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