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.