedom, and those with none have no freedom at all. We're expected to believe that the poor AGREED to be poor??! But leaders pretend that the silence of the poor is in fact their consent to this state of affairs, which is plainly ludicrous. The Social Contract is an act of usurpation, a way for leaders to claim unearned legitimacy. **

Now, they even go further in pretending that the electoral system as it stands is your voice. In other words, the very people who usurped your freedom now decide how you can respond to this! Again, no freedom at all, here, and even less democracy.

Anarchists propose a vital alternative: the bad guys choose to believe that your silence gives them a blank slate to do as they wish--so the most important thing for you to do is to be as vocal as you can, on the issues that interest you, and to NOT rely on leaders to deliver you, but to deliver yourself!

Anarchists are the only unequivocable supporters of direct democracy out there, folks. That's one of our greatest strengths, which is why we've locked horns with government for over a century.

Government wants you passive and obedient--that's a necessary mindset to get along in governmental society. Society can function that way, but forget liberty, freedom, justice, and equality. Forget solidarity and cooperation--they die in such a stagnant environment.

Anarchy is the only way to achieve lasting, true democracy. It's up to you what you get. Our society has the veneer of democracy without the vital substance--people are "free" to do what they're told!! Everyone pretends it's democracy, but in fact it isn't. It's a sham.

Anarchists alone call attention to this and seek to bring democracy into daily practice for each of us, so we can each live our lives as we see fit, so long as we respect one another's liberty. That's a just world, and one we hope to build from the ashes of this one.

 

** -- This author is telling you that the social contract implies that the poor chose to be poor by being silent.  As I've pointed out...the poor outnumber the rest of us.  So it may not be so ludicrous to think that the poor chose poverty.  It is only ludicrous to believe that they understood the power that they have to completely change history if they were to put together a little organization.  During a riot, there may not seem like a lot of organization, but believe me...everybody that is rioting has pretty much organized their beliefs and are taking it out on whichever property they choose.

I don't wanna be a pirate...

PIRACY AND ANARCHISM Damn you! You are a squeaking puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by laws which rich men have made for their own security. For the cowardly whelps have not the courage otherwise to defend what they get by their knavery. But damn ye, altogether! Damn them for a pack of crafty rascals, and you, who serve them, for a parcel of hen-hearted numbskulls! They villify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference: they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage; had ye not better make one of us, than sneak after the arses of those villains for employment? --Black Sam Bellamy, pirate captainAnarchists and pirates share a common name, given them by the governments of the world: "enemies of humanity." This lovely sobriquet was attached to pirates (in the 18th century) and anarchists (in the 20th century) because these two groups of people, uniquely, disavowed allegiance to any particular government or nation, and were unafraid to show this contempt for authority in word and deed.

Why Pirates?It is essential to illustrate the true historical nature of piracy in an effort to dispel the pervasive myth that people need government to "protect us from ourselves!"

Authoritarians of every stripe love to drive the point home that, without them and their precious government and laws, we'd collapse into chaos and civilization would crumble into ruin. So long as this myth remains unchallenged, governments can continue to rule unopposed, in the face of no credible alternatives. This myth, however, will go unchallenged no longer. The pirates of the 16-1700's practiced an early (and entirely unplanned) anarchism in their war on the high seas traders. There were no "Founding Fathers," no acts of Parliament. There were just people sick and tired of authority.

The point the humble pirate illustrates to the modern reader is this: if pirates can do it, what is our excuse?

(the following is excerpted from Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy, by Frank Sherry, pp. 122-125)

In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there was only one true democracy on earth: the pirate brotherhood forged in Madagascar.

Incongruous as it might appear, the cutthroats, who brutalized captives and who scoffed at the rules of society, were passionately democratic. They had a high regard for individual rights--and a burning hatred for the tyranny that had oppressed them in their days of "honest service."

Unlike privateer crews, who were still only hired hands despite the fact that they received fair shares of their ship's plunder, pirates regarded themselves as self-employed, collective owners of their own ships. They believed that since the crew of a pirate ship had acquired their vessel by their common effort, all should participate equally in decisions aboard her. For this reason, pirates evolved a system that called for virtually all matters regarding life aboard their ship--whether to fight, where and when to anchor, division of spoils, even courses to be followed--to be subjected to a referendum, with each man, regardless of his rank, race, religion, or previous employment, entitled to an equal vote in the decision, as well as an equal right to voice his opinion. Only during battle did the pirates abandon this referendum system.

So pervasive was this insistence on individual rights--and so fearful were pirates of placing too much authority in the hands of any one man--that they even elected their captains and other high-ranking officers, retaining the right to depose them by vote whenever they wished. Occasionally, if the vote of a ship's crew was too close to allow a clear-cut choice for captain, the crew would split into two different crews, and each go its own way....

The pirate system of democracy, bordering on anarchy, also required the elimination of all marks of distinction aboard ship. Officers wore no special uniforms and had no special privileges. Pirates regarded such perquisites, common aboard "honest" ships, as hateful reminders of the upper-class despotism most of them had had to endure in their previous employment. They would permit none of it aboard their own ships.

For example, even though the captain was usually permitted a cabin of his own as a mark of his crew's esteem, he could not claim exclusive use of it. Crewman could enter anytime they wished, and they couldmake use of any of the captain's furnishings as well, including dishes and cutlery.

As Defoe says of a pirate captain's "privileges": "They only permit him to be captain, on condition that they may be captain over him."

...In a world that permitted personal liberty only to the well-born and the wealthy--and tyrannized cruelty over the poor--the pirate brotherhood offered the common seaman a passage to liberty and self-respect, provided he possessed the courage to defy the law that would punish him severely if it caught him. Most pirates, though simple men, realized full well that the key to the free life they wanted was their system of democratic decision making.

To ensure that democracy would prevail among them, almost all pirate crews subscribed to specific rules of behavior, which they embodied in "ship's articles," covenenants that were, in effect, rough constitutions that spelled out the rights, duties, and powers of a ship's officers and crew. Every officer and crew member aboard a ship had to swear to abide by these articles.

Although the articles might differ in various particulars from ship to ship, their general aim was always to safeguard individual liberties, especially the right of each crew member to a trial by his peers and an equal voice in the ship's affairs.

A quick note from some friends

We are often asked how an anarchist society would deal with, for instance, murderers. Who would stop them without the police?

Most murders are crimes of passion and therefore unpreventable by police or anyone else. Hopefully, however, in a saner, less frustrating society such `crimes' would be less common.

Our rulers claim to be protecting us from each other. Actually they are more interested in protecting themselves and `their' property from us.

If we, as members of a local community, owned and shared all resources it would become absurd to steal. An important motive for crime would be abolished.

These local communities would need to develop some means of dealing with individuals who harmed others. Instead of a few thousand professional police there would be 51 million in the `United Kingdom' alone. Ultimately, our only protection is each other.

Prisons fail to improve or reform anyone. Local people aware of each others' circumstances would be able to apply more suitable solutions, in keeping with the needs of the victim and the offender. The present penal system, on the other hand, creates criminal behaviour. Long term prisoners are often rendered incapable of surviving outside an institution that makes all their decisions for them. How is locking people up with others of an anti-social turn of mind (the worst of whom are the screws) supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behaviour? Of course it does just the opposite. The majority of prisoners re-offend.

In this society of course, work is a torment. Naturally, we hate it. This does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we resent being treated like machines, compelled to do mostly meaningless work for someone else's benefit. Work does not have to be like that - and if it were controlled by the people who had to do it, it certainly would not be.

Of course some jobs just have to be done, and there are few methods in sight of making collecting rubbish a fun occupation. Everybody would have to take a share and everybody would have to see to it that nobody got away with shirking their responsibilities.

A further pointworth making is that unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a sensible world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week, because they would only produce things that were needed. If we were to get rid of the parasitic ruling class, we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work.

If you still need to be convinced that an anarchist society could solve the problem of people failing to meet their responsibilities, then imagine yourself being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and being publicly discussed as a problem. Ugh!

 

Think outside the box

racism...equality

     I live in a Democratic state.  This state has a Republican governor.  This state was on the side of the Union back in the Civil War days.  This state has had a bad reputation of being racist.  The Boston Red Sox, a local sports team, have been vilified in the last half century as a team that will not accept minorities.  Things are changing for the Red Sox, I don't believe that racism is a problem in that organization any longer.  I am starting to realize that this situation could be a microcosm of the state of the U.S. and it's feelings, beliefs, and actions.  But there STILL is a downside.

     As hard as it is to understand how much history passed before America "became" a country, we have to realize that thousands of years of education have led us to our present state.  I do not believe that racism was an issue in the early days of civilization.  I believe that racism was a reaction to the situations presented by those people with access to public influence.  Eventually people were taught to believe that black people were slaves because they weren't worth being described as human beings.  In the short history of this country we are slowly realizing that we should stop holding back our black brothers.  But that is only seen by the white people.  The blacks still believe that they are at a  disadvantage. 

     I can see both sides of that spectrum.  The blacks ARE still at a disadvantage.  Until I moved from my dull life in the desert to the busy metropolis known as Boston, I didn't think so much about race.  Now that I've lived here, I constantly listen to people complaining about blacks, and it makes me sick.  I'm not sure which makes me sicker, though.  Listening to people openly trashing "Martin Luther King Day" or listening to people trying to pretend that they are not racist, while always portraying a negative attitude whenever black people are involved. 

     I cannot understand how people can not realize that the people they abhor are products of a system that they ignore.  I refuse to believe that I am any smarter than anyone else.  I refuse to believe that I am the only one that can realize how life works. 

     So let's pretend that we are learning, as a society, that peopleare starting to accept each other as humans, and not sub-human life forms.  I think that too many people are starting to accept blacks more, because they have turned their attention to the latest immigrants.  People are worried about various Hispanic groups invading America, and taking away the life that we lead.  I think it is obvious that we are all human beings.  We have so much to provide for each other. 

     I have heard a girl complain about "fucking Brazilians."  I cannot understand her complaint.  She's just your average girl that works for a bank.  She wouldn't even be able to describe a Brazilian without using the words "dirty" or "stupid."  She has been conditioned to hate anybody that isn't "American" but she fails to realize what America is all about. 

     I have never met a Brazilian that I didn't like.  I've met about 10 of them.  Some girls, and some guys.  None of them were dirty...none of them were stupid.  My point is that we all need to come together and share what we have.  Power in numbers.  Don't tell me that some humans have a right to dominate others.

     Equality is non-existent.  Let me rephrase that.  Equality is non-existent.  As long as some of us think that we can trick others into doing all the hard work for us, we will continue to see crime and war, and we will continue to see people trying to fight back through murder, rape, and other violent acts.  What else can I say?  Don't worry...there will be more.

Comcast

     I don't have cable television. That's right. No cable. I find it amusing sometimes, especially because it seems like EVERYBODY has cable nowadays. Now I could explain why I don't have cable in one of two ways. General public opinion will say that I can't have cable because I owe the cable company a little over a $100 and I don't want to pay it. It's not that I don't want to pay it, it's just that I want to decide when paying the balance is worth it. If I had paid the bill when it was due and continued to enjoy cable, I would have spent about $600 since getting my cable disconnected. I have a very good reason for severing my ties with Comcast Television. Actually I have a few reasons.

     I have made excuses. That's right folks! I've made excuses and I am now announcing them. In the course of starting my own business and shedding myself of the boss to employee relationship, I came across hard times. Last winter I dug a pretty good hole and it was very hard to climb out of when my "vacation" for the year was visiting Albuquerque to witness my sister's wedding. That was money that I could have spent getting myself out of the hole, but I wouldn't miss my sister's wedding for anything. After all, It just might be my only chance to see a sibling's wedding. I haven't had a true vacation since 2003. At the same time, some might claim that my life is mostly a vacation. That is because I refuse to fall into the "rat-race trap" that most people believe is reality. So I have no business complaining about not getting a vacation when I choose whether or not I need to work on a daily basis.

     Back to my point. Last winter when I was struggling I stayed in contact with the cable company. Eventually they decided they needed to disconnect my service. I pleaded with them that I was just short on money, but that I had no intention of screwing them over. I begged them to leave my cable on so I could entertain myself through the slowest season of my trade. I thought I gave them every reason to trust my intentions. After all, what are they really losing if they don't shut off my cable? What they are really doing is trying to use scare tactics to make me conform. The only advantage they have is to take away my cable to get their money. Yet they failed to realize that they just lost $600 by trying to play the role of the bully. $600 may not make or break them, but suppose there are  100 people like me. That makes the number $60,000.

     For some reason they believe that we are somehow slaves to their system. And accordingly, we must have given them that power. Now Monday Night Football will be shown on ESPN. According to the pundits, everybody has cable anyway, so what's the difference? The Red Sox have pulled their "Friday Night Baseball" on UPN to put all the games on NESN (New England Sports Network). So now I can't watch my usual Friday night game.

     I am actually considering paying my outstanding balance to get my cable up and running. Or maybe it is really time to ignore all the distractions. I enjoy my sports, but that is because I like the "reality" element that sports holds. With the current steroids and gambling controversies surrounding two of the four major sports, I'm starting to wonder if I should even bother anymore. What is real? I only want cable for a couple of channels. All the sports channels, Comedy Central, The Cartoon Network, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and occasionally one of the "premium" channels such as HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime.

     As great as these entertainment entities are, and all the distractions they provide us, they will always underestimate the human element. The human element can never be ignored. Once freedom is taken away from any animal (humans included) there will be a natural reaction. A reaction to regain the freedom that was once enjoyed. Right now we believe that being able to watch all those channels is freedom.  Freedom from stress and all the worries of today's society.  When cable is no longer about freedom, it will die. 

Sheets in the wind

     I recently read an article that dealt with the question: What makes a song, a hit song?  It was an attempt to make an unpredictable market a little more, well...predictable. What they found was people are more likely to like a song that they believe other people like. There was a study involving over 14,000 people. They did the study twice. They separated everybody and played them some new songs that they would most likely be unfamiliar with. They were separated into groups. One group was an independent group which was tested individually with no knowledge of each others selections. There were eight other groups with about 700 people each. These groups were chosen based on various social influences. Also, each person within a group could see which songs were being given good ratings and being downloaded by other people within the group. What they found was certain songs were likely to be downloaded more once others in the group started downloading the song. In the independent group, the same songs did not gain the same popularity.

     We live in a society where hype can sway a majority. It was obvious in high school, students waiting just long enough to see if the cool kids liked an idea or fashion statement before committing their own opinion. The media is a powerful tool to influence public opinion. If we see on TV that the rest of the country likes a certain TV show, sports team, or even political stance, we are inclined to make our opinions based on that. Not necessarily following the trend, as some make a point of going against the trend. Regardless, the opinion hinges on the opinion of others.

     I can't speak much of how the U.S.S.R. did its business or how it treated its people. But I can tell you the American sentiment on communism. Americans in general hate communism, and get all hot and bothered when you suggest that you or they are communists. I know a particular sports talk radio personality that calls anybody that doesn't agree with him a Socialist. Where a dumb jock gets off throwing around political terms is beyond me, but I won't get into that. I will remind you that I am not a communist, I am an anarchist. But I think the main reason communism is so hated is because countries that have practiced it have also threatened to bomb the U.S. Or at least that's what the media reports say. I don't want to argue the validity of the Cold War, I want to point out that it was not communism that was threatening the U.S. It was Russia, and North Korea, and sometimes China. Luckily we got China off our backs by letting them manufacture just about everything and anything you will find in our discount stores.

     I just ask that you as an American, or you as a human being realize the difference between hype and reality. If you want to believe that songs are better because you know a lot of other people that like them, then you have to realize we as humans are important to each other. We need each other because when it comes down to it, the whole human race is one. Nothing in this world relies solely on your actions, and nothing you do will affect only you. If you choose to leave a comment, please try to think of something you can do that undeniably will not affect another human being. Even masturbating in private can affect others. Somebody you might have run into had you not been hiding away pleasuring yourself, or one sperm that could have been a genius coupled with the right egg. That being said, remember that what you do is important in this world, and you wouldn't be where you were if it wasn't for the collective efforts of millions of human beings before you.

I used to have the link for the article, but it has since been pulled.

The lottery

  The reduction in a government that has a life of its own is my primary goal.  Either the government is FOR the people, or it is AGAINST the people.  And "the people" does not only consist of rich people who show up at the voting booths.  The people have been led to believe that they shouldn't bother with the voting booth, AND they have been baited with promises of lucrative lifestyles if they should win the lottery.  Meanwhile the lottery takes money from the people who need it most, and spends it on social issues such as street repair.  The rich people do not play the lottery, because they don't desire the chance to be rich.  They are already rich.  So this is a good way to rob the poor to pay to rebuild roads.  What really happens is that some of the hard earned dollars that poor people have gets re-directed between each other.  Some times one person gets some of the money that 3,000 other people wasted on lottery tickets.  But not ever will it all work out in the end.  If we need better roads, let the rich pay for it.  They would not be so rich if the blue collar worker didn't drive to work everyday to pay for his/her family.  In America we teach "equality" in our schools while the majority of Americans make pennies to provide the rich minority with luxury.

     You might be doing well, but you are still being robbed of what you really deserve.  There are some people that are using a lot of you to make money for them while their "job" consists of calling their "managers" and "bank officers" to make sure you made them some money today.

Downs, Depravity and Death

The latest before-birth technology boasts the ability to detect Downs Syndrome nine weeks into pregnancy. As with all major scientific breakthroughs, there are ethical questions involved. What is the motivation of parents to learn their child-to-be will be retarded? It would be nice for them to know all they can before they actually have to care for the baby. There is another side that I am promising you will become an issue within a few years.

Abortion is a legal practice when the fetus involved is nine weeks old. Conservatively, even if it takes 12 weeks to detect Downs Syndrome, it can still legally be aborted. Is it wrong to abort a baby that will obviously receive the short end of the stick? Can we save the pain and suffering of a child who will never be accepted by the overwhelming majority of other children? Keep this child from being laughed at, called names...keep the child from facing an uphill battle that will never ultimately make him/her strong enough to bring a fair share of contribution to society?

How about the parents? After all, it is not only their decision to make, it is their interests most involved in the matter. If you or your wife is pregnant and you find out the amount of work involved to raise the baby will exceed the normal tradition, would you be able to save you and the child all the grief related to being affected by Downs Syndrome?

Religion would never allow that to be an acceptable practice. They would scream, "God has a plan! Downs or not, it's a human being!" On the other hand, these are the same people that will talk about how a "bad seed" that has murdered human beings need to be exterminated. Because obviously God did not plan for that.

When we let religious whims shape our character we are giving up the very soul religion claims to be saving. They say that God gave human beings free will. And I say that if a human being has the free will to kill, then that was God's plan. Since we don't want to have murderers running around, some of our free will may be to exterminate that murderer. If there is a God, he gave us free will for a reason.

I can tell you one thing. He did not give us free will so that he could banish the bad people to Hell. He did not fragment us and divide our faith so that one group of people could make the "right choice." In my estimation, if a human being is so depraved as to want to murder another human being...that is a sign from God that we are fucking up royally and we better fix it fast. Otherwise you may be the next one on the chopping block.